undefined | Better HN

0 pointselliottcarlson15y ago0 comments

Ruby was released in 1995, and there was no documentation available in English until 1997. Ruby's popularity outside of Japan didn't even gain any kind of momentum until 2000 and on.

Obviously no one can say for sure, but I am sure an un-notable language could possibly gain even more popularity with a Wikipedia entry as it helps people learn more about a small obscure language that might grow in to something bigger - even if it takes years to do so.

While it might be argued that a page with little to no information should be deleted, I don't think that pages with adequate information to get someone the general idea about some new (possibly just new to the reader) programming language should go anywhere. It's a valuable resource and losing that kind of information from Wikipedia is a shame.

Please keep that line of thought in your AfD's - and think about the "notability" that Frenetic may get in the future.

0 comments

prodigal_erik15y ago

What that means is that Ruby simply wasn't very notable until 2000. Trying to make obscure things more notable is not a legitimate use of Wikipedia. It's already struggling against a tide of marketing abuse. And there can't possibly be any objective measure today of what independent sources in the future may be writing about.

jacques_chester15y ago

> It's already struggling against a tide of marketing abuse.

I'm sure. And that's why deleting the pages of languages with peer-reviewed literature is a vital and useful way to prevent marketers from abusing Wikipedia.

cabalamat15y ago

> Trying to make obscure things more notable is not a legitimate use of Wikipedia.

Consider a person P who doesn't know about X but would benefit from X if he/she did know about it.

I hypothesize that for each P there is on average more than one X. This suggests to me that making things more notable can aid overall welfare, and therefore ought to be a goal of a universal encyclopedia project.

MaysonL15y ago

Notable != noticed.

i.e.

Worthy of attention != getting attention.

Ruby was notable, just not noticed.

prodigal_erik15y ago

Ruby lacked verifiable evidence of notability from independent secondary sources. Wikipedia strenuously avoids making subjective judgment calls about whether anything is notable despite somehow failing to have been noticed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointselliottcarlson15y ago0 comments

Ruby was released in 1995, and there was no documentation available in English until 1997. Ruby's popularity outside of Japan didn't even gain any kind of momentum until 2000 and on.

Please keep that line of thought in your AfD's - and think about the "notability" that Frenetic may get in the future.

0 comments

prodigal_erik15y ago

jacques_chester15y ago

> It's already struggling against a tide of marketing abuse.

I'm sure. And that's why deleting the pages of languages with peer-reviewed literature is a vital and useful way to prevent marketers from abusing Wikipedia.

cabalamat15y ago

> Trying to make obscure things more notable is not a legitimate use of Wikipedia.

Consider a person P who doesn't know about X but would benefit from X if he/she did know about it.

MaysonL15y ago

Notable != noticed.

i.e.

Worthy of attention != getting attention.

Ruby was notable, just not noticed.

prodigal_erik15y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse