7 ms·

For evangelists of Nimrod: Take some time and write a page about it on Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be one yet. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o

by scrrr 13y ago

For evangelists of Nimrod: Take some time and write a page about it on Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be one yet. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concurrent_and_parallel_programming_languages#Unsorted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concurrent_and_parallel...

dom96 13y ago
I wrote one. It's in my sandbox [1]. The original article got deleted despite my attempts to keep it alive due to lack of notability [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dom96/sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dom96/sandbox [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod_%28programming_language%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod_%28programming_language%...
- scrrr 13y ago
  Can we somehow support adding it? How does it work on Wikipedia..
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    It doesn't. There is a small cadre of Deletionists who go out of their way to kill off pages referring to programming languages. There was one bloke who single-handedly deleted dozens; I cannot now recall his name but it caused a helluva storm at the time. He was totally unrepentant.
    - rurban 13y ago
      I also hate those Deletionists who have no clue about what they are talking about, use no real names, but still are allowed to make decisions like this. In open source you could fork it, but unfortunately this doesn't work like this in Wikipedia.
      - ErrantX 13y ago
        Please: fork Wikipedia content into a programming wiki. That would be awesome!
        Jtsummers 13y ago
        Rosetta Code[1] could become such a wiki. If the main pages for languages were fleshed out (or add a new page per language) with language features. It certainly has a diverse enough selection of examples tasks to provide a neat comparison of each language. [1] http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code [2] http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Category:Nimrod http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Category:Nimrod
    - tptacek 13y ago
      It caused a hell of a storm because someone decided to organize a witch hunt against the guy, resulting in an extremely embarrassing HN thread in which a bunch of HN people who should have known better decided to spend an evening insulting someone they didn't know. When you understand Wikipedia's charter, it's easy to understand why new programming languages are a tricky thing to write about: there are a lot of them, and most of them are not encyclopedia-notable. The arguments in favor of them all seem to involve relitigating the entire charter of Wikipedia to make room for new programming languages.
      - jacques_chester 13y ago
        The cause of the controversy is that there are multiple interpretations of the charter, only one of which is "well it's not in the NYT or my pet journal, delete it before it costs us millionths of a cent".
        tptacek 13y ago
        I dispute that. I think the two interpretations that are conflicting are those of the project, and then those of outsiders to the project and a small group of enabling insiders who are themselves attacking the premise of their own project.
- jimktrains2 13y ago
  Offtopic: I f*cking hate the deletionists. I come across articles deleted because of "lack of notability," but if they lacked notability (and I didn't create it), why was I looking for it. They make the whole of Wikipedia much worse than it would be otherwise and prevent me from contributing even more money and time to Wikipedia.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Here's the AfD for Nimrod: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nimrod_(programming_language)_(2nd_nomination) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion... Note that at the time this was submitted, all the sourcing for the article came from either web pages from the project itself, or forum posts.
    - jimktrains2 13y ago
      I'm not seeing your point and I don't think you see mine. There are better methods than deletion for handling situations like this.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Like what? Finding better sources? People tried. Are there better sources, or is Nimrod simply not "that" notable yet?
        asdasf 13y ago
        Like nothing, there is no problem with it. Just leave it alone. This whole "oh god we're the sum of all human knowledge please give us money" tripe is a bit hard to swallow when there's more information getting deleted than being created.
