Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Christopher Monsanto gives up trying to delete PL articles

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 138 posts

Re: Christopher Monsanto gives up trying to delete PL articles

#101

Post by [deleted] »

runjake wrote: post #98
srean wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your understanding is wrong. It is this attitude of yours, that of ascribing fictional motives to those who criticized you, and the failure to comprehend the impact of your actions, that had a role to play in precipitating the outrage in the first place. I am no fan or user of any of the language that you helped delete. But that does not mean I would be ok with those deletions. See my other comments for an elaboratio…

A wise man once said "Do not feed the troll." Edit: before down-arrowing me, you may want to examine the situation. It's pretty apparent this guy has an agenda.

[deleted]

Re: Christopher Monsanto gives up trying to delete PL articles

#102

Post by icco »

chrismonsanto wrote: post #94
mindcrime wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem is that you kinda touched a "raw nerve" here. This isn't the first time this issue has come up, and a lot of people are very sensitive to it. There's a very strong strand of thought among some people that suggests that Wikipedia should change it's guidelines vis-a-vis software / programming langauges / etc. In fact, there has been an effort - at least once - to get a new guideline accepted. It failed, but…

Didn't know. I'm sorry.

I'm curious, why did you choose to delete articles instead of improve them?

Re: Christopher Monsanto gives up trying to delete PL articles

#103

Post by chrismonsanto »

srean wrote: post #96
chrismonsanto wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, my understanding was that a small, but vocal, special interest group was upset for nominating their favorite programming language. The vast majority of angry people seemed unable to come up with a rational reason for saving the article. The vast majority of calm people seemed to agree with the deletions, and agreed with me for labeling the others as a small-but-vocal-minority. If you felt you were doing something…

Your understanding is wrong. It is this attitude of yours, that of ascribing fictional motives to those who criticized you, and the failure to comprehend the impact of your actions, that had a role to play in precipitating the outrage in the first place. I am no fan or user of any of the language that you helped delete. But that does not mean I would be ok with those deletions. See my other comments for an elaboratio…

Everyone who comments on an AfD "judges" something. It was my opinion that there were not enough citations, and I was open to the views of others. When others do not give their views, or when their views are so clouded by their rage that they cannot effectively argue their point, then yes, I become the sole person who is judging.

I don't ever remember saying that the notability rules were broken. However, if others think that they are, I can respect their opinions. Likewise, I don't think I slithered out when push came to shove. Actually, when push came to shove, I continued what I was doing with the understanding that the naysayers were a special interest group with an agenda (wasn't this my previous post...?) However, I did say I would stop and spent a good deal of time apologizing here when it was clear that my understanding was false. How is this not taking responsibility for my actions?

Yes, people told me that I was wrong. But at the risk of repeating myself, they did not give me any reason to believe that they were aligned with the goals of Wikipedia, and others more experienced with Wikipedia assured me that they were not in fact aligned with said goals. I was willing to cooperate with anyone who took any effort to communicate with me: for instance, the first message I received on my talk page was asking why I put a notability tag on his article. He said it was notable, and provided a reference. I thanked him and removed the tag.

I don't know why you are so sure that I am acting in bad faith. If my intent was to troll Wikipedia, I wouldn't have used my real name.

Re: Christopher Monsanto gives up trying to delete PL articles

#104

Post by cabalamat »

diN0bot wrote: post #48
j_baker wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that does annoy me is that he seems to agree that the policies need to be changed, but he followed them anyway. Sure, the policies are what ultimately need to be changed, but we also need to discourage blindly following the rules without thinking critically about them.

only after there was a backlash: he did was felt right, people failed to counter, an admin deleted stuff, people bitched and moaned --> therefore, fine if the system is not yielding the right results let's change it. Chris seems to be really decent. even if he had a lapse in judgement, he embraces pleasant discussion. i'm embarrassed by the juvenille response: the meanness most of all, but also the unwillingness to s…

> if a teammate messes up, you help them, you don't shoot them down.

If a teammate (WP editor) deliberately sabotages the team (by deleting useful information instead of creating it), what do you do then?

Re: Christopher Monsanto gives up trying to delete PL articles

#105

Post by parfe »

burgerbrain wrote: post #13
nicelios wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't say he was sorry. He just said he will stop.

Exactly my point. He's sorry that he got called out, nothing more.

He didn't get called out. He got harassed excessively. People with no interest in a language they've never heard of suddenly began venting irrational rage at a guy for suggesting that a language article might not be notable.

The solution to a wiki page being marked AfD is to improve the article with useful citations or discuss why the current citations are enough to verify the article.

It's not to stalk both online and offline the person who suggested a discussion should be had on the notability of a topic.

Re: Christopher Monsanto gives up trying to delete PL articles

#106

Post by Zak »

chrismonsanto wrote: post #66
mfukar wrote: post #5

If anyone thought what I was doing was wrong, they could have just sent me a friendly message and I would have politely discussed the issue. I guess he missed all the subtle indicators people left all over the place saying "Christopher, we are upset".

No, my understanding was that a small, but vocal, special interest group was upset for nominating their favorite programming language. The vast majority of angry people seemed unable to come up with a rational reason for saving the article. The vast majority of calm people seemed to agree with the deletions, and agreed with me for labeling the others as a small-but-vocal-minority. If you felt you were doing something…

I'm honestly curious as to your motivation; what made you think that nominating Alice ML and Nemerle for deletion would make the world a better place? Do you think those articles existing made it harder to find other more useful content? Do you think they were unreasonable attempts by fans of the languages to use Wikipedia for self-promotion? Regardless of the letter of the policy, what made you think this was a good thing to do?

Re: Christopher Monsanto gives up trying to delete PL articles

#107

Post by Retric »

steveklabnik wrote: post #92
Retric wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AliceML is an edge case where arguments can be made on both sides (I would have kept it). However the rule is more setup to avoid people adding their family tree and favorite recopies to Wikipedia etc resulting in 10 billion articles and no way to manage them. Overall I think it's a fairly loose standard ex:(Random article) gave me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookpeople_(distributor) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bri…

I see this as a UI problem, not a 'real' problem.

Heh, I see it as more of an organizational issue, but I suggested a UI solution. Wikipedia is a moderated wiki that seems un-moderated to most users. The Notability rules bother people, but they are really part of a larger tradeoff and scrapping them is risky.

Re: Christopher Monsanto gives up trying to delete PL articles

#108

Post by j_baker »

rst wrote: post #75
j_baker wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chris is just another Wikipedian though. He has the same ability to undo the changes as you do.

He's not "just another Wikipedian", he's the particular Wikipedian that made this mess. So he has a particular responsibility to clean it up.

Ahem... Let me rephrase my above comment. Anything Chris can do, you can do. Perhaps rather than complaining about who "should" clean it up, you can actually do it yourself?

Re: Christopher Monsanto gives up trying to delete PL articles

#109

Post by Programma »

What I think is funny: this guy seems to point to a problem with the internet and Wikipedia. But the actual problem is that he is not a programmer (obviously) so he has a skewed view of what is notable when it comes to programming language. In other words, he has no clue what he is talking about.

He then blames 'the internet' for calling him out. That is the problem with the internet: this newbie comes into the scene and has no idea why his actions are annoying and detrimental. He says he's looking for 'policies' but he's just a newbie.

Hopefully in 5-10 years these dramas will end when we all collectively grow up a bit and stop with the ignorant drama queen games.

Good to see that some aren't letting him rest until he acknowledges that he was deleting articles he had no business deleting. Ignorant editor is no excuse.

Post reply on HN