| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetic algorithm article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jtumina.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
There are algorithms out there that prove exactly the contrary of what the algorithms mentioned here are supposed to show. And these do not only come from YECs. So my question is: would you allow to create a section where these algorithms are at least mentioned or maybe even discussed? I know, most of the users who created this page are deeply convinced evolutionists. This is why I ask before inserting such a section in order to prevent myself from wasting my time: are you sufficiently impartial to allow others to express their disagreement with your views? Remember that the servers of Wikipedia stand on American ground and liberty of expression is defended and granted by the US constitution... EternalAsker (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
YEC = Young Earth Creationist. I am not one of them and don't agree with them. However, I think it is not correct to not allow them in the discussion and exchange of ideas. You say only peer-reviewed articles are allowed. I see a problem here because also creationists from all colors publish peer-reviewed articles. However, I don't see any links to such sources, from which I conclude that they are removed... So where is the neutrality in all this? What I see is not neutrality but propaganda in favor of evolutionary concepts (from which especially natural selection) under the cover of neutrality. Not a single mention of any criticism, problems to be solved with regard to the origins of species, etc. This is not neutral if only an atheist minority has its word to say. EternalAsker (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Genetic algorithm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The following is bad/false in the article and should be removed: "John Holland introduced genetic algorithms in 1960 based on the concept of Darwin’s theory of evolution, and his student David E. Goldberg further extended GA in 1989."
FALSE: John Holland introduced genetic algorithms in 1960 --- There is no paper from 1960 which supports this claim. Actually, Bremermann (see history section of this article) introduced GAs in the 1960s before JH started publishing on the subject.
UNJUST BIAS: his student David E. Goldberg further extended GA in 1989. --- This unjustly overemphasized DEG's contribution (which is not disputed as a valid contribution). As the history section of this article shows, there was a lot of GA research /before/ DEG's stellar rise. It is also unclear /what/ DEG's "extension" actually is and means.
LMSchmitt (talk • contribs) 00:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 03:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Why is this mentioned but not cited?
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.