Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming • Hacker News Board

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#371

Post by torginus » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 8:56 PM UTC

Honestly this article ends on a bit of an antagonistic note, but this whole situation is hilarious to me.

GingerBill, a person who cares deeply and has very specific ideas about how some obscure stuff the public doesn't care about should work, meets another group of people who are exactly like him, except for they happen to be fixated on other stuff, fails to recognize this, and assumes the world is out to get him.

He reaches out to Jimmy Wales, who acts like the adult in the room, and tells him to follow the rules just like anyone else, immediately gets added to the list of evil co-conspirators.

After running out of ideas, he tries to follow the rules, and lo and behold, his Wikipedia page gets added.

As an open source maintainer, Bill likely constantly deals with the kind of person who tries to get a PR merged, who, after getting told what needs fixing before the merge, cries injustice and goes on an internet crusade instead of doing what they've been told.

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#372

Post by Rochus » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 9:11 PM UTC

cygx wrote: post #370

Rochus wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, at some point the bueraucracy took over. In the good days of Wikipedia we just added or improved what interested us, no "authority" or bueraucracy involved. Here in Switzerland, we have a fitting expression for the present behavior in face of obsolescence: "schön sterben" (to die beautifully).

In the good days of Wikipedia we just added or improved what interested us, no "authority" or bueraucracy involved. Such approaches rarely scale: When the Eternal September rolls in, you tighten the reins or get swept away...

> you tighten the reins or fold...

But don't tell me they will fold because they have an article about the Odin programming language. I rather think people will vote with their feet once more when they hear for what silly reasons it was deleted.

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#373

Post by cygx » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 9:19 PM UTC

Rochus wrote: post #372

cygx wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the good days of Wikipedia we just added or improved what interested us, no "authority" or bueraucracy involved. Such approaches rarely scale: When the Eternal September rolls in, you tighten the reins or get swept away...

> you tighten the reins or fold... But don't tell me they will fold because they have an article about the Odin programming language. I rather think people will vote with their feet once more when they hear for what silly reasons it was deleted.

But don't tell me they will fold because they have an article about the Odin programming language.

Who should decide when to enforce the notability rules, and when to skirt them?

I rather think people will vote with their feet once more

Maybe, maybe not - they've stuck around for a quarter century already...

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#374

Post by Gander5739 » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 9:22 PM UTC

Rochus wrote: post #359

Gander5739 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The topic is relevant and of sufficient interest. According to what authority?

I'm not an Odin user, but interested in programming languages. Concerning Odin, we have these figures: GitHub stars 10.5k, Forks 966, Contributors 537, Commits 17,511, Releases 97, latest shown as May 4 2026, Discord members 10,016. I know of many undisputed topics on Wikipedia which have less prevalence.

I'm curious where you draw the line? Is 9,999 github stars (or any other metric) too few, but then one more magically makes it worthy of inclusion? Or maybe it should be done by degrees: at 1,000 stars, maybe a sentence or two; a paragraph at 5,000, several sections at 10,000, and so on?

The problem, of course, is that such measures are arbitrary and probably gameable. Not that the current criteria aren't, of course, but it's the best we've got.

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#375

Post by Gander5739 » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 9:25 PM UTC

Rochus wrote: post #359

Gander5739 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The topic is relevant and of sufficient interest. According to what authority?

I'm not an Odin user, but interested in programming languages. Concerning Odin, we have these figures: GitHub stars 10.5k, Forks 966, Contributors 537, Commits 17,511, Releases 97, latest shown as May 4 2026, Discord members 10,016. I know of many undisputed topics on Wikipedia which have less prevalence.

Apologies for not catching this in my last reply.

> I know of many undisputed topics on Wikipedia which have less prevalence.

Then by all means, flag them for deletion. Although I would understand if you don't want to make that effort (I mean this genuinely, not as a rebuke).

