Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?

#21

Post by tptacek » Mon, Aug 22, 2011, 1:50 AM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #19

tptacek wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. Nothing crazy has happened here. The whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can do stuff like "propose that WP delete a page". Note that the page hasn't been deleted yet. When Randal Schwartz is actually deleted from Wikipedia, then you have an argument.

I get the point, but it starts to become annoying when people repeatedly propose deletion of pages nobody with an IQ above room temperature would consider deleting.

Like I said downthread: this article actually was crappy. The AfD is going to improve it.

Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?

#22

Post by carussell » Mon, Aug 22, 2011, 1:51 AM UTC

bugsy wrote: post #16

The real question to ask is why does anyone take wikipedia serious as a source these days? I would trust Schwartz's opinions on Peruvian copper mining, quantum physics, square dancing, or any other subject long before I would trust any article on wikipedia because Schwartz has more credibility.

> The real question to ask is why does anyone take wikipedia serious as a source these days?

Who's saying you should? And what's different about "these days" versus, I don't know, 2005? Feel free to substitute there your favorite year from any point on the timeline of Wikipedia nostalgia.

Edit: Goddamn. I really hate to do it, but challenges, please?

The notion that you can/should/could ever trust Wikipedia is some weird inference that has been tacked on by uninvolved bystanders following Wikipedia's success, and does not originate from within Wikipedia. Wikipedia's stance on the reputability of itself and other tertiary sources is as well documented as the limitations of liability in GNU software.

Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?

#23

Post by fallous » Mon, Aug 22, 2011, 1:54 AM UTC

bugsy wrote: post #16

The real question to ask is why does anyone take wikipedia serious as a source these days? I would trust Schwartz's opinions on Peruvian copper mining, quantum physics, square dancing, or any other subject long before I would trust any article on wikipedia because Schwartz has more credibility.

Can you tell the history of the Internet without mentioning Schwartz? I'm dubious if you answer "no" and so he should be included for that if nothing else.

Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?

#24

Post by Zigurd » Mon, Aug 22, 2011, 1:54 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #7

JoshTriplett wrote: post #4

Every time I think Wikipedia couldn't slide any further into craziness, I see something like this. Nobody ever seems to step back and ask "what exactly are we accomplishing by campaigning to get content deleted?". Somewhere between "preventing spam, vandalism, and vanity pages" and "delete everything" there's a line; the exact placement of that line seems non-obvious, but individual cases like this seem incredibly ob…

Respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. Nothing crazy has happened here. The whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can do stuff like "propose that WP delete a page". Note that the page hasn't been deleted yet. When Randal Schwartz is actually deleted from Wikipedia, then you have an argument.

You do realize that leading off with "Respectfully, you don't know what you are talking about" isn't reducing the image of insularity Wikipedia has acquired? It says "If you don't get up to speed on the obscure processes, such as that anyone can nominate an article for deletion, you can't participate in the dialogue." For some reason, unexplained to outsiders, this is a feature, not a bug. At least recognize that Wikipedia is the odd subculture, not the people critiquing Wikipedia.

Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?

#25

Post by RandalSchwartz » Mon, Aug 22, 2011, 1:54 AM UTC

andrewguenther wrote: post #13

If you look at the discussion you will see that Randal himself has made multiple contributions to the page, which is against Wikipedia's policy, and could be the perceived grounds for deletion. Aside from that, this is still only a proposal for deletion, like many others have said. I don't think this is any real cause for alarm.

Seriously? I've been very very careful to abide by WP:BIO. The only changes I've ever made are to add ISBNs or my photo. I even stay out of the talk page for the most part as well.

I call "troll".

Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?

#26

Post by Zigurd » Mon, Aug 22, 2011, 1:56 AM UTC

andrewcooke wrote: post #2

heh. i think this is a generational thing. he was pretty damn central to the early perl culture, but i'm not surprised most people these days haven't heard of him. i guess the question is - to what extent should wikipedia cull entries for people who are no longer as famous as they one were? to give some idea of relative fame, i'd say he was no less famous in his community that, say, paul buchheit is these days. [and…

More people know him as a TWiT Network host, nowadays.

Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?

#27

Post by tptacek » Mon, Aug 22, 2011, 1:57 AM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #24

tptacek wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. Nothing crazy has happened here. The whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can do stuff like "propose that WP delete a page". Note that the page hasn't been deleted yet. When Randal Schwartz is actually deleted from Wikipedia, then you have an argument.

You do realize that leading off with "Respectfully, you don't know what you are talking about" isn't reducing the image of insularity Wikipedia has acquired? It says "If you don't get up to speed on the obscure processes, such as that anyone can nominate an article for deletion, you can't participate in the dialogue." For some reason, unexplained to outsiders, this is a feature, not a bug. At least recognize that Wik…

I felt bad for telling him he didn't know what he's talking about. But the fact is, he doesn't. And however "insular" you think that makes Wikipedia, note than I am not a WP'er. I find WP insular and obnoxious for reasons entirely unrelated to its (I think reasonable) notability guideline.

Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?

#28

Post by lincolnwebs » Mon, Aug 22, 2011, 1:59 AM UTC

It's not worth the time to fight Wikipedia deleting its own content. I've seen more notable pages get deleted by petulant administrators. The bureaucracy of that site stinks more than the US Senate.

Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?

#29

Post by RandalSchwartz » Mon, Aug 22, 2011, 2:02 AM UTC

fallous wrote: post #23

bugsy wrote: post #16

The real question to ask is why does anyone take wikipedia serious as a source these days? I would trust Schwartz's opinions on Peruvian copper mining, quantum physics, square dancing, or any other subject long before I would trust any article on wikipedia because Schwartz has more credibility.

Can you tell the history of the Internet without mentioning Schwartz? I'm dubious if you answer "no" and so he should be included for that if nothing else.

As in, how would you explain the growth of the interactive web from 1994 to 1997, without including Perl, and therefore, without including my books that taught most of those guys how to code in Perl? Very good point.

Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?

#30

Post by carussell » Mon, Aug 22, 2011, 2:06 AM UTC

dwyer wrote: post #18

apike wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although notability is not temporary in theory, Wikipedia has always (and probably always will) suffer from presentism. Things that are important today get a disproportionate amount of attention. It is maybe easier to evaluate something's historical notability with the benefit of hindsight. That said, I never really understood the effort to purge Wikipedia of vanity pages and the like.

> I never really understood the effort to purge Wikipedia of vanity pages and the like. Well, think about it this way. I go to Wikipedia, create a page about myself and bits are cheap so nobody cares. There's nothing published about me, so none of the information there is reliable, but nobody's going to read it anyway, so nobody cares. Then I click over to Michael Jackson's page, scroll down to the "cultural influenc…

> Bits are cheap right? All the world's information is important. Why should anybody reading about Michael Jackson be deprived of my opinion about him?

This is a pretty naïve argument.

Take, for example, the recent brouhaha about Sarah Palin and her comments about Paul Revere. Barring a future where the comments have massively effected misconceptions in the common perception of Paul Revere (let's say, on the order of Columbus's voyage and the flat earth myth), there's basically no grounds for arguing that Palin's comments should be mentioned in the Revere article. But they absolutely are deemed appropriate for the Palin article.