Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination)

mKR and epistemology (theory of knowledge)

I hope I'll be successful in creating a new section here, because scrolling through the hugh volume of edits is getting out of hand. Rhmccullough (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely pleased with my language, mKR, from the point of view of its user interface. I think that when (and it will be when, not if) more people start using mKR, they will find it to be a very pleasant experience.

However, what is really important about mKR is its epistemology, the fundamental tools that it provides to express knowledge. Unfortunately, these issues have never even come up before this group, because all the words and references have been deleted before anyone could see them. I've been following the field of Artifial Intelligence for 30 years, not as closely as a college professor would, because most of the time, I had other job responsibilities not connected to AI.

I going to try to briefly tell you a few of the things that have been deleted from my article before they ever saw the light of day. Generally speaking, the theory of knowledge which should be the cornerstone of success in AI, is almost non-existent. The first of my deleted examples is Terry Winograd, who was doing early, successful work in Natural Language processing at MIT. Even though he achieved moderate success in his work, the signs of disaster were present in his discussion of the work (this was all written up in a book which described his research). In a nutshell, Winograd maintained that it just wasn't possible to define words -- I won't try to elaborate, because I don't have the quote in front of me, and I don't want to screw it up. I might still have the quote in someplace like User:Rhmccullough/Sandbox/History. You can look if you want.

Any way, that's a hell of a start for Natural Language processing -- to say it's impossible to define the words that you're using. And that is a significant indicator of the trouble that has persisted in the AI field for MANY years. The theory of knowledge that AI researchers needed just wasn't there. That's where Ayn Rand comes in, because she was a genius at thinking through complex issues, and identifying the essential concepts underlying those issues.

And, simply put, mKR implements Ayn Rand's theory of knowledge. My discussions with the W3C crowd showed how much trouble they were in, because of a lousy epistemology. But I was the only one who was able to see the problems. The W3C crowd did not appreciate that taking two different definitions for the same word, and stirring them up in a big melting pot would cause some trouble. They did not appreciate that saying that X is simultaneously an individual thing, and a group of things would lead to disaster. It was hard for them to appreciate what trouble they were in, because their logical experts told them they should ignore the question of meaning, that their language, e.g. RDF or OWL, was divorced from the real world, that you had to consider the mapping of language to all possible worlds that might exist.

The philosophy behind mKR is not aimed at "Artificial Intelligence". It is aimed at augmenting "Real Intelligence". The user of mKR is expected to connect his words to the reality around him. mKR provides tools to help him do that.

Now, I hope you have a little insight into why mKR is notable. Why it is important for the advancement of the "Semantic Web". If you sit around debating about possible worlds, you're not going to make much progress in this one, real world that we live in.

And I hope you also recognize how difficult it has been for me to support the importance of mKR, when I was never allowed to present you with any of the information which I outlined above. Rhmccullough (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is all well and good, and your information is useful and your work is interesting. However it misses the point. This is why I suggested Wikiversity. Wikipedia is never the first place to publish anything. As an encyclopedia, we use only what other sources have already published. So, despite your obvious expertise, we can't use this information here. If some reliable source interviews you and you say these things, it becomes fair game. Otherwise, as strange as it sounds, you're not a "reliable source" in the Wikipedia sense. Friday (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to explain this to Dr. McCullough, without a whole lot of success. However, if we can find sufficient evidence for notability, then it might be possible to use his statements of his theories, published elsewhere (maybe even on his web site), as the author of a sufficiently notable programming language. And maybe not, it might be noticed that even this is debatable. But without notability for the language, no, his statements cannot be used. That comes first. Dr. McCullough, this is not a place to publish original research or even original analysis. Sometimes that can be frustrating, when the "research" and the "analysis" seems blindingly obvious to one familiar with the field. But this is an encyclopedia, not a research (or engineering) journal. Presumably if it is notable, it will be noticed somewhere. Suppose someone invents that perfect mousetrap. They live in the middle of the forest. Will the world beat a path to their door? Probably not. And until they do, or something else happens to cause notice, an encyclopedia article on that mousetrap can't be written. Every day, articles about genuine subjects, important to someone (obviously, they wrote the article!) are deleted because they don't have sufficient reliable source. It's nothing personal, in principle, even though some deletionists -- improperly -- go out of their way to make it so.

Dr. McCullough, you have also misunderstood Conflict of Interest rules. You can say whatever you want in Talk and on your user page (provided it is civil.) You probably should not !vote in an AfD over something where you have a conflict of interest (and you do with regard to mKR, even though you don't make money from it. It's your baby, so you should not be judging the baby beauty contest.)

A quick remark re: voting. I was a little nervous about voting. But it seemed like everybody was voting. So I put in my two cents worth. I didn't even know if my vote would mean anything. I was just trying to express my opinion. Rhmccullough (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

However, you can comment in the AfD. I've suggested you not do so, not because it's not improper, but because, probably, about every time you do so you attract a Delete vote, because your arguments are so poor with regard to the purpose of the AfD. Work on finding sources, ask your expert friends, etc. I don't even suggest putting much work into the article here, because if better

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by asking my expert friends. Can a person be a source, or only some written document? I think I have strong support from a number of expert friends, but I don't know if any of my expert friends wrote their opinions down. And what if my expert friends agree to write their opinions down now? Rhmccullough (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I previously mentioned one example of support from expert friends. I consider Ralph Griswold's welcoming me into his computer facilities to be an obvious endorsement of myself, and of the (potential) notability of mKR. In this case, there should be a written record, which authorized me to use the facilities. I consider the publishing of my (Letter to the Editor?) "Knowledge Explorer" to be further written evidence of notability. At the time of publication, it was more than potential notability, it was a partial implementation. Rhmccullough (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

sourcing cannot be found, the article will be deleted, I predict. Find the sources, *then* working on the article will become important.

