6 ms·

This is currently up for deletion, because it has nearly nothing in the way of good sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Works

This is currently up for deletion, because it has nearly nothing in the way of good sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Works_Records_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... If this is significant, then the way to help it along is to dig out Wikipedia-quality sources for this software. Someone must have something ...

agumonkey 10y ago
Surely there are people on HN that know about it and can pitch in ... I hope so.
- honua 10y ago
  > I strongly suspect this article was created by Ken Dakin, who it appears has chosen to use Wikipedia to document the achievements of his career. We have recently deleted two articles which he created for a similar purpose; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM OLIVER (CICS interactive test/debug) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SIMON (Batch Interactive test/debug). Maybe Ken is an HN user? ;)
  - agumonkey 10y ago
    What if, instead of deleting odd or bad behavior, wikipedia had pages for them. Like companies paying editors to polish or lie on their page. Or people being their own fanbase.
    - zyxley 10y ago
      /User:Whatevername/Page_goes_here
    - douche 10y ago
      Not sure if sarcastic, since there are already Wikipedia editors paid to polish and lie on the pages of public figures.
      - agumonkey 10y ago
        I meant that IIUC wikipedia deal with this by reverting the changes, but I would make pages that list odd behaviors too instead of deleting. After all it's also a piece of information. And that would make people less inclined to attempt BS in the first place.
pascalmemories 10y ago
[edit: I see a comment attributes creation to Ken Dakin instead of Dr. Robert Mais. I've made some adjustments as a result.] Sometimes I cannot fathom the logic of Wikipedia, especially wanting to delete this article. From my understanding of the discussion, this is because the entry was made by one of the development team of WRS. That's the same logic that would have articles created by Albert Einstein deleted because he was documenting his own work and that alone is sufficient reason to discard it, regardless of the actual content or how noteworthy it is/was. I find the logic perverse as it actively discriminates against potentially valuable information being documented and detailed by original creators; the WRS gives good prior art on some uses of spreadsheet concepts (especially across time dimensions). You don't need to think too much to understand the value in documenting such a concept, especially by the creator/first implementor (which in normal mortal circles would be considered a coup). While the intention is to stop any random person filling wikipedia with their random nonsense thoughts, it seems quite evident from a quick review of the article that it has merit on a number of levels. I wonder what Ken Dakin did to upset the Wiki-Overlords?
- rabidrat 10y ago
  Can Ken just put up that content as his own webpage, which Wikipedia can then reference as a primary source?
  - aeontech 10y ago
    No, Wikipedia does not accept first-party posts as notable, from my understanding. Me mentioning it on my personal blog would also be insufficient, it has to be a third-party publication that is itself notable enough.
- raphman_ 10y ago
  While I would identify as Wikipedia inclusionist [1], I find this article quite problematic. It is (quite) impossible for a reader to verify any of the claims made in the article. Five years ago, someone (probably Ken Dakin) wrote this article and no other person on the whole planet earth has apparently been able or willing to add information or support the claims of the article. For all that we know, the WRS might just be an elaborate hoax [2] or part of a plot by someone who hates VisiCalc. (A quick Google search turned up some further sources that suggest that at least someone calling himself Ken Dakin actually exists and claims to have worked on WRS [3].) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_i... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wi... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXA_kwrkxA0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXA_kwrkxA0
niftich 10y ago
Until additional sources are found, you can export the article with full history and back it up somewhere public and immutable (e.g. github, pastebin), so that the content isn't forever lost when the article is deleted. Include the original license. Perhaps there are other, subject-specific wikis where this content would be considered welcome and notable.
HarryHirsch 10y ago
Back then, people had homepages to document their achievements. Before that, oral history would be written up in conference proceedings. Stuff doesn't have to go into Wikipedia, which seems ever more passé as time wears on.
thrkw123456789 10y ago
I read the discussion. Even if well sourced this is likely to be deleted by 'consensus' that it is not 'notable'. This is just another example of why I've given up on Wikipedia. The notability trolls are just one of the species of jobsworths damaging a public good. Notability is a POV based notion. And no I'm not going to spend several hours digging into sources just for someone that knows nothing about the subject to delete the article.

