Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

For evangelists of Nimrod: Take some time and write a page about it on Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be one yet. [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concurrent_and_parallel...




I wrote one. It's in my sandbox [1]. The original article got deleted despite my attempts to keep it alive due to lack of notability [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dom96/sandbox

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod_%28programming_language%...


Offtopic: I f*cking hate the deletionists. I come across articles deleted because of "lack of notability," but if they lacked notability (and I didn't create it), why was I looking for it. They make the whole of Wikipedia much worse than it would be otherwise and prevent me from contributing even more money and time to Wikipedia.


Here's the AfD for Nimrod:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion...

Note that at the time this was submitted, all the sourcing for the article came from either web pages from the project itself, or forum posts.


It seems to me that the deletion criteria is highly biased. I have given examples of other programming language articles in that AfD which have only a few references or none at all and they are still there.

I am very confused as to when a programming language is notable enough to be present on wikipedia. Perhaps you can explain?


This argument happens so often there's a shorthand for it on WP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (ie, WP:OSE).

The short answer is, those other articles without references should also be put up for AfD.

The intended outcome of the AfD process isn't deletion; it's "delete unless we can find better sources", and proponents of the article are asked to find those sources. Here, the only external source found was a conference presentation by the author of the language, who was himself not WP-notable, at a conference in which most of the other presentations were also about prima facie non-notable languages.


    en·cy·clo·pe·dic
    enˌsīkləˈpēdik/
        adjective
        1.comprehensive in terms of information.
I personally think that an online encyclopedia should err on the side of being, er, encyclopedic. If an article is clearly cited, the citations are valid, and the quality is sufficient, I don't see a reason to delete. It's not like disk space is prohibitively expensive.


Well, that's the whole crux of the matter. Since truly comprehensive is not possible, where do you draw the line?

Ward Cunningham, who invented the wiki, said this [1] about the fight, which I think provides a pretty good way of deciding what stays, what goes:

"I think that Wikipedia has been handling that [issue] fairly well. We could talk to people who are a little closer to the day-to-day Wikipedia and they could probably even correct me on this, but I think the more important notion is notable. The community has to agree upon what the criterion of notability is, and that's only because, there are forms of abuse that arise from non-notable people feigning notability. And that's the fight. And once you start fighting that fight, you find all kinds of stuff that doesn't pass muster that wasn't hurting anybody. And you say, well, in the sense of fairness, I've got to delete it too. And that's a tough thing."

[1] http://www.drdobbs.com/240000393?pgno=2


> and that's only because, there are forms of abuse that arise from non-notable people feigning notability.

I'm not understanding why this is important. If someone wants to write well cited articles about their personal exploits, I see no issue.


The Wikipedia project has been explaining for over a decade what the problems are here. Meanwhile, writing a "well-cited article" about ones "personal exploits" isn't actually a problem: if you have reliable sources, you can defend an article on Wikipedia easily.


And what is a reliable source? Often times blog posts don't count, and the Delitionists want publications, which won't exist for many issues.

Why not just put the "This article isn't well cited" banner on the page? why not delete it?


> and proponents of the article are asked to find those sources.

Strictly, people putting the articles up for deletion are also asked to find sources first. Some of them do, and delete as a last resort. Others, not so much, and they want to delete a lot.


I'm not seeing your point and I don't think you see mine.

There are better methods than deletion for handling situations like this.


Like what? Finding better sources? People tried. Are there better sources, or is Nimrod simply not "that" notable yet?


Are there better sources, or is Nimrod simply not "that" notable yet?

Or we could acknowledge that there are different reasonable standards for "notability" that apply in different contexts. The idea that something isn't "notable" unless it's been written about in the NY Times, WaPo, Financial Times, etc., is just not relevant to (most) software and related projects.

And if the Deletionists have "won" and there's no way to get this stuff on Wikipedia, there should be a way to use web-based technology to do something, like, oh, I don't know, some kind of federation / syndication approach where the corresponding article "exists" on Wikipedia but transparently redirects to the corresponding content on programming-languages-wiki.com or whatever.

C'mon, we can do better than just deleting stuff because we're adhering to some outdated, archaic notions about what is or isn't "notable".


