5 ms·

If I've got this right: programming these days -- especially niche areas -- meshes poorly with Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources and notability, which

by andai 4mo ago

If I've got this right: programming these days -- especially niche areas -- meshes poorly with Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources and notability, which were designed mostly with traditional media in mind. e.g. a company saying they use a language is not considered a good source because it's a primary source? Not sure if I'm getting that part right. The most interesting part to me: Wikipedia has a bunch of languages that were used by like one person, because there is published material on them, while languages used by thousands of people today get deleted because they fail Wikipedia's specific definition of notability. And they're reluctant to change that because they expect it would lead to a flood of wannabes making articles about their hobby language.

kibibu 4mo ago
I genuinely don't think Malbolge, for example, warrants a Wikipedia page if Odin doesn't
- fluoridation 4mo ago
  Malbolge is basically a meme, and Wikipedia does have articles for memes. Speaking for myself, I have heard about Malbolge, and not about Odin.
- JBits 4mo ago
  Perhaps it is because Malbolge is notable within the category of esolangs.
  - lifthrasiir 4mo ago
    As an actual esolang enthusiast (and a past Wikipedia administrator two decades ago), I can say that Malbolge is only notable because it remained unsolved for the extended period only due to the lack of serious attempts. It doesn't even pass the meme criteria IMO.
    - dickiedyce 4mo ago
      Although, didn’t it appear in a popular culture reference? I seem to remember an episode of “elementary“ that mentioned it.
      - lifthrasiir 4mo ago
        Oh, sure, the "In Popular Culture" section is a prerequisite for every Wikipedia article. ;-) In seriousness though, the Malbolge article (2003) significantly predates the TV series in question (2012--2019). I wouldn't be surprised that writers got the info from Wikipedia.
        HappyPanacea 4mo ago
        A form of Citogenesis although here it is about notability instead (notabilitogensesis is mouthful unfortunately)
w10-1 4mo ago
In wikipedia-land, I read "primary source" as "motivated source", given their need to prune biased edits.
- netbioserror 4mo ago
  The fatal flaw here being that secondary sources and tertiary ad infinitum are all always motivated. It's inescapable.
  - Dfol 4mo ago
    Yep, good point.
wavemode 4mo ago
You've almost got it, except: > Wikipedia has a bunch of languages that were used by like one person, because there is published material on them No. It's more like, there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines AT ALL, but when you write an article on Wikipedia and enough time passes without anyone noticing that the article is poorly sourced, then eventually the tendency of Wikipedia community is to just keep it. This is what has led to the what-about-ism regarding Odin's deletion - there are lots of other programming languages that also don't meet the notability guidelines, yet, to this day, still have Wikipedia articles. Could someone come along and propose deletion for such articles? Yes, of course. You yourself could go do that right now, if you want. But nobody's getting paid for such work, so someone has to want to. The tendency of Wikipedia editors is that, when an article is many years old, they would rather flag it for improvement rather than simply throw away years of fellow editors' work. Whereas an article that's brand new is likely to not have much work put into it, and also more likely to be self-promotion and/or spam. This is very frustrating for people who create Wikipedia articles and have them deleted. "You mean, whether or not my non-notable article gets deleted or not is just the luck of whether someone comes along and notices that it's not notable?" Yep. Like I said, nobody's getting paid for deletion work.
- andai 4mo ago
  >Like I said, nobody's getting paid for deletion work. Actually there are organizations -- several of which brag about it openly -- that employ people to carefully manage what ends up on Wikipedia, and which side of a story ends up in popular articles.
  - dcrazy 4mo ago
    This is a poor attempt to imply an equivalence between deletionism and non-impartiality (influence campaigns and reputation managers).
- altmanaltman 4mo ago
  Seems like Wikipedia sucks at enforcing its policy from what I am reading? There has to be a better way to do this at that scale than just "oh we forgot to notice it and now its too awkward to remove it"? Maybe i am missing something idk
brendoelfrendo 4mo ago
Generally speaking, encyclopedias are tertiary sources, so that makes sense (though the line between secondary and tertiary sources is sometimes blurry)... but as you say, there are plenty of topics (a niche programming language under active development primarily by one guy is a good example) where the topic might be notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article but not widely discussed enough to have a good source other than the primary developer. I understand that "well the guy who made it said it" sounds like an obvious argument, but I also understand that Wikipedia is trying to maintain their role as an encyclopedia first and foremost. I'm not sure what the optimal path is.
James_K 4mo ago
Suppose you wanted to make a Wikipedia article on a certain brand CNC milling machine, would that be useful? Not really. The only thing ever written about it is its own manual, and it doesn't feature notably with the exception of being used by some companies for manufacturing. Programming languages are the same thing. It seems rather entitled to demand Wikipedia articles for random brands of tools that don't have anything particularly significant about them. And beyond that, it's perfectly useless. A Wikipedia article restating the information on Odin's website is a net negative information wise. You've got duplicate content for no good reason. The point of Wikipedia is to take a topic about which much has been written, and distill that into a smaller and more information dense summary. A person who finds the Odin language on Wikipedia would always be better served looking at the website instead, and thus the article is actively harmful to their understanding of the topic.

