
Computer Science Encyclopedia Can Fill a Gap - carlehewitt
http://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/230860-computer-science-encyclopedia-can-fill-a-gap/fulltext
======
ivan_ah
It's true wikipedia can be hit-or-miss sometimes, but in the STEM fields it's
mostly solid, so not sure why the need to start a new one from scratch. Maybe
just make some initiative to fix existing pages and make them citable?

[http://www.scholarpedia.org/](http://www.scholarpedia.org/) has nice articles
written by experts in the field. Usually pretty good and thorough reviews.

~~~
JdeBP
In computing and computer science it is regularly appalling, even on basic
topics.

The article on wait() et al., for example, is significantly wrong, some of
which is called out on its talk page.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait_(system_call)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait_\(system_call\))

There are similar errors in its article on MAC times.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MAC_times](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MAC_times)

Its article on pax, a standard Unix utility for a fairly long while, is very
misleading too.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pax_(Unix)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pax_\(Unix\))

Its article on CubeHash in 2013 did not include information from 2009.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CubeHash#This_article_is_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CubeHash#This_article_is_years_out_of_date).

I've pointed out errors in its article on systemd, one of which was called out
by one of the systemd authors.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=723240462&oldid=72...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=723240462&oldid=723037068)

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=631112520&oldid=63...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=631112520&oldid=631031336)

The irony of this edit to the NFS article is that in fact the problems and
limitation of NFS with respect to full Unix filesystem semantics were called
out by its authors when they first wrote about it, and _are_ the widespread
view.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Network_File_Syst...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Network_File_System&diff=385927363&oldid=383258055)

Wikipedia people actually tried to delete articles on "Is" functions, C++
placement syntax, and the Process Environment Block.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Placement_syntax)

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Is_functions&diff...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Is_functions&diff=prev&oldid=408628953)

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Process_Environme...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Process_Environment_Block&diff=prev&oldid=375382173)

They in contrast kept an article about a purported computer science concept
that was invented within Wikipedia based upon a vague phrase in a book that
did not in fact describe the Wikipedia concept.

* [http://jdebp.eu./FGA/legacy-encoding-has-no-definition.html](http://jdebp.eu./FGA/legacy-encoding-has-no-definition.html)

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legacy_encoding)

~~~
yesenadam
So did you help make it better?

~~~
lake99
I haven't touched these topics. But in my experience, nearly none of my edits
remained, despite providing credible and neutral sources for whatever I added.
Usually, there are long-term Wikipedia editors who have put plenty of pages on
their watchlist, and treat the pages as their own personal property. Every
tiny change is treated as if it were controversial, and must be fought over in
the talk pages. Beginners to Wikilawyering and WikiBullying lose these fights.
"Anyone can edit" has become a joke.

~~~
JdeBP
I was going to say that computing and computer science topics are free of such
silliness, and that clearly you were editing a far more fraught subject area
such as American current affairs; but:

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Make_Compatible&d...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Make_Compatible&diff=271144968&oldid=271144569)

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Make_Compatible&d...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Make_Compatible&diff=269732413&oldid=269668620)

------
metaphor
> ...supported by appropriate professionally-relevant advertising. ... The
> nonprofit professional Encyclopedia will be self-supporting through
> appropriate professionally-relevant advertising carefully curated for high
> standards using existing advertising programs.

It blows my mind that something which purports to be so important couldn't
find a way to sustain itself without commercial advertising. This isn't about
improving the status quo of CS education; it's about lining the pockets of a
handful while reaping the rewards of volunteer experts.

------
rippeltippel
<quote> There is an important gap in Computer Science education and
professional collaboration that can be filled by an nonprofit online
reputable, referenceable Encyclopedia... </quote>

The author spends a lot of words envisioning the encyclopedia, but says
nothing about what gap needs to be filled.

------
oytis
Uhm... Why? I don't see any gaps here. And the potential ammount of work is
immense.

> Over time, the Encyclopedia should be organized using ontological services
> supporting programmatic interfaces for a knowledge graph.

And this phrase shows how quickly this encyclopedia will become a memorial to
itself rather than a source of up-to-date knowledge.