        tptacek 13y ago
        There are problems with it. The simplest problem is that the whole charter of WP is to cover notable topics with reliable sources; that's the idea behind the project and has been forever. One practical problem with it is that when none of your sources are independent or notable, disinterested parties can't fact-check anything, and the encyclopedia is only as accurate as cliques of interested editors choose to make it. Once again, your argument relitigates the whole concept of WP. You don't have to like the concept, but you can't pretend that their adherence to their own charter is somehow a sign of dysfunction.
- pcwalton 13y ago
  It's pretty silly that a talk at Strange Loop somehow isn't evidence of notability because it was given by the primary developer of the language. Of course he gave the talk: he's the best person to! The fact that the conference organizers accepted the talk is what makes it notable.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Most of the languages presented at the last Strange Loop don't appear to have WP pages, and, reading their descriptions, you can see why: they're more in the nature of academic experiments than notable programming languages. WP also doesn't have a page for every major experiment by every well-known CS researcher.
    - mindcrime 13y ago
      WP also doesn't have a page for every major experiment by every well-known CS researcher. We can fix that...
      - tptacek 13y ago
        If you want to spend a lot of time in AfD arguments, sure; you'd surely get some good pages added, and you'd do the project a pretty big favor. Go for it!
- rurban 13y ago
  I dared to recreate it. May those uninformed deletionists come again. So far the new/old page got one positive review.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    And virtually every source for the article is a pointer back to Nimrod's website. That's not going to work. Could you maybe find better sources?
  - ErrantX 13y ago
    I've removed it again, sorry; this is not the way to fix the problem. Mostly all you're going to do is stir up bad feeling (especially with that attitude) and end up getting the article title protected from recreation. Unpleasant. The Wikipedia community has agreed a set of rules for creating articles. In this case the community review noted that no independent sourcing covered this language. If a deleted article is recreated substantially the same, it is removed. So, there are correct options... (I appreciate from outside the community it is not always clear what they are - so a list!) * Find those sorts of sources * Ask for a review of the deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV * Work to clarify Wikipedia's specific notability rules for Software (here's a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOFTWARE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOFTWARE) * Fork Wikipedia and write about programming languages (I'm a big proponent of this, but no one seems willing to make the effort). I see no reason in time, and there is plenty of time, that Nimrod won't obtain the sort of coverage that merits coverage in a general encyclopaedia.
    - jimktrains2 13y ago
      >I've removed it again, sorry; this is not the way to fix the problem. Mostly all you're going to do is stir up bad feeling (especially with that attitude) and end up getting the article title protected from recreation. > Unpleasant That's right, deleting it again is unpleasant and no way to fix the problem and is a good way to stir up bad feelings and screwing over the topic from ever having a decent page. > The Wikipedia community has agreed a set of rules for creating articles. In this case the community review noted that no independent sourcing covered this language. If a deleted article is recreated substantially the same, it is removed. Independent sources do, the Deletionists, like yourself, just don't like them. > I see no reason in time, and there is plenty of time, that Nimrod won't obtain the sort of coverage that merits coverage in a general encyclopaedia. What type of coverage is that? What type of coverage could a programming language get that would allow it to be part of Wikipedia? Even Go only has a single newsworthy citation, the rest of blogs and its own site. > * Fork Wikipedia and write about programming languages (I'm a big proponent of this, but no one seems willing to make the effort). Because it's a stupid idea not to have at least basic information on wikipedia about these language. There are projects that aim to do that, e.g. http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code so perhaps you should get off your high horse.

