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

Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

katamari64.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 441 posts

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#81

Post by dismalaf »

bawolff wrote: post #67
dismalaf wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole "C competitor" category is about minimalism so no one puts Rust or C++ in that category. Also Golang has a GC so most wouldn't even call it a systems language at all...

Everyone considers rust a c competitor. Its literally replacing c in the linux kernel.

NetBSD puts Lua in kernel space, is it a C competitor?

Rust is an obvious competitor to C++, both are similarly featured.

When people talk about "modern C competitors" they're almost always talking about more minimalist languages like Zig, Odin, C3, Jai, Hare, etc...

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#82

Post by jasonlotito »

altmanaltman wrote: post #78
wavemode wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've almost got it, except: > Wikipedia has a bunch of languages that were used by like one person, because there is published material on them No. It's more like, there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines AT ALL, but when you write an article on Wikipedia and enough time passes without anyone noticing that the article is poorly sourced, then eventually the tendency…

Seems like Wikipedia sucks at enforcing its policy from what I am reading? There has to be a better way to do this at that scale than just "oh we forgot to notice it and now its too awkward to remove it"? Maybe i am missing something idk

> Seems like Wikipedia sucks at enforcing its policy from what I am reading?

More like policies evolve and older articles are grandfathered in by the fact that they aren't edited and people aren't going back and reviewing old articles that don't meet the newer standards.

> Maybe i am missing something

You are.

> idk

That says it all.

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#83

Post by ternaryoperator »

When Wikipedia first came out, there was a big debate about articles on people: should it be inclusive (anybody with minor accomplishments gets in) or should there be some threshold to be met? Ultimately, it was decided that if the perception was that the person involved was to become notable principally by having a WP page, then they did not qualify. WP did not want to be used as a means of getting attention/traction/credibility. I like that criterion and I think it’s reasonable to feel that Odin does not meet it…yet.

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#84

Post by forrestthewoods »

bawolff wrote: post #26

> If you are familiar with Odin, one of the most popular "C competitor" languages, this might sound a little bit insane to say out loud Its hard to believe someone actually said this with a straight face. I tend to lean more inclusionist, but there is no world where odin is one of the most popular c competitor languages.

> one of

Seems reasonably accurate? Odin is not particularly popular. Zig is much much more popular. As-is Go, although that’s not a straight C competitor.

But other than that?

Odin is a real language being used by real professionals to ship real software products for money. That alone makes it a rare and notable programming language!

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#85

Post by dcrazy »

andai wrote: post #64
wavemode wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've almost got it, except: > Wikipedia has a bunch of languages that were used by like one person, because there is published material on them No. It's more like, there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines AT ALL, but when you write an article on Wikipedia and enough time passes without anyone noticing that the article is poorly sourced, then eventually the tendency…

>Like I said, nobody's getting paid for deletion work. Actually there are organizations -- several of which brag about it openly -- that employ people to carefully manage what ends up on Wikipedia, and which side of a story ends up in popular articles.

This is a poor attempt to imply an equivalence between deletionism and non-impartiality (influence campaigns and reputation managers).

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#86

Post by mindcrime »

Wikipedia seems stuck in an antiquated worldview where things like traditionally-published books with second- or third-hand reports of what happened, and which are frequently incomplete or wholly inaccurate, are nonetheless considered more authoritative than primary sources you can find with a ten-second Google search.

So much this. Wikipedia's processes and policies are - in ways - an outdated and archaic relic of a bygone time. OTOH, I don't have a definitive answer ready "off the cuff" on what the standard should be. But I think everybody involved needs to acknowledge that the current setup is wrong, and needs serious thought and revision.

And the really insidious thing about this, is the fundamental asymmetry of effort between creation and deletion. Creating a Wikipedia article can take hours, days, or longer, of effort. Tagging an article as AfD takes a few seconds. The actual deletion (once whatever discussion happens) probably takes even less time.

It's amazing that anybody creates Wikpedia articles at all, TBH. I mean, you can spend hours on top of hours working on something and have it all mooted in a few seconds.

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#87

Post by altmanaltman »

jasonlotito wrote: post #82
altmanaltman wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like Wikipedia sucks at enforcing its policy from what I am reading? There has to be a better way to do this at that scale than just "oh we forgot to notice it and now its too awkward to remove it"? Maybe i am missing something idk

> Seems like Wikipedia sucks at enforcing its policy from what I am reading? More like policies evolve and older articles are grandfathered in by the fact that they aren't edited and people aren't going back and reviewing old articles that don't meet the newer standards. > Maybe i am missing something You are. > idk That says it all.

> More like policies evolve and older articles are grandfathered in by the fact that they aren't edited and people aren't going back and reviewing old articles that don't meet the newer standards.

Seems like Wikipedia sucks at enforcing its policy from what I am reading?

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#88

Post by mberning »

mindcrime wrote: post #86

Wikipedia seems stuck in an antiquated worldview where things like traditionally-published books with second- or third-hand reports of what happened, and which are frequently incomplete or wholly inaccurate, are nonetheless considered more authoritative than primary sources you can find with a ten-second Google search. So much this. Wikipedia's processes and policies are - in ways - an outdated and archaic relic of a…

This happened to me back in college. I authored a couple pages for some bands that I was in to, probably spent weeks pulling together history, lineup, albums, eps, etc. only to have them deleted unceremoniously with no recourse. That was my first and last attempt to contribute to wikipedia.

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#89

Post by firesteelrain »

dibujaron wrote: post #5

This article makes Odin sound extremely well-known. I've never heard of it before, and I feel like I keep up with programming topics pretty diligently. Admittedly I don't work at the systems programming layer, but I've definitely heard plenty about Rust and c++ topics. Curious if others feel similarly, or maybe I just happened to miss it?

I have only heard about it because of HN.

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#90

Post by fwipsy »

greyface- wrote: post #62
fwipsy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of Wikipedia is to be accurate, not complete. Wikipedia does not want to just trust the developers of $ObscureLang to maintain their own wikipedia page. So, the existence of the $ObscureLang page (and, in the aggregate, many similar pages) imposes a maintenance burden on Wikipedia. Better to say nothing than to risk saying something inaccurate.

> The point of Wikipedia is to be accurate, not complete The point of Wikipedia is to be verifiable , not accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_t...

"That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy."

Verifiable, in addition to accurate. Not "not accurate."

Post reply on HN