Programming languages are being deleted from Wikipedia

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 7:50 AM UTC

bluesnowmonkey wrote: post #124

bpodgursky wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Christopher is a PhD student at Princeton under advisor Dave Walker. If anyone here has connections to Princeton or Dave Walker, I really encourage you to bring this to his attention, as he is hopefully someone Christopher respects enough to listen to advice from. Given that Dave's CV includes designing several esoteric programming languages, I suspect he would have a personal stake in this issue.

Oh no, please, let's not sic the internet mob on these people.

Post by wvenable » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 7:56 AM UTC

Udo wrote: post #36

The implication of deletionism as a philosophy is that readers cannot be trusted to make up their own minds about the merits of an article even if it contains positive and negative feedback markers. The whole deletionism fiasco at Wikipedia is ultimately a software and UI failure. Misguided people who in most cases could never write a good article (or even improve an existing one) themselves are running amok because…

Post by _delirium » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 7:59 AM UTC

akamaka wrote: post #101

chrismonsanto wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 There are a number of other papers on Saarland University's website, but they are either 1) not peer reviewed (tech reports) 2) not cited or 3) not actua…

I got involved with the deletion debate over the Go! programming language, and was among a handful of people who actually tried to reason out how Wikipedia's notability policies could be improved. The fact is that Wikipedia is full of articles about people's own pet research projects which have no users and no impact. Your arguments are solid and worth thinking about, but as you can see, nobody wants to address the w…

Post by carussell » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 8:01 AM UTC

getsat wrote: post #73

jacques_chester wrote: post #6

Here's the main offender: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Christopher_Monsanto One of his arguments is that these languages are often only mentioned in conference proceedings. How you get to be a PhD student in computer science without realising that conference proceedings are the leading distribution mechanism for knowledge in the CS research world is a mystery. I may only be a humble honours student, but the cent…

Haha, I love the edit war on his profile regarding his "non-notable" website: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Christopher_M... Which is making him a little handful of money daily: http://w3spy.net/site/smogon.com Chris, I suggest you pay GoDaddy the extra $10/year and hide your address.

Post by jacques_chester » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 8:19 AM UTC

prodigal_erik wrote: post #136

elliottcarlson wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ruby was released in 1995, and there was no documentation available in English until 1997. Ruby's popularity outside of Japan didn't even gain any kind of momentum until 2000 and on. Obviously no one can say for sure, but I am sure an un-notable language could possibly gain even more popularity with a Wikipedia entry as it helps people learn more about a small obscure language that might grow in to something bigger -…

What that means is that Ruby simply wasn't very notable until 2000. Trying to make obscure things more notable is not a legitimate use of Wikipedia. It's already struggling against a tide of marketing abuse. And there can't possibly be any objective measure today of what independent sources in the future may be writing about.