That's not the Wikipedia notability standard at all! Here's WP:N:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

There are specific (broadening) rules for some specific article categories, but the general rule is:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

The big thing that trips up hackers in articles about technology is "reliability" of sources, which you can imagine is a topic that has been discussed on WP probably in greater depth than in any venue in the world and perhaps all of human history, some of which coverage is here, in WP:RS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Suffice it to say, the standard is NOT "The Washington Post".


I've read that, but thanks for sharing.


I don't understand how you can read that and then state that the standard for sourcing on WP is "the New York Times". The links I provided contradict your claim.


then state that the standard for sourcing on WP is "the New York Times"

I didn't state that the NTY is the standard. I am talking about the arguments usually offered up by the deletionists in the afd discussions, where they typically try to insist (and usually somewhat successfully) that a source needs to have the gravitas of the NTY, WaPo, etc., to be accepted. Yeah, it's bullshit, and I wish all those guys would read the above links, but it doesn't seem to happen.

So, you have the written de jure standard, as documented, and then you have the actual de facto standard which - often times - is quite different.

It doesn't help that the reliable sources guidelines hint at a bias towards "news sources" as a preferred source, in saying:

"News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact


The problem goes both ways, because the proponents of bogus arguments use superficial blog posts and even press releases as sources for their stories. Either way: it is clear on the 2013 Wikipedia that the bar for "reliable source" isn't "major newspaper citation".

Something people don't like to acknowledge in these arguments is that for every "Nimrod (Programming Language)" whose inclusion into WP would be harmless or even beneficial, there are 100 bullshit spam company promotion pages lawyering the rules of the site to keep their site bolted to the top of Google for some term they invented.

The news media is easy to cite, easier than many other sources, because the fundamental thing Wikipedia is looking for in a reliable source is a notion of editorial responsibility, and the news media is the world's canonical reference for "written accounts with editorial responsibility". But there are others as well.


Please tell me where the "written accounts with editorial responsibility" are for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language) (I only see one that fits your criteria from InformationWeek, does that one reference mean the rest of the page should be deleted? and just one or two sentences kept?). And before you say OSE, should Go not be in Wikipedia?

Perhaps we simply have very different and incompatible goals of what we want Wikipedia to be.

Also, Wikipedia already puts rel=nofollow in its links. Also, why would someone want their site to appear at the top of Google for a term noöne uses? If they really push and advertise the term enough to make that worth-while, then it'll get talked about in other venues as well.


The article makes a direct assertion of notability: it's the product of Ken Thompson and Rob Pike (both already notable), and is in use in production systems at Google. It backs both claims up with reliable sources. And then, yes, it also includes stories from TechCrunch and Information Week, in addition to the TIOBE Language of the Year thing.

It's funny you brought it up, because Golang was nominated for AfD (go look at the Talk page), and even more sources were found; they just apparently weren't relevant to the article.

On the other hand: nobody seems to be able to find any sources for Nimrod.


Something people don't like to acknowledge in these arguments is that for every "Nimrod (Programming Language)" whose inclusion into WP would be harmless or even beneficial, there are 100 bullshit spam company promotion pages lawyering the rules of the site to keep their site bolted to the top of Google for some term they invented.

That's a legitimate concern and I don't claim to have all the answers for all the problems that face Wikipedia. But I remain convinced that "context matters" and that, in context, Nimrod is notable enough that it should be in Wikipedia. Finding a way to reflect that distinction to the satisfaction of all parties involved is an open problem, granted.


That's really not true though, at least from my experience!

In the AFD that is exampled here, the only sources offered were of the form of blogs and forum posts etc. Wikipedia has quite clear and explicit rules against those sorts of sources (for establishing notability) for very well explained reasons.

I've always been a bit rolly-eyes at situations like this...

Niche wikis are easy to start and can be well-maintained. I bet a programming wiki would be well serviced with a bit of effort.

Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia that has rules designed to cover lots of content, but in such a way as to try and ensure it is as accurate and non-fancrufty as possible. Sometimes notable topics get pushed out on technicalities, sometimes fancruft sneaks in. It's an imperfect system, but in general there is a lot of information there.

Unfortunately there is a perception that Wikipedia is the place to be; and individuals with no investment other than to mention (I'm avoiding the word promote because of the connotations) their favourite topic pop their content in expecting it to be fine.

