I like this article. It puts to words something that has been in my mind for a while.
Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
191–200 of 441 posts
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#192Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's processes and policies are - in ways - an outdated and archaic relic of a…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. 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. Not really relevant in this case (that the article talks about), but I don't think that it is so cu…
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author knows the orientation of his language better than anyone else. > Odin was a major influence on Jai. This is a popular joke because of the release timeline. The reality is the inverse, and Ginger Bill has acknowledged the influence of Jai.
> The author knows the orientation of his language better than anyone else. The author knows the intention of the language better than anyone else, but that doesn't mean it isn't especially game dev oriented.
Ginger Bill directly addresses this erroneous argument in TFA:
> Many people think Odin is "just for games" at the moment, but that tells you more about the people who say that than Odin itself. This is especially true when gamedev is pretty much the most wide domain possible where you will do virtually every area of programming possible.
> Odin is a general purpose language; is capable of being used in numerous different areas from application development, servers, graphics, games, kernels, CLI/TUIs, etc.
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
what I want doesn't matter for an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias rely on secondary and not primary sources because they must be authoritative. The CEO of Kelloggs doesn't get to write the wikipedia article for kelloggs even if millions of people eat his cornflakes. If a programming language is widely used in production then sourcing an article with secondary sources ought to be trivial. But the appropriate content for p…
But the goal of an encyclopedia is to inform people on things that it covers, isn't it? It's quite broad with Wikipedia but still... The language clearly exists, it's not a student project, it's is use, people are interested in it. So the page was created, but is now removed because of formalities (the lack of good enough sources).
> But the goal of an encyclopedia is to inform people on things that it covers, isn't it?
Yes, but that implies filtering on all things that are false. And in this day and age, filtering truth is a very hard thing to do, so instead they set the bar a little higher at “a reputable source checked that it is indeed true”. As a result, there's plenty of things that are both true and well known to plenty of people that aren't on Wikipedia, but that's fine, and encyclopedia doesn't need to be exhaustive to be useful.
But on the flip side, if they didn't, it would soon be filled by tons of made up things fabricated for marketing reasons.
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#195Wikipedia 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…
If you don't care about the notability filter and independent confirmation provided by secondary sources, you don't need Wikipedia. Just be your own primary source publishing whatever you want! You can even make it a wiki and let anyone else add to it too!
I guess the reason people aren't content with that approach and still want a Wikipedia article is because Wikipedia has much higher visibility. Great for SEO! Except if you can't get reputable third parties to publish about you, maybe you're not important enough to deserve that visibility.
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder whether the "replacing c in the linux kernel" is not more wishful thinking by Rust enthusiasts. As of know it has less than 1% and less than bash.
Linux kernel project stuck at C89 and refused move to c++ or even a C standard upgrade for decades. Move to C11 (a 15 year old standard) was done just a few years ago. The fact that rust has been even accepted into the kernel is a resounding endorsement.
It was a resounding endorsement in 2020, but the proof is in the pudding. So far I am not impressed. It is also not something I think is terribly important. Even if they managed to improve memory safety in the kernel using Rust (but I assume improvements in C tooling will have a much bigger impact), the reality is that for the overall Linux community (but maybe not Google and co.) others things would be far more important (such as a proper responsible disclosure process, the recent failures were pretty bad).
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#197slop in its purest non ai form
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
what I want doesn't matter for an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias rely on secondary and not primary sources because they must be authoritative. The CEO of Kelloggs doesn't get to write the wikipedia article for kelloggs even if millions of people eat his cornflakes. If a programming language is widely used in production then sourcing an article with secondary sources ought to be trivial. But the appropriate content for p…
But the goal of an encyclopedia is to inform people on things that it covers, isn't it? It's quite broad with Wikipedia but still... The language clearly exists, it's not a student project, it's is use, people are interested in it. So the page was created, but is now removed because of formalities (the lack of good enough sources).
Note the bad faith of your correspondent:
> As a reader thank god not everything that has grabbed the attention of social media gets an article.
...
> what I want doesn't matter for an encyclopedia.
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it's an indication that notoriety in Discord servers isn't a basis for relevance in an encyclopedia. Which is a good choice. A streamer mentioned a language? Wikipedia isn't Twitter. As a reader thank god not everything that has grabbed the attention of social media gets an article.
Exactly. Because a person hangs out in certain social media circles or bubbles, doesn't mean that information from those places are general public knowledge or meets the standards that Wikipedia asks for.
Of course it's not general public knowledge ... that's why we put information in encyclopedias and other sources of information. People run across a mention of Odin and want to know about it.
Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
#200The article was alright (with a weird tangent about gingers at the beginning), but then quickly devolved into personal attacks towards Odin's developer and Casey Muratori. Why? Just because they both wrote something on Twitter? And then I read this: > Steering a language and its context will naturally reflect the author's world view > There are two ways one can "figure out a person" who rarely states their beliefs ex…
If you read the whole article, you'll understand the context and how its relates to Wikipedia. The fact GingerBill accuses Wikipedia of having a political bias against Odin when (spoilers) it was actually a "constitutional conservative" who triggered the deletion is amusing.
I don't see anyone (especially GingerBill) stating that article about Odin was deleted because of "political bias". The only thing I see is a general statement about Wikipedia being an "ideological playground". But I don't see that anyone thinks that people who removed the article were of the opposite views. The author makes the connection because of some Twitter accounts that GingerBill follows (and because of what he allegedly said in some videos), but I don't think it's a good proof, especially by the author's own standards.