by scrrr 13y ago

dom96 13y ago

I wrote one. It's in my sandbox [1]. The original article got deleted despite my attempts to keep it alive due to lack of notability [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dom96/sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dom96/sandbox [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod_%28programming_language%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod_%28programming_language%...

scrrr 13y ago
Can we somehow support adding it? How does it work on Wikipedia..
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  It doesn't. There is a small cadre of Deletionists who go out of their way to kill off pages referring to programming languages. There was one bloke who single-handedly deleted dozens; I cannot now recall his name but it caused a helluva storm at the time. He was totally unrepentant.
  - rurban 13y ago
    I also hate those Deletionists who have no clue about what they are talking about, use no real names, but still are allowed to make decisions like this. In open source you could fork it, but unfortunately this doesn't work like this in Wikipedia.
    - ErrantX 13y ago
      Please: fork Wikipedia content into a programming wiki. That would be awesome!
      - Jtsummers 13y ago
        Rosetta Code[1] could become such a wiki. If the main pages for languages were fleshed out (or add a new page per language) with language features. It certainly has a diverse enough selection of examples tasks to provide a neat comparison of each language. [1] http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code [2] http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Category:Nimrod http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Category:Nimrod
  - tptacek 13y ago
    It caused a hell of a storm because someone decided to organize a witch hunt against the guy, resulting in an extremely embarrassing HN thread in which a bunch of HN people who should have known better decided to spend an evening insulting someone they didn't know. When you understand Wikipedia's charter, it's easy to understand why new programming languages are a tricky thing to write about: there are a lot of them, and most of them are not encyclopedia-notable. The arguments in favor of them all seem to involve relitigating the entire charter of Wikipedia to make room for new programming languages.
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      The cause of the controversy is that there are multiple interpretations of the charter, only one of which is "well it's not in the NYT or my pet journal, delete it before it costs us millionths of a cent".
      - tptacek 13y ago
        I dispute that. I think the two interpretations that are conflicting are those of the project, and then those of outsiders to the project and a small group of enabling insiders who are themselves attacking the premise of their own project.
jimktrains2 13y ago
Offtopic: I f*cking hate the deletionists. I come across articles deleted because of "lack of notability," but if they lacked notability (and I didn't create it), why was I looking for it. They make the whole of Wikipedia much worse than it would be otherwise and prevent me from contributing even more money and time to Wikipedia.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Here's the AfD for Nimrod: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nimrod_(programming_language)_(2nd_nomination) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion... Note that at the time this was submitted, all the sourcing for the article came from either web pages from the project itself, or forum posts.
  - jimktrains2 13y ago
    I'm not seeing your point and I don't think you see mine. There are better methods than deletion for handling situations like this.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Like what? Finding better sources? People tried. Are there better sources, or is Nimrod simply not "that" notable yet?
      - asdasf 13y ago
        Like nothing, there is no problem with it. Just leave it alone. This whole "oh god we're the sum of all human knowledge please give us money" tripe is a bit hard to swallow when there's more information getting deleted than being created.
        tptacek 13y ago
        There are problems with it. The simplest problem is that the whole charter of WP is to cover notable topics with reliable sources; that's the idea behind the project and has been forever. One practical problem with it is that when none of your sources are independent or notable, disinterested parties can't fact-check anything, and the encyclopedia is only as accurate as cliques of interested editors choose to make it. Once again, your argument relitigates the whole concept of WP. You don't have to like the concept, but you can't pretend that their adherence to their own charter is somehow a sign of dysfunction.
pcwalton 13y ago
It's pretty silly that a talk at Strange Loop somehow isn't evidence of notability because it was given by the primary developer of the language. Of course he gave the talk: he's the best person to! The fact that the conference organizers accepted the talk is what makes it notable.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Most of the languages presented at the last Strange Loop don't appear to have WP pages, and, reading their descriptions, you can see why: they're more in the nature of academic experiments than notable programming languages. WP also doesn't have a page for every major experiment by every well-known CS researcher.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    WP also doesn't have a page for every major experiment by every well-known CS researcher. We can fix that...
    - tptacek 13y ago
      If you want to spend a lot of time in AfD arguments, sure; you'd surely get some good pages added, and you'd do the project a pretty big favor. Go for it!
rurban 13y ago
I dared to recreate it. May those uninformed deletionists come again. So far the new/old page got one positive review.
- tptacek 13y ago
  And virtually every source for the article is a pointer back to Nimrod's website. That's not going to work. Could you maybe find better sources?
- ErrantX 13y ago
  I've removed it again, sorry; this is not the way to fix the problem. Mostly all you're going to do is stir up bad feeling (especially with that attitude) and end up getting the article title protected from recreation. Unpleasant. The Wikipedia community has agreed a set of rules for creating articles. In this case the community review noted that no independent sourcing covered this language. If a deleted article is recreated substantially the same, it is removed. So, there are correct options... (I appreciate from outside the community it is not always clear what they are - so a list!) * Find those sorts of sources * Ask for a review of the deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV * Work to clarify Wikipedia's specific notability rules for Software (here's a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOFTWARE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOFTWARE) * Fork Wikipedia and write about programming languages (I'm a big proponent of this, but no one seems willing to make the effort). I see no reason in time, and there is plenty of time, that Nimrod won't obtain the sort of coverage that merits coverage in a general encyclopaedia.
  - jimktrains2 13y ago
    >I've removed it again, sorry; this is not the way to fix the problem. Mostly all you're going to do is stir up bad feeling (especially with that attitude) and end up getting the article title protected from recreation. > Unpleasant That's right, deleting it again is unpleasant and no way to fix the problem and is a good way to stir up bad feelings and screwing over the topic from ever having a decent page. > The Wikipedia community has agreed a set of rules for creating articles. In this case the community review noted that no independent sourcing covered this language. If a deleted article is recreated substantially the same, it is removed. Independent sources do, the Deletionists, like yourself, just don't like them. > I see no reason in time, and there is plenty of time, that Nimrod won't obtain the sort of coverage that merits coverage in a general encyclopaedia. What type of coverage is that? What type of coverage could a programming language get that would allow it to be part of Wikipedia? Even Go only has a single newsworthy citation, the rest of blogs and its own site. > * Fork Wikipedia and write about programming languages (I'm a big proponent of this, but no one seems willing to make the effort). Because it's a stupid idea not to have at least basic information on wikipedia about these language. There are projects that aim to do that, e.g. http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code so perhaps you should get off your high horse.