wikipedia strategy
Mark Tarver
somebody started the Shen entry. We need to get together and flesh
this out and at the same time cut the Qi entry down a bit. The
problem with cutting the Qi entry down is that the deletionists may
consider this proof that the entry is not important and may therefore
take preemptive action.
I will argue against the deletionists on wikipedia, but may obviously
be taken as biased in my favour. So do chime in if you want to.
Last night I sat down to pen the two entries. What I have got is just
a first assay. You can fire away at it, if you do not like it. I'm
not attached to what I have done. But here it is: (the starred
elements will be linked).
Qi becomes reduced to a stub because the relevant material can move to
Shen.
_______________________________________________________________________
Qi is a *functional programming* language developed by Dr Mark Tarver
and introduced in April 2005 under *GPL* version 2 and reimplemented
and issued as Qi II in November 2008. *Tarver (2008)* is the
introduction to the language.
Qi is written in Common *Lisp* and includes most of the features
common to modern functional programming languages such as *pattern-
matching*, *currying*, *partial applications*, *guards* and (optional)
*static type checking*. Qi is noteworthy for defining types using a
form of sequent calculus which is compiled into Qi *Prolog*. In 2007,
J.T. Gleason demonstrated that the type notation was Turing equivalent
by implementing an *SKI combinator* machine in this notation.
In 2011, Qi was superceded by Shen, which is a $free platform-portable
version of the same language, designed to run under Common Lisp and
later Scheme and Javascript.
References
...................................................
________________________________________________________________________
Shen becomes padded out
Shen is a functional programming language developed by Dr. Mark Tarver
and introduced in September 2011. It is the platform portable $free
successor to *Qi*.
Shen includes most of the features common to modern functional
programming languages such as *pattern-matching*, *currying*, *partial
applications*, *guards* and (optional) *static type checking*. Shen
also includes its own compiler-compiler and Prolog. Shen is noteworthy
for defining types using a form of sequent calculus which is compiled
into Shen *Prolog* and for including its own compiler-compiler Shen
YACC.
In 2007, J.T. Gleason demonstrated that the type notation of Shen was
Turing equivalent by implementing an *SKI combinator* machine in this
notation. Shen is currently administered and developed with the help
of the 2011 committee and is supported by private sponsorship.
Implementation Under a Reduced Instruction Lisp
Shen runs under a reduced instruction Lisp KLambda and is intended for
portability to many platforms, being ported to CLisp and SBCL in 2011,
with plans for Scheme and JavaScript in 2012. The idea of using a
reduced instruction Lisp as a form of virtual machine was suggested by
Tarver *ref 2009 address*. The final specification, which went
through several drafts, issued in a Lisp of 45 primitive functions.
Architecture
Shen is *bootstrapped*, only a small percentage of code is not written
in Shen, and that is the code needed to connect KLambda to the native
platform. The *sequent calculus* notation is supported by a
*compiler* into the native *Prolog* and the inbuilt *compiler-
compiler* Shen-YACC supports the Shen reader. Both Shen Prolog and
Shen-YACC compile into Shen which in turns compiles into KLambda.
<diagram below which will be naffed up here>
Sequent Calculus
V
Reader V
V V
Shen-YACC Shen-Prolog
V V
Shen
V
KLambda
V
Native Code
Pattern Directed List Handling
Shen in common with many modern functional programming languages
includes provision for pattern-directed handling of data objects
including *lists*, *strings* and *vectors*. Three basic programs in
Shen, for finding an element in a list, for testing the length of a
string and for incrementing all the numbers in a vector are shown
below.
(define member
_ [] -> false
X [X | _] -> true
X [_ | Y] -> (member X Y))
(define strlen
"" -> 0
(@s _ S) -> (+ 1 (strlen S)))
(define vectoradd
<> -> <>
(@v N V) -> (@v (+ N 1) (vectoradd V)))
Static typing is optional in Shen and the type signatures are
explicitly placed after the name of the function in the manner of
*Hope*.
Macros
Shen includes a reader *macro* system that allows the language to
express polyadic functions. Thus a polyadic max function can be
created from a dyadic one by use of a macro. First the dyadic max is
created.