by andai 4mo ago

kibibu 4mo ago

I genuinely don't think Malbolge, for example, warrants a Wikipedia page if Odin doesn't

fluoridation 4mo ago
Malbolge is basically a meme, and Wikipedia does have articles for memes. Speaking for myself, I have heard about Malbolge, and not about Odin.
JBits 4mo ago
Perhaps it is because Malbolge is notable within the category of esolangs.
- lifthrasiir 4mo ago
  As an actual esolang enthusiast (and a past Wikipedia administrator two decades ago), I can say that Malbolge is only notable because it remained unsolved for the extended period only due to the lack of serious attempts. It doesn't even pass the meme criteria IMO.
  - dickiedyce 4mo ago
    Although, didn’t it appear in a popular culture reference? I seem to remember an episode of “elementary“ that mentioned it.
    - lifthrasiir 4mo ago
      Oh, sure, the "In Popular Culture" section is a prerequisite for every Wikipedia article. ;-) In seriousness though, the Malbolge article (2003) significantly predates the TV series in question (2012--2019). I wouldn't be surprised that writers got the info from Wikipedia.
      - HappyPanacea 4mo ago
        A form of Citogenesis although here it is about notability instead (notabilitogensesis is mouthful unfortunately)

w10-1 4mo ago

In wikipedia-land, I read "primary source" as "motivated source", given their need to prune biased edits.

netbioserror 4mo ago
The fatal flaw here being that secondary sources and tertiary ad infinitum are all always motivated. It's inescapable.
- Dfol 4mo ago
  Yep, good point.

wavemode 4mo ago

You've almost got it, except: > Wikipedia has a bunch of languages that were used by like one person, because there is published material on them No. It's more like, there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines AT ALL, but when you write an article on Wikipedia and enough time passes without anyone noticing that the article is poorly sourced, then eventually the tendency of Wikipedia community is to just keep it. This is what has led to the what-about-ism regarding Odin's deletion - there are lots of other programming languages that also don't meet the notability guidelines, yet, to this day, still have Wikipedia articles. Could someone come along and propose deletion for such articles? Yes, of course. You yourself could go do that right now, if you want. But nobody's getting paid for such work, so someone has to want to. The tendency of Wikipedia editors is that, when an article is many years old, they would rather flag it for improvement rather than simply throw away years of fellow editors' work. Whereas an article that's brand new is likely to not have much work put into it, and also more likely to be self-promotion and/or spam. This is very frustrating for people who create Wikipedia articles and have them deleted. "You mean, whether or not my non-notable article gets deleted or not is just the luck of whether someone comes along and notices that it's not notable?" Yep. Like I said, nobody's getting paid for deletion work.

andai 4mo ago
>Like I said, nobody's getting paid for deletion work. Actually there are organizations -- several of which brag about it openly -- that employ people to carefully manage what ends up on Wikipedia, and which side of a story ends up in popular articles.
- dcrazy 4mo ago
  This is a poor attempt to imply an equivalence between deletionism and non-impartiality (influence campaigns and reputation managers).
altmanaltman 4mo ago
Seems like Wikipedia sucks at enforcing its policy from what I am reading? There has to be a better way to do this at that scale than just "oh we forgot to notice it and now its too awkward to remove it"? Maybe i am missing something idk

brendoelfrendo 4mo ago

Generally speaking, encyclopedias are tertiary sources, so that makes sense (though the line between secondary and tertiary sources is sometimes blurry)... but as you say, there are plenty of topics (a niche programming language under active development primarily by one guy is a good example) where the topic might be notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article but not widely discussed enough to have a good source other than the primary developer. I understand that "well the guy who made it said it" sounds like an obvious argument, but I also understand that Wikipedia is trying to maintain their role as an encyclopedia first and foremost. I'm not sure what the optimal path is.

James_K 4mo ago

Suppose you wanted to make a Wikipedia article on a certain brand CNC milling machine, would that be useful? Not really. The only thing ever written about it is its own manual, and it doesn't feature notably with the exception of being used by some companies for manufacturing. Programming languages are the same thing. It seems rather entitled to demand Wikipedia articles for random brands of tools that don't have anything particularly significant about them. And beyond that, it's perfectly useless. A Wikipedia article restating the information on Odin's website is a net negative information wise. You've got duplicate content for no good reason. The point of Wikipedia is to take a topic about which much has been written, and distill that into a smaller and more information dense summary. A person who finds the Odin language on Wikipedia would always be better served looking at the website instead, and thus the article is actively harmful to their understanding of the topic.