5 ms·

Found this hilarious: > This post is packed with so much history and information that I feel like some citations need be added > I am the reference (extracte

Found this hilarious: > This post is packed with so much history and information that I feel like some citations need be added > I am the reference (extracted a part of the conversation)

FartyMcFarter 3y ago
"I'm the one who knocks".
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  "I am the hype."
tyingq 3y ago
Maybe a spoiler, but the "I" in "I am the reference" is Mark Adler: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Adler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Adler
- signaru 3y ago
  It's awesome how he is active on stack overflow for almost anything DEFLATE related. I once tried stuffing deflate compressed vector graphics into PDFs. Among other things, it turns out an Adler-32 checksum is necessary for compliance (some newer PDF viewers will ignore its absence though).
whalesalad 3y ago
Reminds me of when I was inadvertently arguing here on HN with the inventor of the actor model about what actors are
- chupasaurus 3y ago
  Oh, I remember that conversation, it was fun.
- demondemidi 3y ago
  That sounds like something I’d do too. If that makes you feel better.
gmgmgmgmgm 3y ago
That's disallowed on Wikipedia. There, you must reference some "source". That "source" doesn't need to be reliable or correct, it just needs to be some random website that's not the actual person. First sources are disallowed.
- kibwen 3y ago
  And that's for good reason. Encyclopedias are supposed to be tertiary sources, not primary sources. Having an explicit cited reference makes it easier to judge the veracity of a statement compared to digging through the page history to figure out if a line was added by a person who happens to be an expert.
  - msla 3y ago
    And then there's impostors, which people who denigrate sourcing rules never seem to even think of.
  - JadeNB 3y ago
    > And that's for good reason. Encyclopedias are supposed to be tertiary sources, not primary sources. Having an explicit cited reference makes it easier to judge the veracity of a statement compared to digging through the page history to figure out if a line was added by a person who happens to be an expert. But why is a reference to "[1] Blog post by XXX" (or, even worse, "[1] Blog post by YYY based on their tentative understanding of XXX") a more authoritative source than "[1] Added to Wikipedia personally by XXX"? Of course, Wikipedia potentially has no proof that the editor was actually XXX in the latter case; but they have even less proof that a blog post purporting to be by XXX actually is.
    - kibwen 3y ago
      > Wikipedia potentially has no proof that the editor was actually XXX in the latter case; but they have even less proof that a blog post purporting to be by XXX actually is. Wikipedia is not an authoritative identity layer, it provides no proof of identity and is thus strictly weaker than any other proof you can come up with. If you don't trust any arbitrary website that Wikipedia cites, then you have no more reason to trust any arbitrary Wikipedia editor. As for what tertiary sources are and why they prefer not to cite primary sources in the first place, Wikipedia goes over this in their own guidelines: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_resear...

Found this hilarious: > This post is packed with so much history and information that I feel like some citations need be added > I am the reference (extracted a part of the conversation)

FartyMcFarter 3y ago

"I'm the one who knocks".

matheusmoreira 3y ago
"I am the hype."

tyingq 3y ago

Maybe a spoiler, but the "I" in "I am the reference" is Mark Adler: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Adler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Adler

signaru 3y ago
It's awesome how he is active on stack overflow for almost anything DEFLATE related. I once tried stuffing deflate compressed vector graphics into PDFs. Among other things, it turns out an Adler-32 checksum is necessary for compliance (some newer PDF viewers will ignore its absence though).

whalesalad 3y ago

Reminds me of when I was inadvertently arguing here on HN with the inventor of the actor model about what actors are

chupasaurus 3y ago
Oh, I remember that conversation, it was fun.
demondemidi 3y ago
That sounds like something I’d do too. If that makes you feel better.

gmgmgmgmgm 3y ago

That's disallowed on Wikipedia. There, you must reference some "source". That "source" doesn't need to be reliable or correct, it just needs to be some random website that's not the actual person. First sources are disallowed.

kibwen 3y ago
And that's for good reason. Encyclopedias are supposed to be tertiary sources, not primary sources. Having an explicit cited reference makes it easier to judge the veracity of a statement compared to digging through the page history to figure out if a line was added by a person who happens to be an expert.
- msla 3y ago
  And then there's impostors, which people who denigrate sourcing rules never seem to even think of.
- JadeNB 3y ago
  > And that's for good reason. Encyclopedias are supposed to be tertiary sources, not primary sources. Having an explicit cited reference makes it easier to judge the veracity of a statement compared to digging through the page history to figure out if a line was added by a person who happens to be an expert. But why is a reference to "[1] Blog post by XXX" (or, even worse, "[1] Blog post by YYY based on their tentative understanding of XXX") a more authoritative source than "[1] Added to Wikipedia personally by XXX"? Of course, Wikipedia potentially has no proof that the editor was actually XXX in the latter case; but they have even less proof that a blog post purporting to be by XXX actually is.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    > Wikipedia potentially has no proof that the editor was actually XXX in the latter case; but they have even less proof that a blog post purporting to be by XXX actually is. Wikipedia is not an authoritative identity layer, it provides no proof of identity and is thus strictly weaker than any other proof you can come up with. If you don't trust any arbitrary website that Wikipedia cites, then you have no more reason to trust any arbitrary Wikipedia editor. As for what tertiary sources are and why they prefer not to cite primary sources in the first place, Wikipedia goes over this in their own guidelines: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_resear...