(define max
X Y -> X where (> X Y)
_ Y -> Y)
Second the reader is instructed how to parse the polyadic max version
into the dyadic version.
(defmacro max-macro
[max W X Y | Z] -> [max W (max-macro [max X Y | Z])])
Shen YACC
Shen YACC is derived from the work done on *TDPL* byf Alexander
Birman ....<more here>
Sequent Calculus Notation for Types
Shen, following Qi, is notable for its treatment of types which are
defined using a restricted *sequent calculus* which is compiled into
*Prolog*. This gives the language great expressive interest with
respect to types. Studies of the use of this notation include
providing a type theory for *interval arithmetic*, providing type
theories for other languages and the formalisation of computer
algebra. A basic example, which formalises the type of all binary
numbers as lists of zeros and ones is given below.
(datatype binary
if (element? N [0 1])
____________________
N : zero-or-one;
N : zero-or-one;
________________
[N] : binary;
X : zero-or-one; Y : binary;
____________________________
[X | Y] : binary;
X : zero-or-one, [Y | Z] : binary >> P;
_______________________________________
[X Y | Z] : binary >> P;)
This definition supports the following complement function
(define complement
{binary --> binary}
[0] -> [1]
[1] -> [0]
[1 N | Ns] -> [0 | (complement [N | Ns])]
[0 N | Ns] -> [1 | (complement [N | Ns])])
References
.......................
Mark
h...@ancell-ent.com
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 04:39:24 -0800 (PST)
Right. Who wants to work with me on the wikipedia entry?
I'm certainly willing to, I've got enough of a history going
back 5 years on disparate topics I can't (reasonably) be
accused of being a shill or sockpupet.
I know somebody started the Shen entry. We need to get
together and flesh this out and at the same time cut the
Qi entry down a bit. The problem with cutting the Qi
entry down is that the deletionists may consider this
proof that the entry is not important and may therefore
take preemptive action.
We're beyond the "preemptive action" stage; the nomination
for deletion has been made, it's been noticed that you're
the author of _Functional Programming in QI_ making it
a primary source useless for establishing "notability", and
the article will be deleted within a week or so absent our
making a case on their terms.
I will argue against the deletionists on wikipedia, but
may obviously be taken as biased in my favour. So do
chime in if you want to.
Unless you can provide "reliable independent secondary
sources" they won't listen to you at all. Although the line
of argument "please give it another year after Shen on
Javascipt is out" might work or at least help. But without
secondary sources they can't establish that anyone other
than you, the creator, finds it notable. Which is not an
entirely unreasonable position to take; even if you despise
the deletionists as I do Wikipedia does have to have *some*
standards for what merits inclusion.
Ah, you can start with the "search on Qi Lisp" argument
although the person who said "Google searches failed to
turn up anything useful" said that right after discussing
primary vs. secondary sources, so "useful" could mean he
couldn't find suitable examples of the latter.
The best thing to do would be to add a bunch of secondary
source citations to the article as it is now and then say "we
fixed it". They don't care about the quality of the article,
just if it's "notable".
- Harold
Mark Tarver
On Jan 5, 1:05 pm, h...@ancell-ent.com wrote:
> From: "Mark Tarver" <dr.mtar...@gmail.com>
>
> Right. Who wants to work with me on the wikipedia entry?
>
> I'm certainly willing to, I've got enough of a history going
> back 5 years on disparate topics I can't (reasonably) be
> accused of being a shill or sockpupet.
>
> I know somebody started the Shen entry. We need to get
> together and flesh this out and at the same time cut the
> Qi entry down a bit. The problem with cutting the Qi
> entry down is that the deletionists may consider this
> proof that the entry is not important and may therefore
> take preemptive action.
>
> We're beyond the "preemptive action" stage; the nomination
> for deletion has been made, it's been noticed that you're
> the author of _Functional Programming in QI_ making it
> a primary source useless for establishing "notability", and
> the article will be deleted within a week or so absent our
> making a case on their terms.
written before 2005 was also written by me. If they exclude blogs,
newsgroups, refereed papers written by me then the case is lost.
Their standards would doom the attempt.