It's a little like the old forum ettiquette of the 90's - you didn't hope into a forum and start posting about your new programming language without first checking the forum rules to see if it was okay.

The Wikimedia Community is also a great curator for niche Wikis (see Wikinews, Wikiversity, Wikiquote, Wiktionary et al.). They recently took on a couple of travel wiki communities.

The programming community is dedicated, large, and relatively well educated - there is no reason a Programming Wiki wouldn't work. It would, however, take time and effort for a group to bootstrap - and unfortunately Wikipedia is not the way to sidestep that leg work.

(speaking as a long term editor with several featured articles; so hence biased!)


That's really not true though, at least from my experience!

All I can say is that my experience clearly differs from yours then. But I tend to get involved in the controversial afd discussions a lot, for some reason.

In the AFD that is exampled here, the only sources offered were of the form of blogs and forum posts etc. Wikipedia has quite clear and explicit rules against those sorts of sources (for establishing notability) for very well explained reasons.

Again, "context matters". We need to find a way to incorporate that point. We can't just wave our hands, dismiss all blog posts and primary sources, and reject everything on those grounds. For a programming language (not just nimrod, but many languages) you just aren't going to get a lot of other sources. But, in context, they are notable and the sources are credible.

I'm not claiming to have a final answer to all of this, but I sense that we can do better.


So your solution is to fork Wikipedia into smaller and smaller pieces? These seems like a bad idea.

Also, I don't know who created the original page, but how do you know it wasn't someone not on the core dev team? Perhaps everyone involved _did_ follow the rules, but interpreted "notability" differently.

Also, don't go all appeal to authority on us. I've been an editor for over 7 years now.


Like nothing, there is no problem with it. Just leave it alone. This whole "oh god we're the sum of all human knowledge please give us money" tripe is a bit hard to swallow when there's more information getting deleted than being created.


There are problems with it.

The simplest problem is that the whole charter of WP is to cover notable topics with reliable sources; that's the idea behind the project and has been forever.

One practical problem with it is that when none of your sources are independent or notable, disinterested parties can't fact-check anything, and the encyclopedia is only as accurate as cliques of interested editors choose to make it.

Once again, your argument relitigates the whole concept of WP. You don't have to like the concept, but you can't pretend that their adherence to their own charter is somehow a sign of dysfunction.


As I said: This whole "oh god we're the sum of all human knowledge please give us money" tripe is a bit hard to swallow when there's more information getting deleted than being created. If they don't want to be judged on that basis, then they need to stop making that claim. Say "we're a tiny subset of information that a particular clique of individuals approves of". Don't say one thing when begging for money and another when deleting useful content.


It's pretty silly that a talk at Strange Loop somehow isn't evidence of notability because it was given by the primary developer of the language. Of course he gave the talk: he's the best person to! The fact that the conference organizers accepted the talk is what makes it notable.


Most of the languages presented at the last Strange Loop don't appear to have WP pages, and, reading their descriptions, you can see why: they're more in the nature of academic experiments than notable programming languages. WP also doesn't have a page for every major experiment by every well-known CS researcher.


WP also doesn't have a page for every major experiment by every well-known CS researcher.

We can fix that...


If you want to spend a lot of time in AfD arguments, sure; you'd surely get some good pages added, and you'd do the project a pretty big favor. Go for it!


I dared to recreate it. May those uninformed deletionists come again.

So far the new/old page got one positive review.


And virtually every source for the article is a pointer back to Nimrod's website. That's not going to work. Could you maybe find better sources?


I've removed it again, sorry; this is not the way to fix the problem. Mostly all you're going to do is stir up bad feeling (especially with that attitude) and end up getting the article title protected from recreation.

Unpleasant.

The Wikipedia community has agreed a set of rules for creating articles. In this case the community review noted that no independent sourcing covered this language. If a deleted article is recreated substantially the same, it is removed.

So, there are correct options... (I appreciate from outside the community it is not always clear what they are - so a list!)

* Find those sorts of sources

* Ask for a review of the deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV

* Work to clarify Wikipedia's specific notability rules for Software (here's a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOFTWARE)

* Fork Wikipedia and write about programming languages (I'm a big proponent of this, but no one seems willing to make the effort).