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#376

Post by Rochus » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 9:29 PM UTC

Gander5739 wrote: post #374

Rochus wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an Odin user, but interested in programming languages. Concerning Odin, we have these figures: GitHub stars 10.5k, Forks 966, Contributors 537, Commits 17,511, Releases 97, latest shown as May 4 2026, Discord members 10,016. I know of many undisputed topics on Wikipedia which have less prevalence.

I'm curious where you draw the line? Is 9,999 github stars (or any other metric) too few, but then one more magically makes it worthy of inclusion? Or maybe it should be done by degrees: at 1,000 stars, maybe a sentence or two; a paragraph at 5,000, several sections at 10,000, and so on? The problem, of course, is that such measures are arbitrary and probably gameable. Not that the current criteria aren't, of course,…

The whole point of wikipedia was that no such silly rules were in place; a topic is worth publishing as long as there is someone willing to publish it and there are no good reasons (e.g. laws) to not to do so.

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#377

Post by Rochus » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 9:32 PM UTC

Gander5739 wrote: post #375

Rochus wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an Odin user, but interested in programming languages. Concerning Odin, we have these figures: GitHub stars 10.5k, Forks 966, Contributors 537, Commits 17,511, Releases 97, latest shown as May 4 2026, Discord members 10,016. I know of many undisputed topics on Wikipedia which have less prevalence.

Apologies for not catching this in my last reply. > I know of many undisputed topics on Wikipedia which have less prevalence. Then by all means, flag them for deletion. Although I would understand if you don't want to make that effort (I mean this genuinely, not as a rebuke).

> Then by all means, flag them for deletion

Why should I? Who am I to decide for other people what's interesting for them? Having those articles in place doesn't bother anyone (as long as they don't violate laws) and essentially don't cost a dime.

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#378

Post by Gander5739 » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 9:50 PM UTC

Rochus wrote: post #377

Gander5739 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies for not catching this in my last reply. > I know of many undisputed topics on Wikipedia which have less prevalence. Then by all means, flag them for deletion. Although I would understand if you don't want to make that effort (I mean this genuinely, not as a rebuke).

> Then by all means, flag them for deletion Why should I? Who am I to decide for other people what's interesting for them? Having those articles in place doesn't bother anyone (as long as they don't violate laws) and essentially don't cost a dime.

In broad strokes, the reason is because the line has to be drawn somewhere.

If you want, you can read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Existence_%E2%89%A0_... and the links there to gain some idea of the reasoning behind it.

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#379

Post by Gander5739 » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 9:56 PM UTC

Rochus wrote: post #376

Gander5739 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious where you draw the line? Is 9,999 github stars (or any other metric) too few, but then one more magically makes it worthy of inclusion? Or maybe it should be done by degrees: at 1,000 stars, maybe a sentence or two; a paragraph at 5,000, several sections at 10,000, and so on? The problem, of course, is that such measures are arbitrary and probably gameable. Not that the current criteria aren't, of course,…

The whole point of wikipedia was that no such silly rules were in place; a topic is worth publishing as long as there is someone willing to publish it and there are no good reasons (e.g. laws) to not to do so.

According to whom? As far as I can tell, the purpose of Wikipedia, since inception, has been to make an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That doesn't necessitate there being limits on what articles can persist without being deleted, but neither does it preclude it.

If you're looking for a wiki site that doesn't limit the articles that appear on it, you can have a look at EvedybodyWiki.

Re: Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming

#380

Post by Rochus » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 10:05 PM UTC

Gander5739 wrote: post #379

Rochus wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of wikipedia was that no such silly rules were in place; a topic is worth publishing as long as there is someone willing to publish it and there are no good reasons (e.g. laws) to not to do so.

According to whom? As far as I can tell, the purpose of Wikipedia, since inception, has been to make an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That doesn't necessitate there being limits on what articles can persist without being deleted, but neither does it preclude it. If you're looking for a wiki site that doesn't limit the articles that appear on it, you can have a look at EvedybodyWiki.

> According to whom?

It's very founder (Wales).