I guess there is a large question here about whether it is worth
defending our contribution and adding to the Shen article if the
deletionists are going to delete it. It seems that the same argument
can be mustered against the Shen article. Wikipedia is experiencing
a decline in contributions; I guess, like me, other people don't want
to contribute if their work is going to be deleted.
Mark
Jan Burse
I have also experience delete attacks on an article of mine.
But these attacks go away. In a first round I did the following:
- Keep the article short (Otherwise judged as Spam)
- Keep the article neutral, no adjectives (Otherwise judged as Add)
- Keep the reference list short (Otherwise judged as In Defense)
Report what you are doing on the website to the offender that wants
to delete the site. Go to his personal page, to the discussion site,
and edit it, and list what you are doing. Or go to the deletion
list, and edit there and report what you are doing to "improve"
the article.
Also ask the offender what else you should do to "improve" the article.
Remain friendly, listen what the offender says, try to understand what
he means.
Then when you have passed this hurdle you are done. And you will see
wikipedia is good for generating leads. The content is also
automatically replicated by these sites that show their own rendering
of the wikipedia dump.
You might than experience an attack of a robot, which automatically
insearts a banner your article would need verification, quality,
what ever. Just remove the banner by yourself by editing your article.
After a while you can the make the article longer, less neutral
and add more references as you whish.
Good Luck
Mark Tarver schrieb:
Mark Tarver
which mark the development of Qi from IJCAI and elsewhere and I'll
assemble an entry for Qi. I'll post it up on Lambda Associates for
you to read. Then I'll notify the editors at Wikipedia and see if
they think this is sufficient. If so, could you put it into
Wikipedia?
Mark
Jan Burse
- Do not edit your article anonymously.
- Create a login with your normal full name.
- Then create a user page of your own put biopic stuff there.
- Do edits with this login.
- Also sign your reports to the offenders with this login.
Bye
Mark Tarver schrieb:
h...@ancell-ent.com
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 05:54:04 -0800 (PST)
Newsgroups don't count (well, a healthy comp.lang.lisp.qi
group might, but the Internet has moved on from newgroups
I think), blog entries ... there's fierce debate over those for our
field, since they're now *the* primary venue for publication,
but they don't obviously satisfy the reliable and independent
criteria (how could a Wikipedian outside of the area
determine that?)
Refereed papers have weight; the act of getting them
refereed transforms them from purely primary sources since a
secondary authority has blessed them.
I guess there is a large question here about whether it is
worth defending our contribution and adding to the Shen
article if the deletionists are going to delete it. It
seems that the same argument can be mustered against the
Shen article. Wikipedia is experiencing a decline in
contributions; I guess, like me, other people don't want
to contribute if their work is going to be deleted.
Exactly; the correlation between the rise of the
deletionists and contribution declines is very clear. And,
yeah, correlation does not imply causation, but I've also
seen a number of discussion page comments where someone
says "I'd improve this if it wasn't likely my work would then get
deleted". Some of this is theoretically legit (if you've just
started a garage band), but a lot of it is just pure vandalism by
people of mal-intent playing Wikilawer.
As Jerry Pournelle's Law of Bureaucracy observes (note that he
got a Ph.D. in political science after in the process of getting one
in psychology he realized how politicized the field was ... in the
'50s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Iron_Law_of_Bureaucracy
In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of
the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those
dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to
accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes
are eliminated entirely.
He has restated it as:
...in any bureaucratic organization there will be two
kinds of people: those who work to further the actual
goals of the organization, and those who work for the
organization itself. Examples in education would be
teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children,
vs. union representatives who work to protect any
teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law
states that in all cases, the second type of person will
always gain control of the organization, and will always
write the rules under which the organization functions.
Today almost all I do with Wikipedia is political, primarily
defending a couple of pages that are important to me from
those who would "improve" them (most common is someone
"improving" a direct quote!).
Note that we can lose this battle but win the war by
recreating the entry after establishing secondary sources
that pass muster. I do think it's important Qi has a
Wikipedia entry, but I doubt it'll make much difference
before it's more widely used, there are more Shen ports,
etc. etc.