The present AfD will probably close with No Consensus. But attract enough Delete !votes, and it could close with Delete. It could also close as Delete as it stands now, if the closing administrator decides the Delete arguments are the stronger. It's not, technically, a vote. If we look at the original AfD, there were three Delete votes including the nominator, and three Keep. However, one of those Keep votes was Mr. McCullough's, and he really should not have !voted (and the administrator probably took that into account, I would.) Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delegable proxy. That's my invention, and it had far source at the time of that AfD, than does the mKR article now, and it was deleted. Notice that I did not !vote. I commented a lot, because, after all, I am the expert! It was a little irritating that when I'd present some evidence that could be used to show non-notability, some would jump on it. "See, he admits that blah blah." But I wasn't pushing for Keep, I really didn't care, despite what many seem to have thought. Delegable proxy doesn't need Wikipedia, Wikipedia needs Delegable proxy. It is the only possible solution that I've seen to the horrific inefficiency of Wikipedia process, which is burning out editors right and left, that does not involve abandoning the core concepts of distributed decision-making that have been so important here. But it seems to take about a year for most to start to get that; so ... in another year, we'll see what happens. My friend Absidy, who ended up indefinitely blocked, effectively banned, for various reasons (it's quite plain that the real reason was that he challenged the status quo and was a little incautious about how he did it, being young and sometimes foolish, thus giving those forces excuses, but what he did would hardly have raised eyebrows, done by someone else, he *might*, under the worst conditions, have been blocked for 24 hours, and we just saw worse behavior, truly disruptive, by Allemandtando in this AfD, with some AN/I warnings that might not even be noticed later.) My point? There is a lot of politics involved. But there are also functioning principles, and we may be able to deal with the politics, but dealing with the functioning principles isn't so easy; we satisfy certain minimal standards of notability, and once it is noticed that the article isn't notable, it is not long for the encyclopedia. --Abd (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for fun, did edit count analysis on the !voters in this AfD

collected data June 27, 2008, edit counts (total) and !votes as of 03:12, 28 June 2008, or later (may be updated later) now includes user creation date, or *first edit date if no log entry. This section should be neutral and accurate, please correct it if there are errors.

Keep:

1. User:Al_tally 1148, is User:Majorly 27779, 8 June 2006, admin
2. User:Amog 1139, 3 February 2007
3. User:TotientDragooned 22 edits, 8 June 2008
4. User:Anticipation_of_a_New_Lover's_Arrival,_The 10163, 23 February 2008
5. User:Orderinchaos 33245, 22 March 2006, admin
6. User:Gandalf61 5580, 7 November 2003*
7. User:Abd 3622, 7 February 2005*
8. User:Becksguy 1929, 8 August 2006
9. User:Itub 6523, 9 September 2005
10. User:OtterSmith 705, 25 May 2006
11. User:DGG 37229, 5 September 2006, admin
12. User:Giggy 23098, 15 August 2006
13. User:Danja 143, 1 October 2002*
14. User:SJK 1607, 17 November 2001*

Total edits for Keep voters: 152,784 3 administrators

Delete:

1. User:Allemandtando (was Killerofcruft) 785, 19 June 2008 (nominator)
2. User:Sceptre 45805, 21 May 2005* was admin, apparently resigned in 2006.
3. User:Ukexpat 16658, 13 September 2005*
4. User:Arthur_Rubin 24101, 15 August 2005*, admin
5. User:Friday 16096, 28 June 2005*, admin
6. User:Nagle 6451, 22 January 2006
7. User:Thumperward 23084, 1 November 2005
8. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise 16356, 8 April 2006, admin
9. User:Baseball Bugs 15865, 19 May 2007
10. User:Sticky Parkin 3908, 20 September 2005
11. User:Calton 32458, 4 November 2004*
12. User:HandThatFeeds 275, 20 May 2008
13. User:Minkythecat 453, 5 March 2008
14. User:Fordmadoxfraud 12354, 1 April 2006
15. User:Tiny plastic Grey Knight 645, 11:16, 5 July 2007
16. User:Horologium 9045, 22 May 2006, admin
17. User:TenOfAllTrades 11390, 8 February 2005, admin
18. User:Xp54321 5717 1 March 2008

Total edits for Delete voters: 242,346 5 administrators

No Vote:

1. User:Rhmccullough 596, 12 June 2008 (author of AfD'd article)
2. User:Vegaswikian1 62, 7 June 2008, format only
3. User:Fabrictramp 55178, 13 August 2006, note re listing of AfD, admin

!votes sorted by registration or first edit date

2001 1/0 Keep

1. Keep User:SJK 1607, 17 November 2001*

2002 1/0 Keep

1. Keep User:Danja 143, 1 October 2002*

2003 1/0 Keep

1. Keep User:Gandalf61 5580, 7 November 2003*

2004 0/2 Delete

1. Delete User:Calton 32458, 4 November 2004*
2. Delete User:TenOfAllTrades 11390, 27 November 2004*

2005 2/6 Delete

1. Keep User:Abd 3622, 7 February 2005*
2. Delete User:Sceptre 45805, 21 May 2005*
3. Delete User:Friday 16096, 28 June 2005*
4. Delete User:Arthur_Rubin 24101, 15 August 2005*
5. Keep User:Itub 6523, 9 September 2005
6. Delete User:Ukexpat 16658, 13 September 2005*
7. Delete User:Sticky Parkin 3908, 20 September 2005
8. Delete User:Thumperward 23084, 1 November 2005