------
incadenza
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy may be a decent model for this.
Especially for the more conceptual / core areas of CS.

~~~
aggerdom
Link for convenience [1]. I have yet to find anything on par with the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) for other fields. It truly is an amazing,
expert-curated project.

If anyone else has an interest in the semantic web or ontologies [2] in
general, you might have a look at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology project [3].
It works to use data from SEP and other sources to build a ontology of the
field.

[1] [https://plato.stanford.edu/](https://plato.stanford.edu/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_\(information_science\))

[3] [https://www.inphoproject.org/](https://www.inphoproject.org/)

------
blondie9x
I had a nightmare once about something like this. In the dream, I woke up,
went to work, wanted to check something online, found out stackoverflow no
longer existed.

Is it possible we might put too much trust into this one source? I know it is
amazing. I know we love it. But something like this could help.

~~~
tabtab
An open-source and non-profit version of something like StackOverflow would be
nice. Dependence on one commercial company is risky. The now-defunct C2 wiki
had interesting discussions about software engineering, but couldn't really
deal with specific products or languages. Such a tool(s) would probably need
to be split or marked to distinguish between formal research, philosophical
discussions (such as whether to optimize for programmer heads or machines),
and specific languages and tools.

------
StreakyCobra
«The Encyclopedia should be managed by a prestigious Editorial Board which
appoints a hierarchy of editors to moderate articles. [...] Serving as a
member of the Editorial Board could become a prestigious office for senior
professionals to provide their experience and judgment»

Sounds a lot like the current peer-reviewing system and journal editors mafia.
A bunch of old men with their hand on the system and doing the maximum so it
does not change, for their own interest of keeping their position and
dominance of the system.

------
ghusbands
Mr Hewitt has apparently disrupted Wikipedia [1] with excessive self-
interested and self-promoting edits and so is not someone who should be
involved in running a new Encyclopedia

[1]
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/dec/09/wikipedia...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/dec/09/wikipedia.internet)

------
godelmachine
Please don’t forget to launch a PDF/ EPUB version as well. Similar to Usenix’s
full proceedings.

------
ObsoleteNerd
I've always wondered why something like this doesn't yet exist.

Something like a Wikipedia of man pages, programming language documentation
(and official tutorials), answered/archived Stack Overflow questions, etc. A
central (but maybe decentralised) collection of manuals and reference sheets
and all the rest.

So often you go to find something and the site has expired because they gave
up on the project (but it's still being used), or the forum posts have been
deleted, or it's impossible to find because Google has decided you actually
wanted to find <insert something unrelated> and they know better than you do.

An Archive.org for tech info, with machine readable formatting so we can have
a comprehensive search function.

Then throw in a Wikipedia-style packaged archive you can download for
Internet-free local searching and working while traveling or whatever.

------
jalcazar
According to [1] Carl Hewitt, the guy advocating for this encyclopedia has

 _disrupted Wikipedia for more than two years by using it for self-promotion,
tampering with his own biography and manipulating computer science articles to
inflate the importance of his own research._

How would be assured that the members of the "editorial board" of the
encyclopedia wouldn't use it for their own benefit inflating the importance of
their research, like allegedly Carl did?

[1]
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/dec/09/wikipedia...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/dec/09/wikipedia.internet)

------
imranq
Similar to Princeton Companion to Mathematics perhaps?

~~~
cschmidt
Yes, that's exactly what popped into my head. It is just at the right level
for explaining subjects for someone who isn't a specialist.

This is what we're talking about for those not familiar:
[https://press.princeton.edu/titles/8350.html](https://press.princeton.edu/titles/8350.html)

------
JdeBP
All that stuff about registering with real names and having procedures for
fairness and inclusivity _already exists_. M. Hewitt might want to learn about
Citizendium and what has happened to it.

* [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Policies](http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Policies)

------
raincom
They should follow the model of The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy, which
is accessible online for free.

------
hnaccy
Too much talk of prestige and reputation, perhaps unsurprising since it's from
a professional organization.

------
Hermel
> The Encyclopedia must establish procedures to be fair and inclusive on the
> basis of race, sex, religion, age, disability, and national origin.

No, first and foremost the Encyclopedia must establish procedures to ensure
high-quality, accurate, and concise content. Being "fair and inclusive" is a
secondary concern. If it has no users, no one cares whether it is "fair and
inclusive".

~~~
jamesrcole
You've misread the article. It never said such procedures must come before
everything else. What it says is entirely compatible with what you want.

------
sethherr
Ideas don’t matter much, execution is far more important and much harder.

