AndrewGrant wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 6:07 pm [...]
Someone should let wikipedia know about their own 5 pillars:
> Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
Aim high shoot low?Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.

It is the people who make the place? Wikis can only be as good as their contributors? Or alike.
In context of CPW:
This might be contradicting in regard of chess programming "best practices", but if we take a broader look, there is no "golden path" for computer chess, if you zoom out enough, Lc0 and Stockfish and Dragon MCTS do pretty much the same, and vary only in details. If you compare PST and neural networks, Texel Tuning and Backpropagation, it does essentially the same, or alike.we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view".
--
Srdja