3 ms·

Thanks! If you look at his (logged-in) edits on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Scarlsen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Co

by svat 1y ago

Thanks! If you look at his (logged-in) edits on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Scarlsen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Scarlsen ), then apart from the lone comment on the talk page (about the reason for "42") and creating that user page, he has two edits to the TIFF article: - one of them clarifies the (non-)involvement of Microsoft: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TIFF&diff=prev&oldid=160130913 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TIFF&diff=prev&ol... - and the other is even more interesting: though he is being scrupulous and removing a sentence that has no published citations, in his edit summary he confirms that it is basically true: > The author of the original TIFF specification wanted TIFF to stand for "The Image File Format", but he was overruled by Aldus' president Paul Brainerd on the grounds that it sounded presumptuous. (The edit summary says: Removed the "The Image File Format" sentence, since it only has eye-witness support (me, for one), but no published citatations)

vanderZwan 1y ago
Ok so then we could technically edit it back in since he's a primary source, right?
- Cthulhu_ 1y ago
  Technically yes, but I'm fairly sure Wikipedia wants cited sources, not "I'm the guy, I said so" anecdotal sources. Of course, if he was still alive he could have written a blog post or something like that and use that as a source, much like how it's likely this blog post will be used as a source for things surrounding the format and person.
- wongarsu 1y ago
  That would be what Wikipedia calls "original research". A big no-no on wikipedia. At a minimum he would have to tweet or blog about it and link the tweet or blog. And even then that's a primary source, which wikipedia considers less valuable. Ideally he would get someone else to report on his tweet/blog and use that as source. Then the wikipedia gods are happy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
  - beAbU 1y ago
    So can we use this conversation on HN as a secondary source, and edit the deletion back in citing Hacker News?
- svat 1y ago
  It's been a few years since I edited Wikipedia seriously, but the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is/was “verifiability, not truth” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_t...) – what matters is not whether something is true, but whether it has been published in a reliable source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources). Accordingly, Wikipedia tries to be based on secondary sources (rather than primary and tertiary ones). The relevant section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...) says, among other things: > Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care and I imagine a Wikipedia edit summary does not count as a reliable source. (For one thing, despite it being very plausible that the Wikipedia user Scarlsen who signed himself as Stephen E Carlsen is indeed that person—I believe it completely!—it cannot be guaranteed that it wasn't an impostor, for example.)

by svat 1y ago

vanderZwan 1y ago

Ok so then we could technically edit it back in since he's a primary source, right?

Cthulhu_ 1y ago
Technically yes, but I'm fairly sure Wikipedia wants cited sources, not "I'm the guy, I said so" anecdotal sources. Of course, if he was still alive he could have written a blog post or something like that and use that as a source, much like how it's likely this blog post will be used as a source for things surrounding the format and person.
wongarsu 1y ago
That would be what Wikipedia calls "original research". A big no-no on wikipedia. At a minimum he would have to tweet or blog about it and link the tweet or blog. And even then that's a primary source, which wikipedia considers less valuable. Ideally he would get someone else to report on his tweet/blog and use that as source. Then the wikipedia gods are happy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
- beAbU 1y ago
  So can we use this conversation on HN as a secondary source, and edit the deletion back in citing Hacker News?
svat 1y ago
It's been a few years since I edited Wikipedia seriously, but the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is/was “verifiability, not truth” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_t...) – what matters is not whether something is true, but whether it has been published in a reliable source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources). Accordingly, Wikipedia tries to be based on secondary sources (rather than primary and tertiary ones). The relevant section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...) says, among other things: > Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care and I imagine a Wikipedia edit summary does not count as a reliable source. (For one thing, despite it being very plausible that the Wikipedia user Scarlsen who signed himself as Stephen E Carlsen is indeed that person—I believe it completely!—it cannot be guaranteed that it wasn't an impostor, for example.)