Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
yep the group constantly going on about how "inclusive" they are are typically the least inclusive
No, this is not the case.
Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
421–430 of 441 posts
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#422I have never been a wikipedia contributor (let alone a mod), but their points seem fair. Maybe not fair for the particular case, but fair for the general case. People who ridicule wikipedia policies should at least acknowledge that the modern internet is a very low trust society with millions of bad actors trying to push their agenda at the expense of others. And now with AI bots running amok the headache increases t…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck Apparently that one is "notable" but Odin is not. "The rules" are on the hook to justify their existence by providing reasonable and desirable outcomes, they're not a purpose unto themselves. If your rules are shown to be buggy, fix your rules.
Brainfuck is quite famous though? It even started the wave of 'joke languages', I vividly remember few years when every few month somebody makes a new language
Learning brainfuck was a wildly known challenge back in my uni days (and not only for IT studunts, but in mathematician circles as well). I have yet to know any students that would get competitive over writing in Odin.
694 public odin repositories on gh vs 2064 public brainfuck repositories. And most of the brainfuck fame was before using github so wildly popular.
Brainfuck is the definition of not widely used, but notable
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#423Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's processes and policies are - in ways - an outdated and archaic relic of a…
>> And the really insidious thing about this, is the fundamental asymmetry of effort between creation and deletion
There is more assymetry between writing yourself and checking other people work.
And it's by design, the work of one person could only be reliable if checked over and over by other people. People that agree on common rules
If you want to write a good article that wouldn't go through this rigorous checks and made abhor rigid rules, may I suggest writing a blogpost
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I tried saying this to both GingerBill and Casey on Twitter but they were unreceptive. I understand their frustrations and I think Wikipedia does have sourcing gaps for projects like Odin. But you can't really understand the spam problem until you've seen it firsthand, and general case notability requirements are one of the first lines of defence against bad actors.
And notability isn't just for spam, the core difficulty with Wikipedia is that people disagree about what should be written in articles. The site only functions because of a masterful Jiu-jitsu move where we redirect heated arguments about what Wikipedia should say into heated arguments about which Reliable Source to cite. That's the fundamental underlying reason behind all the rules and all the deletion discussions.…
>Just quoting what authors of the topic say about their own work would of course fall a little short of what people expect from an encyclopedia.
Yes, for the encyclopedia project. But they are many use cases where saving who said what, when, within which contextual summarizable frame can also prove very useful.
Luckily we still have things like archive.org still covering a large part of such a need. Because otherwise, anyone can say anything and its contrary just before denying reality never happened, and then the web becomes saturated of every assertion and its contrary being all covered in some farmed nonsense without any way to weight them in the hand of general public.
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#425[dead]
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't report someone for constructive improvements, quality citations and polite talk page discourse.
You've openly stated that you were intentionally acting in bad faith, hounding other editors to provoke them and doing so while logged out to evade scrutiny. Retreating to "you can't prove I did anything wrong" is not the defense you think it is.
It's kinda sad to see the only website with such elaborate guidelines fail to follow them.
Your argument appears to be that you don't need real evidence to dispose of editors.
It seems we agree?
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the normal tech publications Name 1 "normal tech publication" that anyone reads that covers programming languages.
This took me approximately two seconds to find: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/02/linux-leaders-pave-a...
A gossip article about Linux, Linus and Rust? You're not selling it...
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#428Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've openly stated that you were intentionally acting in bad faith, hounding other editors to provoke them and doing so while logged out to evade scrutiny. Retreating to "you can't prove I did anything wrong" is not the defense you think it is.
It's kinda sad to see the only website with such elaborate guidelines fail to follow them. Your argument appears to be that you don't need real evidence to dispose of editors. It seems we agree?
Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. If you consistently aim to disrupt the project then you obviously should be CBANed. I can't comment on the evidence available in your block discussion, only what you've presented here.
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
This took me approximately two seconds to find: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/02/linux-leaders-pave-a...
A gossip article about Linux, Linus and Rust? You're not selling it...
I gave you the first search result. There are probably tens of thousands of articles in newspapers and magazines about Rust, along with probably hundreds of published books. Unlike Odin, Rust is notable and heavily covered by secondary sources.