One of Randal's additions to the world is the "Schwartzian transform", something I remember using extensively a decade ago when I was doing web programming in Perl:
Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?
31–40 of 73 posts
Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although notability is not temporary in theory, Wikipedia has always (and probably always will) suffer from presentism. Things that are important today get a disproportionate amount of attention. It is maybe easier to evaluate something's historical notability with the benefit of hindsight. That said, I never really understood the effort to purge Wikipedia of vanity pages and the like.
> I never really understood the effort to purge Wikipedia of vanity pages and the like. Well, think about it this way. I go to Wikipedia, create a page about myself and bits are cheap so nobody cares. There's nothing published about me, so none of the information there is reliable, but nobody's going to read it anyway, so nobody cares. Then I click over to Michael Jackson's page, scroll down to the "cultural influenc…
If I'm just a footnote in the history of Perl, you're woefully ignorant.
Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?
#33heh. i think this is a generational thing. he was pretty damn central to the early perl culture, but i'm not surprised most people these days haven't heard of him. i guess the question is - to what extent should wikipedia cull entries for people who are no longer as famous as they one were? to give some idea of relative fame, i'd say he was no less famous in his community that, say, paul buchheit is these days. [and…
More people know him as a TWiT Network host, nowadays.
I've noticed that at the past few open source conferences. Most people know me from FLOSS Weekly now. Since we already went through a "FLOSS Weekly deletion" action, can't some of that apply back to my article?
Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?
#34The real question to ask is why does anyone take wikipedia serious as a source these days? I would trust Schwartz's opinions on Peruvian copper mining, quantum physics, square dancing, or any other subject long before I would trust any article on wikipedia because Schwartz has more credibility.
> The real question to ask is why does anyone take wikipedia serious as a source these days? Who's saying you should? And what's different about "these days" versus, I don't know, 2005? Feel free to substitute there your favorite year from any point on the timeline of Wikipedia nostalgia. Edit: Goddamn. I really hate to do it, but challenges, please? The notion that you can/should/could ever trust Wikipedia is some w…
[deleted]
Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?
#35heh. i think this is a generational thing. he was pretty damn central to the early perl culture, but i'm not surprised most people these days haven't heard of him. i guess the question is - to what extent should wikipedia cull entries for people who are no longer as famous as they one were? to give some idea of relative fame, i'd say he was no less famous in his community that, say, paul buchheit is these days. [and…
"but i'm not surprised most people these days haven't heard of him"
Isn't this why encyclopedias exist, and exactly why this entry shouldn't be deleted?
Personally, I'm in the 'keep' camp, I can't understand why people would want to delete this, unless it's a manifestation of the trolling culture that seems to be springing up in a variety of places.
Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?
#36the whole "notability" requirement on WP really bothers me; it's not like this is britannica, where there's a limited number of pages to cram all this info into. i'd much rather have a definitive resource, than one that only covered "notable" material.
Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?
#37I've just added my "keep" to the discussion. The following is OT, but I'm curious:
Does anyone else find the fact that the Wikipedia talk pages are wiki pages to be about the stupidest thing ever? Wikis are designed for occasional edits, not active discussions. It's very annoying to try to save a comment and find that it is rejected because someone else got an edit in while you were editing.
It seems clear to me that the talk pages should use an HN or Reddit like system, not wiki pages. Or am I missing something?
Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?
#38the whole "notability" requirement on WP really bothers me; it's not like this is britannica, where there's a limited number of pages to cram all this info into. i'd much rather have a definitive resource, than one that only covered "notable" material.
[deleted]
Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?
#39The real question to ask is why does anyone take wikipedia serious as a source these days? I would trust Schwartz's opinions on Peruvian copper mining, quantum physics, square dancing, or any other subject long before I would trust any article on wikipedia because Schwartz has more credibility.
Can you tell the history of the Internet without mentioning Schwartz? I'm dubious if you answer "no" and so he should be included for that if nothing else.
Well yes, this is my point. It's not clear to me why it's being massively downvoted. Randal is real, credible, and a valuable and well known contributor to culture and citizen of our early 21st century era.
It is odd that Wikipedia is voting whether he is generally of no account or value worth mentioning. It would make more sense for Randal to vote on whether Wikipedia is of value and worth mentioning, or should be deleted instead. No doubt Wikipedia is notable, but mostly in the sense it is notorious.
Re: Is Randal L Schwartz notable enough for Wikipedia?
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I never really understood the effort to purge Wikipedia of vanity pages and the like. Well, think about it this way. I go to Wikipedia, create a page about myself and bits are cheap so nobody cares. There's nothing published about me, so none of the information there is reliable, but nobody's going to read it anyway, so nobody cares. Then I click over to Michael Jackson's page, scroll down to the "cultural influenc…
If I'm just a footnote in the history of Perl, you're woefully ignorant.
Maybe more. I'm certainly no Perl historian. But if I were, and I were writing a book about it, I doubt I would include a lot of biographies.