6 ms·
Plan A only bothers whomever tries to maintain [[List of esoteric programming languages]] or wherever you pick as a battleground. I know it sounds to you like
by mukyu 16y ago
Plan A only bothers whomever tries to maintain [[List of esoteric programming languages]] or wherever you pick as a battleground. I know it sounds to you like you can really "stick it to the man" and they will swoon over your brillant tactics and relent, but you will only bother people that actually care about esolangs in the first place and Monsanto certainly isn't going to be around. The best you can hope for is some people get blocked and pages protected.
Wikipedia's policies would consider it self-published. It does not matter that you would be writing about languages that you are not affiliated with. Again, you are not going to change Wikipedia's policies by pointing out that Wikipedia itself is self-published in their eyes.
I think you are vastly overestimating the number of people that have even heard, much less care about these esoteric languages.
I do not know why you ascribe these emotions to me, but they are not in the least accurate. I do not think my personal opinion on this set of articles is at all significant. I do not care about them, either way.
Frankly, what disturbs me is how you have very strong opinions about how Wikipedia does or should work with an incredibly superficial actual understanding. For example, why do you argue over how Wikipedia sees Lulu? Have you even read Wikipedia's policy on Reliable Sources or Verifiability? It is not as if Lulu itself or other things like it are new. It has been debated a number of times and at length. You have no knowledge of the issue and provide no insight.
- zedshaw 16y agoWell so far you've just thrown out proclamations without any references backing what you say. I mean, you're some random dude on a forum who's basically repeated what I've said and went "WRONG!". How insightful.
- mukyu 16y agoI'm sorry that you are incapable of taking 5 minutes to find read the specific Wikipedia policy pages that mentioned by name. Just because you know nothing about subjects and like to bullshit about them on the internet does not mean that everyone else does the same. Since you mostly seem to be interested in hearing yourself speak I will not engage you further.
- bxr 16y agoI'm sorry that you're incapable of taking the 5 seconds to realize that the overabundance of specific Wikipedia policy pages are the reason why people have given up trying to fix it from within and are content to lob stones from outside without digging into the rules. Just because you know so goddamn much about policies and the like, doesn't mean anybody else cares. Since you mostly seem to be interested in seeing yourself further existing bureaucracy and not IAR to create the best a resource for wikipeida users, I will engage you in a futile attempt to point out the reason that people are not doing what you ask.
- whateverer 16y agoWell, it seems like you haven't had much exposure to Wikipedia's user-contributed 'guidelines', for which you should be thankful... Wikipedia has lots of rules to prevent their other rules from being refuted, giving leverage to insiders when discussing decisions. Case in point: * Disruption to make a point, which would be used to shoot down Plan A - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POINT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POINT * Strict invocation of the rules - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LAWYER http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LAWYER * 'Gaming the system' in general. See how they forbid pointing out contradictions in the application of the rules! - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system I can see how the spirit of them was to lubricate discussion and decision making, but when you have such a complex etiquette which can be used to silence newcomers upon breach, you have just a recipe for abuse.