2006 6/4 Keep

1. Delete User:Nagle 6451, 22 January 2006
2. Keep User:Orderinchaos 33245, 22 March 2006
3. Delete User:Fordmadoxfraud 12354, 1 April 2006
4. Delete User:Future Perfect at Sunrise 16356, 8 April 2006
5. Delete User:Horologium 9045, 22 May 2006
6. Keep User:OtterSmith 705, 25 May 2006
7. Keep User:Al_tally 1148, is User:Majorly 27779, 8 June 2006
8. Keep User:Becksguy 1929, 8 August 2006
9. Keep User:Giggy 23098, 15 August 2006
10. Keep User:DGG 37229, 5 September 2006

2007 1/2 Delete

1. Keep User:Amog 1139, 3 February 2007
2. Delete User:Baseball Bugs 15865, 19 May 2007
3. Delete User:Tiny plastic Grey Knight 645, 11:16, 5 July 2007

2008 2/4 Delete

1. Delete User:Xp54321 5717 1 March 2008
2. Delete User:Minkythecat 453, 5 March 2008
3. Delete User:HandThatFeeds 275, 20 May 2008
4. Keep User:TotientDragooned 22 edits, 8 June 2008
5. Keep User:Anticipation_of_a_New_Lover's_Arrival,_The 10163, 23 February 2008
6. Delete User:Allemandtando (was Killerofcruft) 785, 19 June 2008 (nominator)

Discussion of !Vote analysis

This AfD has unusually high participation, from some fairly heavy editors, for such a marginal little thing. Do not assume that any particular significance is asserted here if I don't state it explicitly. I hate it when I state a fact and somebody bonks me over the head for making some claim that I didn't make! Shoe fits and all that.--Abd (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)modified Abd (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And the point is? Seriously - the high participation would have been due to ending up on AN ( or was it AN/I)? Total overdrama... Minkythecat (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't have a point, actually, but I'll draw a conclusion: so far, this is truly No Consensus looking at the !votes and, in addition, who voted, i.e., with some vague kind of consideration as to the depth of experience of those who voted. We have participation from a wide variety of users, including highly experienced administrators on both sides. Yes, the high participation is probably related to the AN/I report. I'd argue that this was, indeed, a reason why this AfD should have been *promptly* shut down, and I'll wikitrout myself for not doing it directly to support Al_tally's decision, and for not arguing strongly at AN/I that, if left open, it was simply going to create more wikifuss, that edit warring on a close is utterly improper, out of process, and not the solution to an improper close, and, quite simply, shouldn't be allowed, period, not matter how the "notability" argument was judged. There are very good reasons for allowing speedy close, and we are seeing here, with what is probably, relative to sticking with standard process, a massive waste of the time of a large group of highly experienced editors -- and others --, the reason. If normal process had been followed, without DRV, there would have been another AfD after a decent pause, and if the sourcing situation had not improved, the article would be gone with, I believe, little fuss, I'd predict WP:SNOW. The whole point about process is that improper process has been found, with long experience, to waste time. It's not just Wikipedia. Under Robert's Rules, if a motion has failed, it is not proper to immediately re-introduce it, it takes special process. (If I remember correctly, it could be re-introduced at the next regular session, without that process. Quite similar to our decent delay.) We *have* a process for rapid reconsideration: WP:DRV. Bypassing that process has seriously wasted a lot of time for a lot of editors.

I really don't think you understand what the "!" means in "!vote". And it wasn't the bypassing of DRV which wasted people's time here, it was the disruption of a stone-wall AfD for the sake of making a point about how it was nominated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, thumperward. You just defined half the community as "disruptive." Apparently quite a few editors think that the "point" is an important one. I look at the above list, and, I must say, I'm with the Keep voters, in terms of general behavior. I didn't include, above, block log records, but I did see some. Something about some deletionists seems to dispose toward incivility and edit warring; take a look at the nominator, for starters. I am *not* calling everyone who voted Delete "deletionist," but quite a few of these editors do openly claim to be deletionist Wikipedians. Maybe I should formally compile that. This section here is not intended to influence the AfD, it is, rather, a study of it, to inform my own sense of what is going on here. I do understand the ! in !vote, quite well, thank you very much. I suspect I understand it better than thumperward, though he has, as you can easily see above, roughly seven times as many edits as I. But, hey, that's just my opinion.