- Harold
h...@ancell-ent.com
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 07:00:02 -0800 (PST)
Well, a better strategy would be update the page with those
references ("be bold", and I'll be happy to help you with
that) and then have people other than you vote to "Keep"
based on those additions. At worst, we lose and the article
gets deleted and we recreate it after Shen gets more
established ... or better yet, replace it with a Shen page
that has a historical section on Qi since Shen is where the
future action is going to be (if Qi/Shen is going to viable
and healthy in the future).
I have absolutely no intention of losing the war, but we
can't predict if we're going to lose this battle.
- Harold
Mark Tarver
> references ("be bold", and I'll be happy to help you with
> that) and then have people other than you vote to "Keep"
> based on those additions. At worst, we lose and the article
> gets deleted and we recreate it after Shen gets more
> established ... or better yet, replace it with a Shen page
> that has a historical section on Qi since Shen is where the
> future action is going to be (if Qi/Shen is going to viable
> and healthy in the future).
> I have absolutely no intention of losing the war, but we
> can't predict if we're going to lose this battle.
put up a version that might fly. It is here. See what you think.
http://www.lambdassociates.org/wiki.htm
If this is OK, insert this into Wikipedia? (I can do it myself, but
it is years since I edited anything on Wikipedia, you will be
faster). If the deletionist are still moved to delete, well we have
to accept it for now, but we will have fought.
Mark
h...@ancell-ent.com
this ASAP (within 24 hours), although much of the next
little while of today is booked.
- Harold
Jan Burse
> Refereed papers have weight; the act of getting them
Just my penny of thought.
Wikipedia is not for research, its for real world. What
can an oponent say if the primary source of some object
is for example the product catalogue of a company? There
are tons of articles about chip sets etc.. from
manifacturers etc..
Since Qi has a book, it would suffice to have this as
the solely reference.
9. M.Tarver Functional Programming in Qi, second
edition, 2008, Fastprint Press.
Thats all. All other references are not necessary, except
if you want to underpin a claim in your text. But if the
above reference underpins all claims you make in your text
then this is enough.
I guess in Wikipedia you also don't need to have references
that are done according to "who invented it first". Why
bother into making chronological references down to the
smallest paper where something was first mentioned. And if
the paper is difficult to obtain (for example an MsC thesis)?
If this chronological references are already found in the
book, than you can also spare this.
But for example a claim, found on the draft (*):
Promising Inventor Award from Stony Brook University
Would eventually need a reference.
Bye
Mark Tarver
> can an oponent say if the primary source of some object
> is for example the product catalogue of a company? There
> are tons of articles about chip sets etc.. from
> manifacturers etc..
> Since Qi has a book, it would suffice to have this as
> the solely reference.
>
> 9. M.Tarver Functional Programming in Qi, second
> edition, 2008, Fastprint Press.
> And if
> the paper is difficult to obtain (for example an MsC thesis)?
ordered if people want it.
Mark
h...@ancell-ent.com
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 20:49:38 +0100
h...@ancell-ent.com schrieb:
> Refereed papers have weight; the act of getting them
Just my penny of thought.
Wikipedia is not for research, its for real world. What
can an oponent say if the primary source of some object
is for example the product catalogue of a company?
That for the purpose of establishing notability, which is
the *only* topic under discussion, it's a primary source
and entirely useless for that purpose.
Compare to a new garage band's self-published flyer.
We need "reliable independent secondary sources" to
establish notability as Wikipedia scores that and the Qi
book is none of those (fails reliable since it was
self-published).
Understand that the quality of the article does not matter;
in fact, I'm sure for the average deletionist the higher the
quality of the article the happier they are when they
destroy it.
- Harold
Jan Burse
> We need "reliable independent secondary sources" to
> establish notability as Wikipedia scores that and the Qi
> book is none of those (fails reliable since it was
> self-published).
What I wanted to convey is: Don't stick to reviewed
papers. They are relatively low on the hierarchy of
reliable sources.
Take for example a fact such as "X is married to Y".
The reliable primary source for that is not some peer
reviewed paper, but some document from some
governemental institution.
> > Since Qi has a book, it would suffice to have this as
> > the solely reference.
