6 ms·
As an aside - Is Rich Hickey still not notable enough to have a wikipedia entry? Even the person who has shepherded on this paper has a wiki page.
by imdhmd 6y ago
As an aside - Is Rich Hickey still not notable enough to have a wikipedia entry?
Even the person who has shepherded on this paper has a wiki page.
- JBiserkov 6y agoGiven Wikipedia's bizzaro rules, I wouldn't be surprised for him to get a page as an author of the paper ;-)
- xxpor 6y agoIf it hasn't been deleted before, be the change you want to see in the world :)
- gregschlom 6y agoIt has been deleted and now his entry redirects to Clojure. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rich_Hickey&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rich_Hickey&actio...
- dragandj 6y agoWhat a hilarious reasoning that editor gives: > Restoring redirect - I see no evidence that he is notable for anything but Clojure Redirecting the Wikipedia article for Elizabeth II to buckingham.co.uk. I see no evidence that she is notable for anything but being the British queen.
- aliswe 6y agoThat is actually a kinda good reason.
- dragandj 6y agoAren't most notable people notable for one notable thing? Sorry, to get into Wikipedia, you'd have to win at least one gold medal at the Olympic games, be elected president of at least two countries, die in no less than 3 battles, AND you have to be the first confirmed case of at least one pandemic.
- aliswe 6y agoHaving created a notable thing is not EXACTLY the same as being notable. Sometimes.
- dragandj 6y agoI agree with that. Wikipedia certainly has a page about Kim Kardashian. She is notable. For what? For being notable. Perfect case for Wikipedia.
- svat 6y agoI think a rule of thumb is that something must have been written that was about you, rather than about your creation or whatever. The idea is that as Wikipedia is supposed to be a summarization of the secondary sources on a topic, there should be some material that would fit only in an article about you, and not in the article on whatever you're famous for. Some interesting examples are in the section about “people notable for only one event”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#... (which is not about people who created something and does not apply here! Just mentioning it for what it shows about interesting aspects of their policy.)
- thijsvandien 6y agoBy that reasoning, we might as well remove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_van_Rossum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_van_Rossum.
- dang 6y agoHe's notable as a thinker and speaker about programming, quite apart from Clojure. The idea pool is the same, but that's true of any thinker. It's a bad argument regardless. Plenty of figures in intellectual history are notable because of one big thing they created, and I'm sure most have Wikipedia pages. Alas I'm blanking on examples just now.
- dragandj 6y agoI'm confused by your reply, since we both agree that Rich deserves a wikipedia page.
- lispm 6y agoI never understood the rationale behind the deletion. Being the primary designer of a popular programming language is relevant enough for me.
- chiyc 6y agoDefinitely. I've come across plenty of Wikpedia profiles that are just self-maintained profiles by hardly known entrepreneurs or startup founders. Ranging from Clojure and Datomic, to his insightful talks on software design, and everything else in between, Rich Hickey's made far more significant contributions to the world in comparison.
- ImprobableTruth 6y agoWhat is notable about Hickey besides being the creator of Clojure? Not to say that this alone doesn't make him notable, but I also don't really see the gain in an entry that is just a glorified redirect.
- puredanger 6y agoHe also created the Datomic database https://www.datomic.com/ https://www.datomic.com/
- dragandj 6y agoAll right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
- JBiserkov 6y agoDidn't he also create ClojureScript? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVooR-dF_Ag?t=180 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVooR-dF_Ag?t=180
- puredanger 6y agoAnd edn https://github.com/edn-format/edn https://github.com/edn-format/edn And transit https://github.com/cognitect/transit-format https://github.com/cognitect/transit-format
- svat 6y agoI've gone ahead and restored the article, but not knowing much about Rich Hickey I hope someone here can edit the article to actually contain some (sourced, i.e. with citations) content, as it's pretty bare right now (looks/looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rich_Hickey&oldid=960777210 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rich_Hickey&oldid...). The article was created in 2008 and its deletion was discussed and happened in July 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rich_Hickey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... Someone recreated it (without discussion) in August 2013, and it was reverted to its "redirect" state in January 2014. I suspect that notability has changed now (e.g. Clojure itself is more popular, there are other things, and if nothing else his notability as a speaker is probably worth mentioning) and my guess is that if the article were to be discussed again, it might survive. But this is assuming there is actually content for the article that someone can add to it! Otherwise what's the point of an article about a person that doesn't say anything? If you look at the other articles mentioned in this thread so far (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_van_Rossum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_van_Rossum, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Wall, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gosling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gosling, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Odersky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Odersky, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmus_Lerdorf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmus_Lerdorf, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukihiro_Matsumoto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukihiro_Matsumoto, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Syme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Syme, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Pike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Pike) all of them contain some information about their article's subjects, beyond simply mentioning the language they were involved in. In my experience, adding something well-sourced to Wikipedia is usually a more lasting contribution (probably more people will read it, over time) than comments on HN -- the only downside is that it may get reverted quickly on flimsy grounds and you need some experience to make good edits that will stick. Edit: Or just mention here what can be added to the article and what the source of each bit of information is, and I'll try to add them!
- imdhmd 6y agoThat's great. Thank you for going ahead with that. I'll try to add some more relevant details with citations over the weekend or atleast put it here. Do you think if we start a new thread, it will gain more traction? Just a thought.