Thumperward (Chris Cunningham) is not an administrator. When the nominator edit-warred over the speedy close of this AfD, the closing administrator, quite properly, instead of continuing an edit war (and instead of using his tools to stop it), went to AN/I. And instead of finding support, there, for what should have been easy, open and shut, warning and then possible block of the user then known as Killerofcruft, by an uninvolved administrator, he was asked "What about the notability problems of the article?" Consider this with any edit war problem. The fact is, if an administrator has an opinion about an edit war content issue, the admin probably shouldn't touch it! The problem taken to AN/I was not a notability issue, it was an editor behavior issue. We don't take notability issues to AN/I. That, in fact, is what we have AfD and DRV for. Just the day before, Killerofcruft was before AN/I on other issues related to his vigorous and uncivil deletionism, and over another AfD decision, with a different administrator. This is an account that just registered, during that other AfD! (Claims to be a returning user, which is pretty clearly true.) What do we normally do with "returning users" who come out swinging? Al_tally should not have had to answer any questions about notability. He didn't make his decision based on notability, notability was, quite properly, irrelevant. It was relevant in the first AfD, just closed. And it was raised there, the arguments that it was not considered are preposterous, if you look at the AfD. That AfD wasn't highly contentious, so it's possible to argue that the arguments were not "sufficiently" considered, but that's true with many non-contentious AfDs. It was properly closed. One can argue, again, with the close decision of that other administrator, i.e., claim that he should have ignored the !votes and independently investigated the sources, but that misses the point of how AfD process actually works. If it was the job of the closing administrator to independently investigate and decide, we'd run AfD differently, we'd have an admin appointed as an arbiter, who would hear *and discuss* the arguments, asking questions. That's not how we do it, because we don't want AfD to be mini-ArbComm or even mini-Mediation, because that is far too much fuss for ordinary deletion problems. No, it's the job of the community to present the arguments and the evidence, and then the administrator's job is to look it over. If the administrator finds it conclusive, that's the decision. If the administrator finds it not conclusive, that's No Consensus. And then there are plenty of ways to fix poor decisions. Edit warring isn't one of them. Administrators occasionally do their own investigation, then basing their decisions on evidence that isn't necessarily clearly presented, which is, itself, a kind of a problem, but, again, easily fixable without edit warring and abusive nomination. --Abd (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing with the AfD isn't wasting people's time. Latching on to said AfD, however, and using it as a soap box upon which to make personal attacks at various editors because one dislikes deletionists is very much wasting people's time. Furthermore, admins should be ignoring "!votes", because it's not a damn vote and people who still can't get this through their skulls are likewise wasting people's time "!voting" all over the place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My, my, my. If anyone has made gratuitous personal attacks here, the person should be warned, don't you think? There is one editor whose actions were quite relevant to this AfD, and to the implications, and I've described those actions, and he happens to be a rather strong deletionist, the kind that often ends up blocked. Above, Chris implies "personal attacks at various editors," and I'm at a loss to understand who and what he might mean. My comments about the nominator weren't personal attacks, but possibly could be construed that way. Anyone else? Otherwise, I'd suggest, apologize for overstating the situation, inviting more incivility. We have too much already, that's part of my point. I don't dislike deletionists, per se. I dislike actions that viciously assert a POV on deletionism/inclusionism at the expense of the community. There are some fine editors who are deletionists. One or two. (Seriously, incivility is a problem on all sides of this, and we need to recognize that, and be careful about making knee-jerk assumptions about editor motives. DEL is an essential editorial tool.) In any case, what it the world is Chris talking about? Who is !voting all over the place? --Abd (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe ideally AfD wouldn't be a vote, but sadly the number of participants on both sides is very often a factor. Otherwise sockpuppetry during deletion discussions shouldn't be a problem at all, right? TotientDragooned (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We have, in fact, a hybrid system. Administrators are tasked with examining the arguments made, and may disregard the vote counts, but not entirely. Consider the situation where there are only !votes on one side. Could an admin make the reverse decision? I saw one MfD where the large majority of !votes were on one side, and the closer closed it in a different direction. Now, this was truly ironic. This was the MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion:Delegable Proxy. The community -- in my opinion -- did not understand the proposal and thought it was about voting, so the most common argument given for voting Delete was "we don't vote." When it was closed contrary to the majority, guess who screamed the most at Deletion Review! The closing admin allegedly disregarded consensus. I.e., the vote. (At DRV, it was decided to reopen the MfD. It was then quietly closed a couple of days later with the exact same result as the original closer had decided upon: Keep as Rejected. Which was correct and proper, and had been from the first.) Our system uses Rough Consensus, and administrators have discretion within that. Consider this AfD. Could someone close it with, "Consensus was Delete"? or "Consensus was Keep"? Not now, not at this point, it would be clearly incorrect. "Decision was XXXX" is possible, but that is simply the closer imposing a personal opinion of the arguments. There are two major arguments here and they are at cross purposes, they don't meet on the same level. We have a procedure for resolving these kinds of disputes, and it should be followed. (Yes, I've commonly made the point about sock puppets. We are clearly quite schizophrenic about this whole matter of !voting.) When I did the analysis above, I was actually surprised by the results. I'll confess, I expected to see balancing the votes with edit counts to come up with a different result. But it actually is about the same result. This community is divided here; yet there is no reason to suppose that it will continue to be divided. Follow procedure, and, I'd predict, much, much less problem. (1) Don't rapidly renom articles for AfD, unless there is an emergency. (2) If someone renoms rapidly, close it, pointing to DRV for recourse. Anyone can do this, it doesn't have to be an administrator (3) If someone edit wars over the closure, warn and block, if necessary, consistent with block policy and rules for admin COI. (4) If an admin refrains from using block and protection tools to support this, when faced with edit warring, and goes to AN/I, immediately support that administrator. Don't bring up content issues (unless it's BLP, different animal, sometimes.) Would you rather see the admin protecting to favored version and blocking a disagreeing editor? It's about the edit warring, not the notability of the article, there are other ways to deal with the notability problem, the most efficient, generally, being to simply put off filing another AfD for a while. If a decent period has lapsed (such as the two months the nominator said here, when he attempted to withdraw this AfD) and an article still hasn't come up to snuff, I've seen it again and again, the article goes. But if a close was clearly incorrect, then go to DRV. Simple, not complicated, no matter how much some editors here refer to dancing girls and other distractions. I wish. Where are those dancing girls? Maybe they should be in the contract.--Abd (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• A note to those who are following this list: I have explicitly !voted to delete, since I failed to make that clear in my earlier posts. Horologium (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved the reference above and adjusted the edit count totals.--Abd (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Horologium also corrected an oversight of mine, I'd missed noting he was admin. Thanks. I may have made other errors, anyone should feel free to correct the table. Abd (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a sort by registration or first edit date. I have a theory that early editors tended toward the inclusionist end, and that this is how Wikipedia managed to expand so rapidly. Many early editors have, in fact, left with parting remarks regretting how Wikipedia developed. I do find it worthy of some note (not relevant to the conclusion of this AfD, to be sure) that the three earliest accounts !voting voted for Keep, two on procedural grounds and the other being an editor with prior knowledge of the subject who considered mKR notable based on personal knowledge. We still have a lot of articles from the early days that were written simply based on personal knowledge, and the text stood because nobody with knowledge of the subject considered the text controversial. As editors have arrived with (1) SPA agendas that found that information inconvenient who learned to wikilawyer it out, or, more commonly, (2) concern for satisfying strict interpretation of guidelines over consensus of the knowledgeable, this older text is gradually disappearing, being replaced, if not deleted entirely -- the whole article --, with content of often lesser interest and informativeness. This comment is not an argument in favor of inclusion over deletion, it is simply a recognition of what is happening, often with, at least, reasonable arguments claiming that this is a good thing. I.e., to be reliable, we must do this.