> >
> > 9. M.Tarver Functional Programming in Qi, second
> > edition, 2008, Fastprint Press.
> Not according to the rules of Wikipedia.
The book would not suffice to archive notability. But it
can be used to support claims. See the following phrase:
"Once notability is established, primary sources and
self-published sources may be used to verify some of
the article's content."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29#Primary_criteria
So you need 1 reference for notability, and another reference
(that can be self-published, for example the book) to support
the rest of your article.
Bye
h...@ancell-ent.com
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 07:35:49 -0800 (PST)
[...] here is my suggestion about how to work on this.
I've put up a version that might fly. It is here. See what
you think.
http://www.lambdassociates.org/wiki.htm
If this is OK, insert this into Wikipedia?
I've reviewed it in the light of the evolving discussion and it
doesn't look like for a *Qi* article anything but the post-doc
project would be relevant, and that's not going to help.
The best suggestion, from someone who does not fit the
description of "subject-unaware editors who think that a
lambda is a baby sheep" was:
If a strong enough link with SEQUEL can be established,
perhaps a single article covering SEQUEL, Qi and Shen
*might* pass as notable.
If the deletionist are still moved to delete, well we have
to accept it for now, but we will have fought.
Looks unavoidable, and not worth the effort of fighting now.
I'm sending this now since you're 6 hours ahead of me and at
this point I don't see any reason to make such a minimal
update to the page (the two post-doc project citations).
You could do a better job along the lines mentioned above, but
that would also like be futile, or as I put it, "[...] while I can see
that as vaguely serving the purposes of Wikipedia, it would
seem to be otherwise pretty pointless."
In that our objective is to steer people towards and help them
with Qi/Shen, not to document the evolution of it (although
that's a worth sub-goal at some point).
If you want help in Wikimedia editing, I'm likely to be awake by
6-7 CST, which I think is 6 hours behind GMT.
- Harold
Mark Tarver
the discussion page is wearyingly familiar; I left it behind over 10
years ago and was happy to see the back of it. Mr Ruud does not know
what a tautology is and needs to look it up.
I provided all the academic references from 1991-2002. But Qi owes
its existence to the internet which is the way that a lot of new work
is now disseminated. The old model under which I worked in the '90s
was breaking up even then. People could not find anything, you
ended up searching stacks of journals. Sometimes you would find
something interesting somewhere obscure. Journals were controlled by
sectarian interests which determined where the grant money went and
who got heard. Book publications were determined by monetary
consideration or your connections.
The Internet cut through all that and allowed a free voice and rapid
dissemination of information. Blogs, posts and open discussion have
replaced anonymous unaccountable authority. Electronic printing gives
power to authors and not publishers. People vote with their feet and
make up their own minds. The fact that there are over 200 of us in
this group means something.
The Wikipedia deletionists are consciously harking back to the old
model in the way they treat information. The old pre-2000 power
structures are being rebuilt around a new medium. Well, it is a
social experiment, but not one I want to contribute to.
Mark
Jan Burse
How about merging the existing Shen article with the Qi article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shen_%28programming_language%29
Since Qi is the precoursor of Shen , the Qi explanations could
be added to the Shen article and the Qi article could be removed?
The Shen article has already notability. Nobody will delete it
Bye
Mark Tarver schrieb:
h...@ancell-ent.com
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:50:02 +0100
Hi,
How about merging the existing Shen article with the Qi article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shen_%28programming_language%29
Since Qi is the precoursor of Shen , the Qi explanations could
be added to the Shen article and the Qi article could be removed?
The Shen article has already notability. Nobody will delete it
???
How is the Shen article notable by Wikipedia standards? It's a
3 line stub with two primary sources and one secondary one
that's a blog posting. Of someone I have a lot of respect for, but
as noted in Mark's previous posting and implicitly when I asked
about blog postings in the deletion discussion and didn't get a
response to that part of the question, those don't don't carry
any weight. Notability must be established by "reliable
independent secondary sources" and blog postings aren't
"reliable" and their independence and therefore secondary
nature (i.e. not a sock puppet) can not be verified.
The individual calling for the deletion of the Qi article suggests
getting an article in a publication like PC Mag. That's not going
to happen, for most of the programming world Lisp is an old,
dead language and Qi (and e.g. Haskell) is indescribably esoteric.
I keep quoting it but it bears repeating: in general (not
necessarily in this call for deletion, but certainly in future ones)
to stay on Wikipedia we need to convince "subject-unaware
editors who think that a lambda is a baby sheep".
- Harold
Mark Tarver
> The Shen article has already notability. Nobody will delete it
Re this whole question of 'notability' which this issue is revolving
around. 'Notability' can mean several things.
1. Of interest to a significant number of people.
2. Factually accurate.
3. Original.
The Wikipedia editors seem to be wallowing around all three of these
areas and their discussion is a mess. If 'notable' means 1. then the
size and activity in this group should qualify the Qi article. If 2.
then the article, in its original form, should be retained. The
article describes the behaviour of the system and it is accurate in
its description and this description can be independently verified by
any reader. These are the criteria that count.
If 3. is required then really Wikipedia would have to be rewritten.
Many of the open source software projects described in Wikipedia are
based on previous technology. A lot of open source is copied from
previous work. So I cannot see that 3. can be applied.
It seems to me that what we have here is a bunch of guys playing at
being academic referees w.o. any qualifications. None of the editors
have read 'Functional Programming in Qi', and a quick look at their
backgrounds does not show any significant achievement in the area of
the work. Nor have they consulted anybody who has read the book and
worked in Qi. They cling to their criteria because it absolves them
of the responsibility of making an informed decision.
**Harold, you can quote me in a link on this in the discussion.** But
otherwise don't waste any more time on these people.
Mark
h...@ancell-ent.com
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:16:52 -0800 (PST)
I've given about as much time as I want to Wikipedia.
Same here; in general, when the deletionists captured it I
stopped contributing and now only guard a few articles on
topics I *really* care about.
[ The rat race he left behind. ]
I provided all the academic references from 1991-2002.
But Qi owes its existence to the internet which is the way
that a lot of new work is now disseminated. The old model
under which I worked in the '90s was breaking up even
then. People could not find anything, you ended up
searching stacks of journals. Sometimes you would find
something interesting somewhere obscure. Journals were
controlled by sectarian interests which determined where
the grant money went and who got heard. Book publications
were determined by monetary consideration or your
connections.
The Internet cut through all that and allowed a free voice
and rapid dissemination of information. Blogs, posts and
open discussion have replaced anonymous unaccountable
authority. Electronic printing gives power to authors and
not publishers. People vote with their feet and make up
their own minds. The fact that there are over 200 of us
in this group means something.
The Wikipedia deletionists are consciously harking back to
the old model in the way they treat information. The old
pre-2000 power structures are being rebuilt around a new
medium. Well, it is a social experiment, but not one I
want to contribute to.
Agreed to all of the above.
We should, however, in due course in the transition to Shen
and it's wider use than Qi due to running on many more
platforms return to Wikipedia with a "notable" as they score
it Shen article. As I mentioned in my comments in the
deletion discussion, up to now satisfying Wikipedia's
requirements simply hasn't been a goal of ours (I suppose we
presumed Qi had gotten enough attention, but clearly not for
the typical Wikilawyer).
Going forward we can see about generating enough references
that are "reliable independent secondary sources" as
Wikipedia scores them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
As distasteful as we may find it to jump through their
hoops, I believe this to be necessary. I can't remember how
it happened, but Qi came to my attention through its
Wikipedia page, I probably wouldn't be here if not for it.
"We'll be back."
- Harold
h...@ancell-ent.com
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 06:01:51 -0800 (PST)
> The Shen article has already notability. Nobody will
> delete it
Well, I think the Shen article might go the same way.
Back in 2007 when the first Qi article call for deletion
occurred it was kept because it was new. So Shen might
get a grace period and no one has yet called for its
deletion (although they'd have grounds for that once the
Qi article is deleted since it's *really* useless without that
to reference to). Then again, as I recall, back in 2007 the
deletionists weren't overwhelmingly powerful.
