On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 11:46:13AM +0000, alex wrote:
> On 6 February 2013 09:45, Kassen <signal.automatique_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'd like to have a conversation about the first sentence, before I try
> > any editing. For reference;
>
> OK I think we should keep the talk page on the article itself in mind
> though. Important to engage with those outside of the community,
> especially now "live coding" is used in computer science lectures and
> technical conferences, and the synonymous "live programming" is
> co-opted by our friends in the software engineering/PLT communities.
Check.
>
> Please do - it's absence is only down to no-one having written it in
> yet! Also JITLib etc should be written in.
I already send a mail on this topic to the relevant people. I think Ge
is doing something sabbatical at the moment. If nobody else steps up
I might give it a go. Think we should have a paragraph like that
around already, I just don't know where it is.
>
> I think it's reasonable requirement to not have "original research" in
> an encyclopedia page. I think sources can be anything e.g. articles,
> books, blogs, etc.. What can be dodgy at times is that you have to
> have "reputable" sources to establish notability of a topic, but as I
> understand it, once notability has been established for an article,
> the same rules don't apply to the statements within an article.
Yes, I see and respect that. I was noting it because we are generally
in between "research" and "fun", there is a lot of balancing going on
there; it's not just "bleeps for parties" or "we're the experts
because the field is so obscure that nobody else cares". This balance
is both important and a endless source of amusement. The Wikipedia
policy tilts that a bit. That's not bad but it is something to be
aware of. I am not actually advocating that we hand out questionnaires
for clubbers to self-report relative levels of happiness. This would
a) be a mess and b) require controlling for factors the subjects
likely won't feel like controlling for ;-)
Anyway, I agree with the plan to first make it clear that we are
demonstrably noteworthy, then see how we can make issues like
self-expression and recreation encyclopaedic.
Yours,
Kas.
Received on Wed Feb 06 2013 - 12:15:12 GMT