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

Impulse Tracker source code now available on GitHub

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–45 of 45 posts

Re: Impulse Tracker source code now available on GitHub

#41

Post by dragonwriter »

Dalewyn wrote: post #24
dragonwriter wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like an analytical conclusion based on a primary source, and thus a violation of No Original Research policy if sourced directly to the primary source on which the conclusion is based, and not a published secondary source that actually provides the analysis of the primary source.

One of Wikipedia's sourcing paradoxes is that the literal horse's mouth is the worst source as to be unusable.

No, primary sources are fine if they say the thing you are sourcing them for (high quality secondary sources are usually preferred, but primary sources aren't “the worst” or “unusuable”); they aren't okay for something that requires additional analysis/interpretation. (That's true of any source, but it’s more of an issue with the use of primary sources.)

Re: Impulse Tracker source code now available on GitHub

#42

Post by dragonwriter »

trashburger wrote: post #30
polairscience wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean this as a genuine comment and not a political non-sequitor but we'll see how it lands. If you think that's a bad idea, can you imagine what Donald J. Trump's wiki page would look like if you allowed 'primary' sources? Or, really, any political figure. Though I think he makes a very good implicit case against allowing that.

"Original research"/primary sources should not matter for facts, i.e. those laid out as actual code. (It didn't land well.)

If the fact is in the source cited, primary sources are okay as direct sources. If it is an analytical interpretation of the source (such as most fact claims about the source or its contents, rather than fact claims made directly in the source), then that interpretation needs sourced from somewhere.

Re: Impulse Tracker source code now available on GitHub

#43

Post by jeffalyanak »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #38
jeffalyanak wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you checked out 8bitbubsy's extremely accurate modern clone of FT2 (and one of Protracker as well)? https://16-bits.org/ft2.php

I just did! That's awesome. I may need to package these, too.

They're already available in the Debian repos and probably elsewhere as well.

Re: Impulse Tracker source code now available on GitHub

#44

Post by JohnTHaller »

jeffalyanak wrote: post #43
JohnTHaller wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just did! That's awesome. I may need to package these, too.

They're already available in the Debian repos and probably elsewhere as well.

Oh I meant package for PortableApps.com.

Re: Impulse Tracker source code now available on GitHub

#45

Post by oopsallmagic »

dragonwriter wrote: post #42
trashburger wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Original research"/primary sources should not matter for facts, i.e. those laid out as actual code. (It didn't land well.)

If the fact is in the source cited, primary sources are okay as direct sources. If it is an analytical interpretation of the source (such as most fact claims about the source or its contents, rather than fact claims made directly in the source), then that interpretation needs sourced from somewhere.

Somewhere that isn't the person updating the article, that is. The trick is to make a random website that does the same, and then it's totally fine!
Post reply on HN