[ Your views on notability, which of course have no
relation to Wikipedia's. ]
It seems to me that what we have here is a bunch of guys
playing at being academic referees w.o. any
qualifications. None of the editors have read 'Functional
Programming in Qi', and a quick look at their backgrounds
does not show any significant achievement in the area of
the work. Nor have they consulted anybody who has read
the book and worked in Qi. They cling to their criteria
because it absolves them of the responsibility of making
an informed decision.
Indeed; I'll close with the last comment from the guy who
coined the one about sheep:
Keep an article because it's *good*?! What sort of
against-policy heresy is this?! Technical articles are
only to be kept if a 20 character string can be
pattern-matched against an irrelevant text from Google
Books, on a totally different topic. Next you'll be
suggesting that articles are here to be *read*, not just
to be kept on the shelf and their perfection of form and
compliancy with policy admired from afar. Andy Dingley
(talk) 10:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
**Harold, you can quote me in a link on this in the
discussion.** But otherwise don't waste any more time on
these people.
OK, but it's not germane to this discussion, rather it
mostly addresses Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which
as many including us have noted totally fails in our field
nowadays (and many others that have moved from the old
model, but we're of course the pioneers in doing this).
- Harold
Mark Tarver
> If a strong enough link with SEQUEL can be established, perhaps a single article covering > SEQUEL, Qi and Shen *might* pass as notable.
online.
http://www.a-cubed.info/Publications/MScThesis.pdf
SEQUEL was similar to Qi but lacked formal semantics and correctness
proofs for the type checking; the compiler technology was less
developed and it was not conformant with lambda calculus but followed
Lisp.
The 1993 IJCAI paper is referenced
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1624141
but you cannot get it online because of publication restrictions.
However I have the original in Latex.
M.Tarver and M. I. Faé Wardrop’s Principle Revisited: a multiagent
approach, Congresso de Pesquisa e Ensino em Transportes, ANPET, 2002.
The ANPET conference which I co-authored the paper was a prestigious
affair. The paper there was all Qi and actually used an early version
of Qi/tk for graphics. It was a paid-for trip and hence I went. I'm
still in touch with Prof. Fae and should be able to get her to place
it online.
The talk to European Symposium on Lisp was as an invited speaker and
this formed the basis of the Shen project described here.
http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/nextlisp(1).htm
My advice is to take the offer of bundling Qi and Shen into one, point
out these things, and offer them the option of having these citations
online.
Mark
h...@ancell-ent.com
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 04:48:51 -0800 (PST)
Harold,
> If a strong enough link with SEQUEL can be established,
> perhaps a single article covering SEQUEL, Qi and Shen
> *might* pass as notable.
Actually the link is very strong; the thesis
reimplementing NQTHM is online.
[ Overview of this and the progression. ]
The 1993 IJCAI paper is referenced
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1624141
but you cannot get it online because of publication
restrictions. However I have the original in Latex.
Heh, off-line references can be better since deletionists
can't trivially look them up and declare them trivial
(that's happened with in the Qi discussion, don't know
if it was correct or fair).
My advice is to take the offer of bundling Qi and Shen
into one, point out these things, and offer them the
option of having these citations online.
So you'd like to try to salvage the article now ... or
better, I would think, is to let the Qi one get deleted and
put the Shen one on the firmest foundation (incorporating
everything that's useful from the Qi article plus an
improved history section based on the above), which would
allow us to add the argument "Shen is brand new, give us a
grace period like you did with Qi"?
We'd also arrange to get Qi (programming language) to
redirect to the Shen page.
If so, if you write the history copy I'll Wikify it and add
it; I have no knowledge of it. Not sure how to address a Qi
-> Shen page move/change ... but I do know that absent doing
something like this the Shen page will become a hopeless
stub if the Qi page that it references gets deleted.
It is a silly game: to give another example, it was decided
that the page for Clojure's creator wasn't notable and
therefore it was merged into the Clojure page, and now I've
watched at least the second round of deletion where
biographical info was declared to be irrelevant to Clojure
and therefore deleted. As far as I can tell we aren't
dealing with people of ill faith, but they are hewing to the
official "letter of the law" for Wikipedia notability which
as previously noted serves our field very poorly.