I see no reason in time, and there is plenty of time, that Nimrod won't obtain the sort of coverage that merits coverage in a general encyclopaedia.


>I've removed it again, sorry; this is not the way to fix the problem. Mostly all you're going to do is stir up bad feeling (especially with that attitude) and end up getting the article title protected from recreation.

> Unpleasant

That's right, deleting it again is unpleasant and no way to fix the problem and is a good way to stir up bad feelings and screwing over the topic from ever having a decent page.

> The Wikipedia community has agreed a set of rules for creating articles. In this case the community review noted that no independent sourcing covered this language. If a deleted article is recreated substantially the same, it is removed.

Independent sources do, the Deletionists, like yourself, just don't like them.

> I see no reason in time, and there is plenty of time, that Nimrod won't obtain the sort of coverage that merits coverage in a general encyclopaedia.

What type of coverage is that? What type of coverage could a programming language get that would allow it to be part of Wikipedia? Even Go only has a single newsworthy citation, the rest of blogs and its own site.

> * Fork Wikipedia and write about programming languages (I'm a big proponent of this, but no one seems willing to make the effort).

Because it's a stupid idea not to have at least basic information on wikipedia about these language. There are projects that aim to do that, e.g. http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code so perhaps you should get off your high horse.


> Because it's a stupid idea not to have at least basic information on wikipedia about these language.

Why? Why is it stupid? Why does Wikipedia have to cover it?

This argument could be extended to everything. My company, that I work for, why couldn't I cover that using the couple of blogs about it and our own site?

Once you make this argument the scope of Wikipedia expands dramatically (remember, it is a founding principle that Wikipedia is curated not an indiscriminate collection).

If you're arguing that the notability rules are problematic for programming languages and need to be revised, then I agree.

Simply recreating articles is not going to affect that, leading to inconsistent results and well meaning efforts to clean up content causing this sort of confrontation.

Don't just drop content over and over in the hope that it will stay, that's not a workable approach. And, yes, it is rude. Throwing out ad hominems because you didn't get your way is also not very nice. Engage in the community, bring together some solid guidelines, and then create the content that meets those guidelines.

I've given you the starting base to bring those changes about - if you want to take that and go with it then please do make the effort.

If your position is that Wikipedia should cover everything, ever, then you're at odds with the Wikipedia community and should fork it (but I'd suggest you'll soon realise why those rules exist!).


> I've removed it again, sorry; this is not the way to fix the problem. Mostly all you're going to do is stir up bad feeling (especially with that attitude) and end up getting the article title protected from recreation.

You can say whatever you like, but due to such policies (e.g. rm-ing article about Django EDMS, I stopped donating to Wikipedia!


Can we somehow support adding it? How does it work on Wikipedia..


It doesn't. There is a small cadre of Deletionists who go out of their way to kill off pages referring to programming languages. There was one bloke who single-handedly deleted dozens; I cannot now recall his name but it caused a helluva storm at the time. He was totally unrepentant.


It caused a hell of a storm because someone decided to organize a witch hunt against the guy, resulting in an extremely embarrassing HN thread in which a bunch of HN people who should have known better decided to spend an evening insulting someone they didn't know.

When you understand Wikipedia's charter, it's easy to understand why new programming languages are a tricky thing to write about: there are a lot of them, and most of them are not encyclopedia-notable. The arguments in favor of them all seem to involve relitigating the entire charter of Wikipedia to make room for new programming languages.


The cause of the controversy is that there are multiple interpretations of the charter, only one of which is "well it's not in the NYT or my pet journal, delete it before it costs us millionths of a cent".


I dispute that. I think the two interpretations that are conflicting are those of the project, and then those of outsiders to the project and a small group of enabling insiders who are themselves attacking the premise of their own project.


I also hate those Deletionists who have no clue about what they are talking about, use no real names, but still are allowed to make decisions like this. In open source you could fork it, but unfortunately this doesn't work like this in Wikipedia.


Please: fork Wikipedia content into a programming wiki. That would be awesome!


Rosetta Code[1] could become such a wiki. If the main pages for languages were fleshed out (or add a new page per language) with language features. It certainly has a diverse enough selection of examples tasks to provide a neat comparison of each language.

[1] http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code

[2] http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Category:Nimrod




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: