5 ms·

[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 log

[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
- digi_owl 10y ago
  I find myself thinking that there could be a middle ground. Keep the article but slap a border or something on it to indicate that it is no a proper wikipedia article. I can't think an article like this takes up much storage capacity on their servers.
  - realityking 10y ago
    The issue is not storage space. Wikipedia wants to be an encyclopaedia, if you want to publish original research, put it on your blog.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
skissane 10y ago
As the person who started the AFD, I don't have anything against Ken Dakin personally, but part of the problem is that he obviously has a bias in analysing the historical significance of his own career. He thinks some (obscure) system he worked on in the early-to-mid-1970s was very similar to what (much more well-known) people did a bit later in the 1970s and into the 1980s (such as VisiCalc). Maybe he's right, but then again maybe what he did isn't actually as close to what those later people did as he thinks (and might even be unfair to those later people); since none of us have seen this 1970s system he worked on, it's a hard question to answer. What's really needed is someone neutral and authoritative to do that evaluation – and searching reliable sources (e.g. academic journals, books from reputable publishers, etc) I can't find anything approaching that. (What little I can find seems more focused on studying on-Wikipedia controversies about WRS than evaluating WRS in its own right.) Deletion is never permanent, and an article deleted from Wikipedia today could be recreated in a few more years if better sources appear for it during that time. (There are journals that cover this stuff; e.g. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing – if someone wrote a paper about this system, and had it published there, Wikipedia could then cite that as a reliable source.)

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

digi_owl 10y ago
I find myself thinking that there could be a middle ground. Keep the article but slap a border or something on it to indicate that it is no a proper wikipedia article. I can't think an article like this takes up much storage capacity on their servers.
- realityking 10y ago
  The issue is not storage space. Wikipedia wants to be an encyclopaedia, if you want to publish original research, put it on your blog.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

skissane 10y ago

As the person who started the AFD, I don't have anything against Ken Dakin personally, but part of the problem is that he obviously has a bias in analysing the historical significance of his own career. He thinks some (obscure) system he worked on in the early-to-mid-1970s was very similar to what (much more well-known) people did a bit later in the 1970s and into the 1980s (such as VisiCalc). Maybe he's right, but then again maybe what he did isn't actually as close to what those later people did as he thinks (and might even be unfair to those later people); since none of us have seen this 1970s system he worked on, it's a hard question to answer. What's really needed is someone neutral and authoritative to do that evaluation – and searching reliable sources (e.g. academic journals, books from reputable publishers, etc) I can't find anything approaching that. (What little I can find seems more focused on studying on-Wikipedia controversies about WRS than evaluating WRS in its own right.) Deletion is never permanent, and an article deleted from Wikipedia today could be recreated in a few more years if better sources appear for it during that time. (There are journals that cover this stuff; e.g. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing – if someone wrote a paper about this system, and had it published there, Wikipedia could then cite that as a reliable source.)