A similar divergence, in fact, took place early in Islamic history. While this description may be oversimplified, within the Sunni community, two major streams of thought about the sources of Islamic knowledge developed, one, the Maliki school, based on the actual practice of communities, particularly Madina, where many had extended direct experience with the Prophet, or with those who had such experience, and the other, the Hanafi, Shafi'i, and Hanbali schools, based on texts and the interpretation of them. The texts themselves, except for the Qur'an, did not exist at the beginning, there was only the shared experience of the community. But, gradually, the precedents were written down and analyzed and fixed rules derived from them. The former school mostly survived in Africa, where extensive contact with widely different cultures required more flexibility in interpretation; generally, the consensus of the community in the Maliki school was considered adequate evidence for some position, and could even override, sometimes, primary texts, being considered to be authoritative interpretation and specification (i.e. interpreting specific applicability) of those texts, based on a famous Hadith, "My community will not agree on an error." --Abd (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is almost a parody of the schism between inclusionists and deletionists now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparing this tempest-in-a-teapot to the early Sunni schism? I could equally compare it to the Roman Catholic - Eastern Orthodox schism. And it would be equally silly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem here isn't inclusionism/deletionism, per se. There are actually several problems converging. One is the rise of strict adherence to written rules, instruction creep it has been called. This impacts inclusionism/deletionism because there is no natural definition of notability; in reality, notability is subjective, though you can write rules which can be objectively applied. The problem is that the rules are, largely, subjectively created, often according to cultural preferences. When we set out to be the "sum of all human knowledge," there is an implied universalism. I.e., the knowledge of Star Trek fans might be just as much human knowledge as the knowledge of a far smaller set of, say, organic chemists. I'm not pushing any particular definition of notability, only claiming that it's subjective and therefore easily becomes highly controversial. Because it is subject, to avoid constant controversy, it is necessary to have ever-increasing specification of objective rules, and thus, necessarily, the project becomes increasingly rule-bound.

The other major problem is procedural. There is very substantial sentiment in this AfD to "Hang procedure, is it notable or not?" However, "procedure" includes the customs by which a society avoids unnecessary conflict. We have strong traditions against edit warring, and we have similarly developed a policy that considers rapid renomination disruptive. And we can see, here, that it is. There was a non-disruptive way to handle this: first, discussion with a closing editor, or if that fails, WP:DRV. I can theorize as to why some editors are gravitating toward focusing on the notability issue, and others are focusing on the procedural issue. To me, though, the matter is clear. The notability issue, whatever the case, is a transient one. We either have a marginal article (nobody has claimed it's a hoax, and it clearly isn't) or we have no article, and neither of these is terribly harmful. (A marginal article might be improved, a deleted article might come back if better sourcing appears, maybe somebody finally reviews the language -- I predict that will happen, actually, but not in time to be relevant here.) However, neglecting the procedural issue has definitely done a great deal of harm, already, and may continue to do harm. Basically, it has already been predicted that this will go to DRV, regardless of which way it turns out. Some editors seem to think that I'm complaining about the time that I, myself, put in here. No. I'm noting the harm done to the project by the wasting of the time of over thirty editors and counting. Time that would not have been wasted if simple procedure had been followed. There was just a comment in the Project page of basically, "Hooray for the nominator! Protecting us from spammers." This article wasn't spam. It may have been inappropriate, possibly, but spam it is not. The topic is real and marginally notable. Spam has a serious impact on my life every day. Spam on Wikipedia wastes a great deal of editor time, but even if this one article were actually spam, the harm it would do, on its own, is tiny. To deal with spam, I learned years ago, the solution wasn't to spend all day reporting the spammers and getting them nuked. The solution was to deal with spam efficiently and having thirty editors debating one piece of spam, quite simply, isn't efficient at all. You speedy or PROD spam, and if that doesn't work, you AfD it, and if that doesn't work, and it isn't truly harmful, you wait and renom after a pause. Usually, if the topic isn't notable, the second nom will get it, and there has been far less fuss. (And very rarely does true spam get anywhere near that far. If ever.) That there is a group of editors who imagine themselves the crusaders against spam and cruft and the like is part of the problem. Killerofcruft came here with a provocative name, and he's been egged on and urged on by a number of editors who really should know better, including Baseball Bugs. This community depends on civility and editorial cooperation, and encouraging rapid and massive changes, heavy deletions of material without discussion, and the like, is disruptive behavior and I suspect that one of the things that will come out of this is an examination of that. And, of course, of my own behavior as well. That goes with the territory.--Abd (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

