Comment by cryptonector

Comment by cryptonector 7 days ago

Oh wow, it got undeleted. Some editor insisted on deleting it because it was a "personal project" (Stephen Dolan's) even though it has a huge user base. I guess now that it has a proper "org" in GitHub it's different. What nonsense.

ancarda 7 days ago

It's likely because there's a citation in a paper. That's apparently the bar you need to reach to get Wikipedia to see something as significant enough. I tried to get a draft article about SourceHut ( https://sourcehut.org/ ) to be published after extensive improvements and they refused because there weren't enough third party links. This is despite the fact there's like a dozen pages in Wikipedia about software that is hosted on SourceHut, so it seems notable enough?

Reply View 0 replies

jonny_eh 7 days ago

Maybe it helped that they called it a "programming language"? It helps make it sound super serious.

Reply View 0 replies

rendall 7 days ago

Wikipedia is such a disappointment

Reply View 4 replies

millerm 6 days ago

How could you even type such a ridiculous statement?

Reply View | 2 replies
- lioeters 6 days ago
  
  Seriously, Wikipedia has been of immense value to society and education.
  Yes there are issues with ideologically motivated moderators, poorly cited articles, etc. But even with its flaws, it's an amazing resource provided to the public for free (as in coffee and maybe as in speech also).
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  rendall 3 days ago
  
  Not at all free as in free speech. It is entirely captured by motivated gangs of collaborators that make the unwary who read it stupider. Try to make reasonable changes and these people collaborate to outvote you.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
[removed] 6 days ago

[deleted]

Reply View | 0 replies