Programming languages are being deleted from Wikipedia

Post by j_baker » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 6:52 AM UTC

zedshaw wrote: post #102

chrismonsanto wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, of course I know that :( The problem was that the papers mentioned were either 1) not about the subject in question or 2) not cited enough to count. Hopefully your professors also drummed into you that anyone can write a paper and send it to a conference -- the kicker is if it actually makes an impact. Isn't that more-or-less the definition of notability? None of the articles I nominated for deletion had any reli…

My problem with you is you're going to be a professor, a profession devoted to the advancement of human knowledge and educating laymen in this knowledge, and you just erased one of the main mechanisms for disseminating computer science to the general public. You just made it harder to get people interested in programming. Amazing. Instead of improving the pages (which any self-respecting graduate student could do ove…

Post by j_baker » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 6:57 AM UTC

katovatzschyn wrote: post #89

j_baker wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need better criteria for establishing notability of programming languages: for some reason, a number of people seem to think languages are notable if they are mentioned in a book/third-tier academic paper or have a few people who contribute to/use them. My favorite part is how he admits the rules he's enforcing are inadequate, and yet continues to enforce them.

My favorite part is how he admits the rules he's enforcing are inadequate, and yet continues to enforce them. Sounds like furthering a cause. By the specificness of that cause, I would have to bet: - Had an article he wrote on a small programming language, possibly his own, deleted for not being notable enough. - Feels that less notable languages than the one in question were not treated similarly. - Perceives injust…

Post by srean » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 7:07 AM UTC

chrismonsanto wrote: post #74

wisty wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the deletion threads. He knows what he's talking about, but I think he has some agenda. Maybe he failed a functional language course, and wants to kill off his professor's favourite languages? There's no way that he couldn't just do a google scholar search for "Alice ML functional programming".

Of course I've done a Google Scholar search for Alice ML. There is roughly one admissible source -- "Through the looking glass" in Trends in Functional Programming. Small workshop paper, 12 citations according to CiteSeer. Doesn't show up in the ACM Digital Library. There are a number of other papers on Saarland University's website, but they are either 1) not peer reviewed (tech reports) 2) not cited or 3) not actua…

Post by petegrif » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 7:13 AM UTC

Post by natep » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 7:16 AM UTC

Confusion wrote: post #104

Locke1689 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm as qualified as any other PL researcher (or Wikipedian) to determine the validity of a source. Meh, as a researcher and grad student myself I wouldn't say that. You earn the qualification to judge notability of scholarly works after defending your dissertation and publishing significant work for the community. That's kind of how the system works.

I'd say that when someone 'earns the qualification' is much less important than whether they 'have what it takes'. It's a bit arbitrary to suggest someone only has what it takes after a bit of paperwork has been completed. Failing a dissertation defense is rare and after having published the first work of minor notability , you're as good as set. By that standard, he is probably right that he is qualified.