I find it interesting how wikipedia's notability guidelines work for programming related stuff

Higher Order Perl was up for deletion, saved by reviews. There are mentions/reviews of the book in blogs that get more readers than every cited source combined, but blogs don't count.

There's a 2011 comment arguing in favor of deleting Steve Yegge's blog because the citations were all from blogs. At the time, he'd been one of the most influential programming bloggers in the world for ~5 years

One of the most widely read programmers in the world isn't notable?

I used to work at a company that loved PR blitzes, they effectively had a machine to get submarine articles about people and projects in major publications. Anyone could pull the lever and articles would come out.

Those citations count, but blogs don't.

I get why wikipedia has standards that prefer form ("published in a book, magazine, newspaper, etc." vs. "just a personal blog") over function (is the content actually credible or correct), but it results in funny inclusion discussions.

See also

See also, @gwern's Wikipedia and Dark Side Editing: ignoring the spirit of the law and punctiliously following the letter of the law in order to obey the spirit of what the law arguably should've been

 https://www.gwern.net/Wikipedia-and-Dark-Side-Editing 

See also



You can follow @danluu.



Bookmark

____
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.

Enjoy Threader? Sign up.

Since you’re here...

... we’re asking visitors like you to make a contribution to support this independent project. In these uncertain times, access to information is vital. Threader gets 1,000,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Your financial support will help two developers to keep working on this app. Everyone’s contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support Threader by becoming premium or by donating on PayPal. Thank you.