people sources

update: source 1 may NOT be used, because of privacy issues. Rhmccullough (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have some pertinent info. re two sources source 1. mentioned previously, whose website supported my notability, but website is gone. source 2. (new as of right now) I would say also supports my notability, and might make a statement.

Some more background on these two sources. source 1. We met because he is an Ayn Rand fan, and I saw something he wrote on the internet re: Ayn Rand. We got acqainted, and he started using mKR, with a great deal of assistance from me. He is very enthusiastic about mKR.

If Wayback Machine has captured his website, I know the approximate name, and I could probably find it.

HOWEVER, I'm not sure I would support using that website. Source 1, has at times been traumatised by vicious personal attacks from other people on the web. I'm going to err on the side of protecting him from such attacks, 'though it may hurt me.

A brief aside on source 0 (that would be me). I am so sold on mKR, that I, personally use it often as a thinking tool. mKR is just terse enough, and just focused enough (when you choose the right vocabulary), that it helps to get to the root of an issue.

Source 2. I have known much longer. He was also a Bell Labs engineer at Naperville, IL -- this would be about 1980, I'd guess. He also admires Ayn Rand, but not as much as I do. His philosophy is tied to other sources, that I'm not even familiar with. I consider him to be a better philosopher than I am. He has a real knack for thinking through issues, and coming to reasonable conclusions. After we had both retired, probably some time between 1990 and 1995, I called him & started up some "conversations". We continued these conversations via email. (I live in California, and he still lived in Illinois at that time.)

Being as excited as I was about mKR concepts, I often discussed mKR concepts (remember, at this time, the birth of mKR is at least a couple of years in the future) with source 2. We had very lively discussions, and the viewpoints of source 2 helped me to clarify my ideas about mKR. However, source 2 never really took to thinking and writing in mKR.

I did a lot of thinking and writing in mKR.

source 1 did a moderate amount of thinking and writing in mKR.

To get to the bottom line, source 2 has a pretty good grasp of mKR, even though he doesn't "program" in mKR like I do. He may or may not end up making a statement about mKR. I'd characterize what I have done as "hinting" that I would appreciate some comments from him. And I got the impression that he might be willing to do so. But again, I don't feel comfortable in "pressuring" him to make a statement, and I do not intend to do so. But I think the situation is a little more promising than with source 1, because I'm don't think source 2 has any fear of attacks from anyone.

source 3.

As I'm wrapping this up, it occurs to me that I should say something about source 3 -- Clint Jeffery. As I have mentioned previously, I "met" Clint because he is lead developer of Unicon, which is the primary implementation language for mKR. Clint and I have never met physically; all our "conversations" take place over the internet. I sense that we both respect each other's abilities -- as thinkers, and as implementers of sophisticate software systems. But I consider myself more the junior partner. A lot of times I am asking his opinion on some technical software issue.

The reason I asked Clint whether mKR was an Icon-like language -- 1. That was a new category that he had just added to his website, and 2. I thought mKR probably did qualify to be in that category. As I mentioned previously, I interpret Clint's answer as a qualified "yes". The "qualified" is mainly a result of the fact that mKR (being English-like) and Icon (being more like a traditional programming language) are a little like comparing apples and oranges. I have enough confidence in my ability now, that I'm sure that I could upgrade mKR to the point where Clint would say that mKR was Icon-like, with no qualifications whatsoever.

Right now, I tend to think that won't happen, because I have not found any application for mKR that needed "goal-directed behavior". That could change in the future. If I run into an application which requires goal-directed behavior, I would get great joy out of enhancing mKR's goal-directed abilities.

Time for the bottom line again. I've read through most of the remarks of the editors over the last few days. Several have said, in essence, mKR is surely notable -- look at all the discussion it has created. You all know that I share that opinion. I also feel very strongly that mKR will eventually become widely used, and at that time everyone will realize how notable mKR is.

One final comment. I am pursuing, at a rather leisurely pace, a Sematic Web environment where all the current languages are really "interoperable", i.e., the user can choose to use any language for input, and any language for output. Of course, all languages are not equal. I suspect that even the non-programmers among you now realize that there is a big difference between the RDF and mKR languages.

Good night, all. I hope you will enjoy reading this little essay tomorrow. And I hope it will leave you with a better picture of the nature and value (or not) of mKR. Rhmccullough (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Minkythecat (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

genus-differentia definitions

I now think that this is the most important issue for both mKR and McCullough.

I'm about 99% sure that OWL has genus-differentia definitions only because McCullough convinced OWL team it was an essential feature. That fact supports the notability of McCullough.

genus-differentia definitions are an essential feature of mKR, which supports the notability of mKR.

facts are supported by the W3C OWL email archives.