- Harold
Mark Tarver
> better, I would think, is to let the Qi one get deleted and
> put the Shen one on the firmest foundation (incorporating
> everything that's useful from the Qi article plus an
> improved history section based on the above), which would
> allow us to add the argument "Shen is brand new, give us a
> grace period like you did with Qi"?
with references into the Shen article. However, if they apply the
latter of the law, they may decide to delete Shen as well. If they
are willing to go with this, fine. If not, we are stymied.
There is more than enough material on Qi and Shen to be worthy of
publication and there are people in this group who are capable of
doing it. What is missing is that we are collectively not much
motivated to play this game; we are not fighting for tenureship or
promotion and we're not attached to the taxpayer's teat. People have
other things to do.
Perhaps the Wikipedia challenge has given us some motivation to go
into this; just enough to protect the work from wikivandalism. I
would judge that Kian's work on the JS port, the Abstract Unification
Machine, several of the studies on LA (on algebra for instance),
klltkr's stuff on lazy lists could be made into papers. This is just
off the top of my head. The question is - do these people want to do
this?
Speaking of which I do have an unpublished paper on the AUM written <
2008.
It is a game, make no mistake and I know how it is played. I think if
there is a member of this group who is involved in academia and wants
to crank up his publication record, then I for one would help him in
an advisory way. Then again if you just want the experience of
producing a paper and the thrill of delivering it and you have a bit
of money to cover the costs, again we could collectively help you.
We only need 2-3 such papers. It is doable. It is really a question
of whether people are into it.
Mark
Jan Burse
> We only need 2-3 such papers. It is doable. It is really a question
> of whether people are into it.
Probably wrongly invested time and money. Because most
conferences are dull:
http://se9book.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/original-ideas-dont-get-published-in-top-conferences/
And wikipedia is not fixiated on referenced papers. What
makes an article notable is some coverage in the world,
and not only in academia.
So maybe try some other publicity stunt. Or just leave
it as it is, I still believe the Shen article has already
notability, since there is no request for deletion.
Take for example the following page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarLogo
It has no single reviewed paper reference in the article.
So what makes one assume that Shen has some coverage in
the world vs StarLogo has some coverage in the world?
Well one difference I see is that StarLogo has a
clear indication who the product/service provider is,
in terms of what kind of legal entity it is (MIT
Media Lab and MIT Teacher Education Program).
For Shen it says Mr. Mark Traver developed it? Is this
true? What legal entity is the Lambda Associates then, and
how is it related to Shen?
As long as Wikipedia sees that there is a responsibility
gap, they will be happy bashing on you. They shut up
as soon as they see that there is some real
thing going on.
Bye
Mark Tarver
On Jan 8, 4:47 pm, Jan Burse <janbu...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Mark Tarver schrieb:
>
> > We only need 2-3 such papers. It is doable. It is really a question
> > of whether people are into it.
>
> Probably wrongly invested time and money. Because most
> conferences are dull:
>
yes they are - totally agree
>
> And wikipedia is not fixiated on referenced papers. What
> makes an article notable is some coverage in the world,
> and not only in academia.
>
> So maybe try some other publicity stunt. Or just leave
> it as it is, I still believe the Shen article has already
> notability, since there is no request for deletion.
>
> Take for example the following page:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarLogo
>
> It has no single reviewed paper reference in the article.
> So what makes one assume that Shen has some coverage in
> the world vs StarLogo has some coverage in the world?
>
> Well one difference I see is that StarLogo has a
> clear indication who the product/service provider is,
> in terms of what kind of legal entity it is (MIT
> Media Lab and MIT Teacher Education Program).
evidence of coverage with them than us.
Mark
Jan Burse
> For Shen it says Mr. Mark Traver developed it? Is this
> true? What legal entity is the Lambda Associates then, and
> how is it related to Shen?
So Lambda Associates is a non-profit organisation. When
I send it money, I can deduct it from tax?
http://shenlanguage.org/sponsors.html
But on the landing page it says: Sponsored by Iris Ltd.,
Engineering and Services. This is confusing.
Bye
Mark Tarver
website di not exist.
Mark
Mark Tarver
attention; there are more worthwhile things to be getting on with.
Mark