Update square-root description.md

[xanni]

Moving generally applicable information from the Python specific addendum as per https://forum.exercism.org/t/moving-generic-instructions-from-python-addendum-to-overall-problem-specification/13678/1 and https://forum.exercism.org/t/square-root-exercise-instructions-could-be-clearer/13664/11

See also https://github.com/exercism/python/pull/3815/files

[github-actions]

Hello. Thanks for opening a PR on Exercism 🙂

We ask that all changes to Exercism are discussed on our Community Forum before being opened on GitHub. To enforce this, we automatically close all PRs that are submitted. That doesn't mean your PR is rejected but that we want the initial discussion about it to happen on our forum where a wide range of key contributors across the Exercism ecosystem can weigh in.

You can use this link to copy this into a new topic on the forum. If we decide the PR is appropriate, we'll reopen it and continue with it, so please don't delete your local branch.

If you're interested in learning more about this auto-responder, please read this blog post.

---

Note: If this PR has been pre-approved, please link back to this PR on the forum thread and a maintainer or staff member will reopen it.

[kotp]

I think it looks good.

[BethanyG]

This look good to me in its current state.

[tasxatzial]

I'd like to point out that both wiki links provide code implementations, with the second link offering even more examples. Someone reading these could unintentionally come across the solution.

@maintainers Is this ok? If the intention is to read the wiki pages, then we are basically asking them to read the solution.

It also seems that all suggested methods refer to the integer square root wiki, so it should be sufficient to keep only that link.

@xanni Please, don't act on my review yet.

[xanni]

I'd like to point out that both wiki links provide code implementations, with the second link offering even more examples. Someone reading these could unintentionally come across the solution.

@maintainers Is this ok? If the intention is to read the wiki pages, then we are basically asking them to read the solution.

My understanding is that (particularly for exercises marked as "easy"!) we are happy for students to implement existing solutions in the language of their track and not necessarily expecting them to develop mathematical algorithms from first principles.

[xanni]

The wiki link includes actual implementations in C but doesn’t appear to have code in any other languages. Are we still okay with that?

Well, we could edit the Wiki page and replace the C with pseudocode...

mostly kidding.

[Cool-Katt]

I'm feeling

The wiki link includes actual implementations in C but doesn’t appear to have code in any other languages. Are we still okay with that?

I'm feeling okay with that. As I said before, it's much more likely that students would copy existing community solutions, than read the actual wiki page.

[tasxatzial]

I’m more concerned about students who will spend time reading the wiki. If we direct them to exactly what they’re trying to implement, it takes away their opportunity to develop this themselves.

[xanni]

I’m more concerned about students who will spend time reading the wiki. If we direct them to exactly what they’re trying to implement, it takes away their opportunity to develop this themselves.

That's a reasonable concern, but of course students can also copy-and-paste from Stack Overflow, or ask an AI to write it for them... or to take us right back to what started this whole proposal, many of them are just calling sqrt() or n^0.5.

[Cool-Katt]

I’m more concerned about students who will spend time reading the wiki. If we direct them to exactly what they’re trying to implement, it takes away their opportunity to develop this themselves.

If all the effort makes students really read the wiki page and try to understand, then i feel it is time well spent. It's like when you are preparing a cheat sheet for a test, you're revising the material so you and up remembering more.

[xanni]

I'm actually OK with deleting all the Wikipedia links (which are full of lots of math notation) and letting enterprising students find that themselves if they want. The implementation hints should be sufficient to provide some handy search terms.

[tasxatzial]

Copying from Stack Overflow or asking AI implies an intentional choice by students—they know they’re not putting in the effort. That’s very different from directing them to read a page that contains the solution. We expect them to do that in order to learn how the algorithm works. But they have no way of knowing in advance that the wiki includes solutions.

[Cool-Katt]

Well, if they end up looking up the wiki page themselves, it's the same result so it's not less intentional

[tasxatzial]

@xanni Please hold on a sec. Let's give everyone the chance to catch up.

[IsaacG]

I'm not a fan of removing the Wiki links. If we're asking students to implement an algorithm, we should be providing them with the algorithm details.

[IsaacG]

Could you please put the Wiki links back for now. If you'd like to discuss removing them, please start a new thread on the forum. Let's please restrict the scope of this PR to what was agreed upon in the forum and not expand the scope.

[Cool-Katt]

Could you please put the Wiki links back for now. If you'd like to discuss removing them, please start a new thread on the forum. Let's please restrict the scope of this PR to what was agreed upon in the forum and not expand the scope.

100% agree with Isaac. Let's tackle the links in a separate thread and PR.

[tasxatzial]

I'm not a fan of removing the Wiki links. If we're asking students to implement an algorithm, we should be providing them with the algorithm details.

That's true; we can't suggest specific algorithms in the description without providing links to them. We definitely don't want people to start Googling and landing on pages at random.

@xanni The whole point of this discussion was to ensure that everyone is fully aware of what we're doing here. Nothing more.

[tasxatzial]

Few minor changes for consistency.