Rhmccullough (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

So that others understand what McCullough is talking about, he is claiming that his development and discussion of mKR impacted, substantially, further development of that language, and this took place through mailing lists with the developers of Resource Description Framework and OWL, both of which are clearly notable. I haven't approached the possibility of using mailing lists, but I have seen mailing lists used to establish historicity, when what is claimed is clear. What I'd see as the problem here is that, unless a notable developer explicitly states something that could be quoted, such as "I was influenced by mKR In making this change to OWL," it is going to be, probably, impossible to use the mailing list as a source for the claim of influence. To synthesize the conclusion that OWL was influenced, absent some quote from a notable expert like that, is original research, not allowed. If quotes like that can be found, then we'd have some new evidence for notability, and some material that might be usable. I haven't seen it, but what I'd recommend is that Mr. McCullough go through the mailing lists, looking at posts from clearly identifiable, notable experts, and identify possible posts. I or others would then look at those and see if we can possibly use anything.

Further, to explain to Mr. McCullough, many editors will tell you flat out that mailing lists can't be used. But, in fact, there are exceptions. I'm not going to explain them all, but they exist and nothing should be ruled out without examination. Don't get excited if you find something that seems good to you. The chances are slim. But it's not impossible, that's what I'm saying.

One more comment: from what I've seen so far, I suspect that most of what Mr. McCullough has said about mKR is true, but it is difficult to source other than from him, and he is not good at explaining it. His language is, indeed, "user friendly" compared to the alternatives (try looking at mKR code and then at RDF or OWL, and that is part of how he has influenced them. But there is also more to it than that, I think.--Abd (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Was there a source?

Someone mentioned that someone might have found an actual source about this. However, there's such huge walls of text to wade through, I'm not seeing it. A proper source may indeed change things (altho, if it's only one, this is doubtful). Can someone please explain where this alleged source is, without posting a small novel in the process? I'd really like to see it. Friday (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Aww, crap. Is this true? I know some of you want this to be kept, but please don't be dishonest about sources. What's going on? Friday (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, it's in reference to this, it can be described in lots of ways but a journal, surely no? --Allemandtando (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a source (there is more than one, but probably at this point this is the strongest one.) Nobody voting Keep on this, as far as I've seen, has been "dishonest" about sources, but some have certainly only examined some sources shallowly. It's a "newsletter," issued regularly by Ralph Griswold. See [1] for the ICON home page and [2] for the newsletter home page. This is the front page of the newsletter in question.[3] Notice that the article is listed separately from the "From our mail" section. This is not a "peer-reviewed journal," but neither is it "self-published," which generally refers to something published by the author. It's like any magazine: it has an editor or editors, who review content for interest and accuracy. If anything there were controversial, we'd have to be more careful than we would with a peer-reviewed journal, but, in fact, nothing there is controversial. The only statement in the article that I can see as questionable follows, and, in fact, it is accurate because of how it is worded: "It can be viewed as a super-intelligent filing system, which will restructure itself on command." It is correct, because it can be viewed that way, but, still, I wouldn't use it just like that, I'd take out the hyperbole. It *is", arguably, an "intelligent filing system." That, in fact is what the whole field is about, Semantic Web and all that. And thanks for asking, Friday.--Abd (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I question whether a "newsletter" like this qualifies as a valid source. How is it any more valid than a blog, for example? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, slightly more valid. Blogs by notable experts can be used as sources, sometimes. However, a print publication is different from a blog because there is far more expense involved: printing and postage, for starters. In either case, the editor is known and had a reputation at stake, if he published nonsense, he'd have damaged that reputation. (And he had co-editors to help.) Yes, I know that BB will "question" whether or not this is reliable, and we have ways of dealing with controversies over this, and AfD isn't it, really. It's an editorial question, normally. Can the source be *used* in the article? And I'm pretty sure I know where the question will resolve. It's a better source than a lot of what is already used in articles in the field. It could be used. Does it establish notability? That's another question, a more difficult one. By itself, alone, probably not. But it isn't the only evidence for notability, and that is, again, a proper question for an AfD uncomplicated by improper nomination issues. I have not attempted to insert the sources I've found into the article because, from the above comment and other behaviors, I know what is quite likely to occur: edit warring over the usability of the source, and I don't want to complicate this AfD any more than it already is complicated. It has been asserted by quite a few commenters that there is "no source." I've simply pointed out that this is not true, and I actually pointed it out several times.--Abd (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I my edit summary for the above edit, I called the source a "valuable source," I meant to say "usable."--Abd (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it presumes that someone other than the author consented to including it. But, hey, it's from 10+ years ago, and it's some little departmental newsletter. Hardly the kind of significant coverage that is our general standard. If in these 10 years, this is the best that's available, I think this tells us everything we need to know about the level of coverage this topic has gotten. It's interesting stuff, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. This is why I've encouraged the author to write as much as he wants on this topic over at Wikiversity. Friday (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) Notability does not expire. There is, however, much more recent notice of this program, another expert who just added it, with a brief comment, to a resource list. But I'm not debating these sources here. I simply responded to Friday's request to confirm whether there was, or was not, a single source. If Friday turns out to be correct, that this is the best available -- we don't actually know that yet, there has really only been a few days of effort by editors who know what to look for, the author didn't and has been totally clueless about this, not understanding what was needed -- I'd agree. An uncomplicated AfD with an article that has had its best shot may still fail notability. But that is actually beside the point. The real issue here is one of process. Notability, contrary to false claims made here by a few, was considered in the previous AfD. We simply think that it wasn't considered well enough. Which happens all the time. (In both directions, by the way.) We do not therefore allow rapid renominations. We wait. As suggested by Jenny below.--Abd (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm veering towards the same conclusion as Friday, but I don't think the current AFD is tractable any more. In a few months the situation can be reconsidered calmly and consensus ascertained. --Jenny 14:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Only if nobody notices it. I dunno.. I'm hoping some brave soul comes in and closes this with an actual conclusion, because I don't see what's to prevent some future AFD from getting just as derailed as this one. Unless we have some separate AFD board which says "please only contribute here if you have something relevant to say"... Friday (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Snowball's chance in hell it won't be noticed. Quite a few editors now have the article watched, and will see the AfD notice. The first AfD wasn't derailed, it simply didn't get enough attention. This one was derailed because it was blatantly out-of-process. The next one, presumably, won't be, and it will have the advantage of this entire preceding debate, which does contain a few cogent arguments (in both directions), plus a month or two of opportunity for editors, including some actually knowledgeable in the field, to give the article its best shot, to find the best sources, and to clean up the article, without the COI complications. I'd say it's clear. This should close as the original closer attempted (as improper nomination) or as No Consensus, which is accurate. Nothing here is wasted, in terms of the eventual decision, this AfD will be noticed and referred to in the next one, if there is a next one, which seems pretty likely to me. This is how we normally do it and this is how it should have been done, and is how it still should be done. Consensus as to result, I predict, will be clear in the next AfD. If we want more brou-ha-ha, though, someone will take this close to WP:DRV, no matter what it is.--Abd (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone cite the rule as to the minimum time before a new AFD can be posted? I'm not finding it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I was told on the other page that there is no specific time period. In short, the complaint that this quick renomination violated process is a false claim. There is no specific minimum time period. It's a judgment call based on circumstances, not a rule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) It's correct, there is no specific minimum. But there would be no disagreement that, say, a week is too short. One of the things that may come out of this AfD is a specification of a time period. There is already process for overriding any stated period, so the usual arguments against nailing it down could probably be dismissed. It's like the 3RR rule. It was set at an arbitrary level, and is a "bright line," not the actual limit. Violate 3RR, you can be blocked and nobody could criticize an administrator for doing it. And if you were following WP:IAR and can show that, you'll be unblocked and the unblock record will show it. But you can be blocked for edit warring below 3RR, and sometimes you can get away with more than that, if you have very clear reason and show it. (And you have an actual emergency, for example, it is WP:BLP, and you sought help at AN/I as soon as possible.) So we'll need to nail down, at WP:DP what a "bright line" is for this. Otherwise people like the nominator here will cross that, with BB cheering him on. --Abd (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverted closure, closure, and disposition of files

