Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

katamari64.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 441 posts

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#331

Post by lerno »

baranul wrote: post #329
lerno wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of happens is that there are some people who invest their lives in Wikipedia, their opinions is what ends up mattering. This has boths pros and cons. The good thing about it, is that these people are deeply invested in Wikipedia and therefore have a lot of incitament to do what (they believe at least) is the best for Wikipedia. The downsides are: (1) that just because you invested a lot of time into Wikiped…

Sounds like you are describing Grokipedia (Grok), where the general public has rejected it as a replacement for Wikipedia. Way too much hallucinating, tainted algorithms reflecting political preferences, gossip, and unverified or disreputable sources.

No, Grokipedia is just a crapfest. I'm talking about actually asking ChatGPT

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#332

Post by PakistaniDenzel »

hit_piece wrote: post #311
cygx wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Casey Muratori argued github stars should be considered a metric of notability, and the Gleam repository has almost twice the number (21.6k vs Odin's 11k)! Jokes aside, I'm not sure Gleam belongs on Wikipedia if Odin does not...

[flagged]

yep the group constantly going on about how "inclusive" they are are typically the least inclusive

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#333

Post by lerno »

shash wrote: post #326
lerno wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny. Today people say that of Wikipedia, as if it was trustworthy. But it used to be common knowledge to just "don't trust anything on Wikipedia". Wikipedia was never like a regular encyclopedia, it just wanted to be one. Its biggest advantage over traditional encyclopedias was its breadth and how quickly it could be updated. The trade-off was that articles could vary greatly in quality and could be edited by…

TBH, "Don't trust anything on Wikipedia" was always just stuck up posturing. Plenty of badly sourced, badly edited and biased articles in regular encyclopedias too, but because Wikipedia is contributed to by the unwashed masses, don't trust it. "Don't use Wiki as a primary source" is much more to the point - it's not meant to be. Use it to find the primaries. Also, I don't see this as "reducing breadth" so much as at…

Early days of Wikipedia was the wild west. Surely you must agree to that.

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#334

Post by ajross »

CM30 wrote: post #302
ajross wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The most reliable source about a topic nowadays might not use their real name when writing. They might not have a journalism degree, or work for a mainstream media outlet. They might not have an academic background. I really don't think that's true, though. Or it is in the specious sense by leaning heavily on "might". I mean, sure, in a handful of areas it is. But in the real world, on the topics that make up the o…

I feel like it's more than a handful of areas, though I'll grant there are plenty where academia or mainstream media outlets are the most reliable/trusted source. If you're talking about astrophysics, the history of the eastern Roman empire or the US' government foreign policy, the Wikipedia setup will work perfectly. On the other hand, if you're talking about Star Trek, the MCU, Taylor Swift or the Legend of Zelda s…

> if you're talking about Star Trek, the MCU, Taylor Swift or the Legend of Zelda series, the most reliable source is probably not going to be either an academic journal or the New York Times.

You lost me here. I mean, yes, there's serious fan community interaction around those subject which is unauthenticated and anonymous. But that's interaction and not research or journalism. You might cite the existence of a favorite lore or fan theory in a wikipedia article, but you don't take the fan stuff as a source for the original material!

To take your specific example: Swift is literally getting married today, I gather. Why do I gather it? Because trusted human beings in my information space (Twitter feed, news articles, etc...) are telling me! Would I trust an anonymous fan source telling me someone got married? Almost certainly not.

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#335

Post by lambdaone »

ninjascotsman wrote: post #291
lambdaone wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They are maniacal about deleting things that I consider noteworthy but others don't" is exactly the point of the notability policy in the first place. Otherwise Wikipedia would almost instantly fill up with crap.

It is filled with crap for example London Bus routes

Even the bus route articles seem to have drawn sufficient reliable-sources attention to merit them being kept. The policy is clear and definitive.

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#336

Post by bawolff »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #220
bawolff wrote: post #26

> If you are familiar with Odin, one of the most popular "C competitor" languages, this might sound a little bit insane to say out loud Its hard to believe someone actually said this with a straight face. I tend to lean more inclusionist, but there is no world where odin is one of the most popular c competitor languages.

can only speak from my personal experience, I have made a scratchpad app within Odin and it was the first language that I picked for because I wanted C-esque speed and gui libraries being built in and I even used LLM's to write the whole thing to see LLM's capabilities. After a lot back and forth though, it was able to make it. I might link it but my point is that calling Odin niche might be same as calling every C a…

I don't think anyone doubts that odin is a real programming language that you can make something in. The part that is doubtful is that it enjoys any level of popularity.

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#337

Post by thunderfork »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #285
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia's core policy is verifiability, not truth. If you put a factual statement into an article, you're required to have a written source that Wikipedia can cite. "Someone who says they're the CEO said so on the talk page" doesn't cut it. If the CEO really wants to get this info into Wikipedia, they can go give an interview to a reputable newspaper, news website, magazine, etc., and then Wikipedia can cite that.…

[flagged]

Cited sources are as-close-to-truthful-as-one-can-manage. This is how one avoids having the truthiness of the editors matter.

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#339

Post by Gander5739 »

Nnnes wrote: post #207
NordStreamYacht wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was like 10 years ago. Long before the real invasion of the bots. I don't even remember the username or password of my account any more.

The main anti-vandalism bot ClueBot was created in 2007, and its successor ClueBot NG in 2010. They certainly have false positives from time to time, but that doesn't mean they aren't the most useful bots on the website.

It aims to have a false positive rate of 0.1%

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#340

Post by bobbytheblkbear »

amiga386 wrote: post #245
embedding-shape wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am a terminally-online person, and I do program. I am not interested in neolanguages. I wouldn't say I'm terminally-online, but I do program, passing interest in neolanguages. I've heard about Odin, because I also do 3D VFX and simulations, particularly fire and fluid simulations, and JangaFX kind of infamously hit the 3D simulation scene with EmberGen which kind of did what many thought was short of impossible,…

So Odin is a proprietary language used by a startup company that makes graphical effect tools, one of which is popular with vfx artists? I can see why Wikipedia's washing its hands of it. > If building a world-class (almost revolutionary) product with your own programming language doesn't count as "making your thing notable" Notability is not transitive. If you make a notable thing using a non-notable thing, it doesn…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN