Programming languages are being deleted from Wikipedia

Post by eru » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 11:09 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 There are a number of other papers on Saarland University's website, but they are either 1) not peer reviewed (tech reports) 2) not cited or 3) not actua…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 helium » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 11:13 AM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #8

awj wrote: post #3

I'm not sure what the solution is, but something seriously needs to be done about the requirements Wikipedia has in place. Especially when applied to open source software, the notability requirement, combined with the definition of reliable sources, make invalid assumptions about the common media for discourse.

Yes, yes, a million times yes. Everybody knows that the existing Wikipedia Notability guidelines have serious issues when it comes to dealing with software and technology issues. I know I fought tooth and nail to get the Steve Yegge article back on Wikipedia a while back, and Steve is pretty damn notable in his community.... to the point that a WP article on him is a no-brainer. Now imagine anybody just a hair less w…

Post by tty » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 11:32 AM UTC

prodigal_erik wrote: post #171

tty wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>None of the articles I nominated for deletion had any reliable sources to back them up. Really? The following discussion page says you're a liar. It's sad that despite the majority being for keeping the article, you actually won in the end even though you didn't reply to any questions asking you what exactly you personally consider to be notable . Same goes for the replies that linked to computer magazine articles a…

That's actually an interesting question. Should a topic be presumed notable in the English version of Wikipedia if basically everything specifically written about it was in a Russian magazine?

Post by mkr-hn » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 11:43 AM UTC

derleth wrote: post #87

halostatue wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could be wrong, but the Wikipedia admins aren't responsible for creating pages or accepting pages. That's an "editor", e.g., a standard user. Admins can make pages, but I guarantee it was an interested editor/user who created the Alice ML page, not an admin acting as an admin. Still, Wikipedia's deletionism is arrant nonsense up with which we should not put.

> Still, Wikipedia's deletionism is arrant nonsense up with which we should not put. Everyone's a deletionist about something.

Post by mkr-hn » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 12:12 PM UTC

eru wrote: post #175

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…

> It is no statistical accident that rampant wiki deletionism is even more intense in ..."strict" countries such as Germany. Any sources?