agumonkey 10y ago

Surely there are people on HN that know about it and can pitch in ... I hope so.

honua 10y ago
> I strongly suspect this article was created by Ken Dakin, who it appears has chosen to use Wikipedia to document the achievements of his career. We have recently deleted two articles which he created for a similar purpose; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM OLIVER (CICS interactive test/debug) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SIMON (Batch Interactive test/debug). Maybe Ken is an HN user? ;)
- agumonkey 10y ago
  What if, instead of deleting odd or bad behavior, wikipedia had pages for them. Like companies paying editors to polish or lie on their page. Or people being their own fanbase.
  - zyxley 10y ago
    /User:Whatevername/Page_goes_here
  - douche 10y ago
    Not sure if sarcastic, since there are already Wikipedia editors paid to polish and lie on the pages of public figures.
    - agumonkey 10y ago
      I meant that IIUC wikipedia deal with this by reverting the changes, but I would make pages that list odd behaviors too instead of deleting. After all it's also a piece of information. And that would make people less inclined to attempt BS in the first place.

pascalmemories 10y ago

[edit: I see a comment attributes creation to Ken Dakin instead of Dr. Robert Mais. I've made some adjustments as a result.] Sometimes I cannot fathom the logic of Wikipedia, especially wanting to delete this article. From my understanding of the discussion, this is because the entry was made by one of the development team of WRS. That's the same logic that would have articles created by Albert Einstein deleted because he was documenting his own work and that alone is sufficient reason to discard it, regardless of the actual content or how noteworthy it is/was. I find the logic perverse as it actively discriminates against potentially valuable information being documented and detailed by original creators; the WRS gives good prior art on some uses of spreadsheet concepts (especially across time dimensions). You don't need to think too much to understand the value in documenting such a concept, especially by the creator/first implementor (which in normal mortal circles would be considered a coup). While the intention is to stop any random person filling wikipedia with their random nonsense thoughts, it seems quite evident from a quick review of the article that it has merit on a number of levels. I wonder what Ken Dakin did to upset the Wiki-Overlords?

rabidrat 10y ago
Can Ken just put up that content as his own webpage, which Wikipedia can then reference as a primary source?
- aeontech 10y ago
  No, Wikipedia does not accept first-party posts as notable, from my understanding. Me mentioning it on my personal blog would also be insufficient, it has to be a third-party publication that is itself notable enough.
raphman_ 10y ago
While I would identify as Wikipedia inclusionist [1], I find this article quite problematic. It is (quite) impossible for a reader to verify any of the claims made in the article. Five years ago, someone (probably Ken Dakin) wrote this article and no other person on the whole planet earth has apparently been able or willing to add information or support the claims of the article. For all that we know, the WRS might just be an elaborate hoax [2] or part of a plot by someone who hates VisiCalc. (A quick Google search turned up some further sources that suggest that at least someone calling himself Ken Dakin actually exists and claims to have worked on WRS [3].) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_i... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wi... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXA_kwrkxA0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXA_kwrkxA0

niftich 10y ago

Until additional sources are found, you can export the article with full history and back it up somewhere public and immutable (e.g. github, pastebin), so that the content isn't forever lost when the article is deleted. Include the original license. Perhaps there are other, subject-specific wikis where this content would be considered welcome and notable.

HarryHirsch 10y ago

Back then, people had homepages to document their achievements. Before that, oral history would be written up in conference proceedings. Stuff doesn't have to go into Wikipedia, which seems ever more passé as time wears on.

thrkw123456789 10y ago

I read the discussion. Even if well sourced this is likely to be deleted by 'consensus' that it is not 'notable'. This is just another example of why I've given up on Wikipedia. The notability trolls are just one of the species of jobsworths damaging a public good. Notability is a POV based notion. And no I'm not going to spend several hours digging into sources just for someone that knows nothing about the subject to delete the article.