
Wikipedia links to HN - lelf
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=news.ycombinator.com
======
nonchalance
Some of these make perfect sense:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoffeeScript](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoffeeScript)
links to
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2037801](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2037801)
with the sentence "On December 24, 2010, Ashkenas announced the release of
stable 1.0.0 to Hacker News, the site where the project was announced for the
first time."

"80legs has been criticised by numerous site owners for its technology
effectively acting as a Distributed Denial of Service attack and not obeying
robots.txt."
[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1056960](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1056960)
(which makes sense because the discussion includes site owners)

Others are questionable:

"While ZumoDrive encrypts transport of all content with 256-bit SSL, and
stores that content encrypted on Amazon S3 servers, that content is still
accessible to ZumoDrive administrators" It would seem that the direct link
[http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2010-03-11-zumodrive-
rolls-a...](http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2010-03-11-zumodrive-rolls-a-hard-
six.html) is far more relevant than the comments
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1183308](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1183308)
(and many of the comments actually are opposed to the claim)

~~~
saraid216
Keep in mind that HN comments are actually a fairly decent set of secondary
sources: the discussion of expert-level commentators is _exactly_ what
Wikipedia wants to link to, rather than basing things off the first-hand
claims.

~~~
greenyoda
Except that the quality of HN comments varies widely: not all commenters on HN
are experts in the subjects they're writing about (and the people voting up a
comment aren't necessarily experts either). A general reader following a link
here from Wikipedia is not likely to be able to tell the difference between an
expert and a non-expert. Thus, HN would make a much worse secondary source
than something like an industry publication that has an editor and fact
checkers (rare as these seem to be in our field today).

~~~
tomasien
I, for example, comment regularly on HN and I know next to nothing.

~~~
tomrod
I can report the same.

------
spindritf
Among them an article on Taskwarrior[1]. We are now an officially recognized
authoritative source on procrastination. I don't think anyone could question
that.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taskwarrior](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taskwarrior)

~~~
rfnslyr
I've been looking for something like this for a very long time. Anyone know of
something like this with a GUI?

~~~
ronjouch
Not sure it qualifies as _" something like this"_, but for Linux/GTK, GTG [1]
comes to mind.

[http://gtgnome.net/](http://gtgnome.net/)

------
tailbalance
And there's one to news.ycombinator.net
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSea...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=news.ycombinator.net)

------
GabrielF00
Hacker News would not qualify as a reliable source on Wikipedia as it is an
aggregator of user-submitted content without much oversight.

~~~
gwern
No, but many of these may be used in much the same way as why Wikipedia links
to tons of Twitter pages even though it's 'an aggregator of user-submitted
content without much oversight' \- the users themselves confer the the
reliability. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a pg comment used as a
source in the Paul Graham article.

~~~
GabrielF00
But that's a primary source. Generally, use of primary sources on Wikipedia
should be limited because primary sources are easily subject to abuse. For
instance, even something as simple as a quote from X that "Y is great" can be
problematic. Is that what X really thinks? Is there a quote from somewhere
where X says "Y is not great?" Was X really in a position to evaluate Y?
Wikipedia articles should generally be based on reliable secondary and
tertiary sources.

[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_s...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources)]

~~~
beambot
From your link: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published
secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary
sources."

That suggests that Wikipedia treats primary sources on par with tertiary.

------
ck2
Someone should make an automated dmoz-like directory of wikipedia external
links with thumbnails.

------
igorgue
They should go to source links... Unless they're comments or text posts.

------
nvr219
Top one on that list is "toilet paper orientation archive 1" lol.

~~~
misnome
...which is a talk page, without an actual article. And it's a very long
discussion/argument.

I'm not sure a better example of wikipedia could be found.

~~~
polshaw
The 'toilet paper orientation' article is still there, with over 100
notes/references.

------
amerika_blog
Wikipedia is overrated as a resource. It is, like many crowd-sourced things, a
social determination of importance and not an actual assessment.

However, as you'd expect, it's great for pop culture.

~~~
trumbitta2
Out of curiosity: what's an actual assessment of importance, as opposed to a
social determination of importance?