Fascinating. A relatively new user, on the face, User:Xp54321 5717 edits a few minutes ago, registered 1 March 2008, closed the AfD as a non-admin closure. This account is a rather odd one. New account, claims, however, to have been using Wikipedia for a long time. Registered and began heavy activity immediately. Uses Twinkle. (Please: do not assume any criticism here, I'm just noting some salient facts.) He had voted in the AfD, for starters, which technically means he shouldn't have closed; but he voted shortly before closing. And he voted Delete.

User:Arthur Rubin reverted the close as improper:(A non-admin closure as no consensus is almost always wrong, reverting.)[4]

Arthur Rubin had previously voted in this AfD, Delete.

Now closed by User:Fram as Delete. Page Talk:MKR (programming language)/Sources was AfD'd and speedy closed by Friday as Userfied to User talk:Rhmccullough/Sources.

Article is now at User:Abd/MKR (programming language), with its Talk page, for work on the article. --Abd (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Closure

I'd say Rubin was COI on this as well as Xp54321 (or more so, because Xp54321 actually acted contrary to his !vote, whereas Rubin could -- possibly -- be seeking a confirming closure), and he should not have touched the closure. He could, of course, revert himself. But I'm not going to bother to warn him, someone else could do that if they want to make the point. It could all be moot soon, but users who are thinking of getting involved should watch for flying wikitrout, they could smack you across the face.

Kudos to Xp54321, for having the guts to make that closure, no harm will come to this user from it. Unless he or she is clueless enough to edit war over this, which would astonish me. This is not a new user, that much is clear.

I'm sitting back and watching the fireworks, and kibitzing. Afterwards, we will look at the debris and see what is worth taking home from this.--Abd (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The hurry-up closure of the first one by a non-admin is what caused this problem to begin with. If they had left the original AFD open, it would still be open, as they would still trying to be finding sources to justify the article's presence in wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. The most likely closure for the first AfD would have been precisely No Consensus, by someone else. It wasn't contentious, there was no big back-and-forth, with tenacious argument on one or both sides. Sourcing was argued, but not tendentiously (nor deeply) Read it! --Abd (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec w/ BB)Considering that the first close was also a non-admin closure, they is absolutely no way that this extremely contentious AfD should also be closed by a non-admin. Wait for an uninvolved admin to decide to close before proceeding any farther. Horologium (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is going to be discussed in a relevant place where something can be done about it. I fail to see why admin tools are needed to close No Consensus, so I'm discussing it at WP:Non-admin closure -- which is merely an essay. What's needed is experience, and the first AfD was closed by an experienced user and there was nothing improper on the face. Nor did Rubin assert any actual impropriety other than the technical "non-admin" issue. The closer Rubin reverted was arguably not COI. Rubin was. He should not have touched it. (It can also be argued that Xp54321 was COI, but that's weak. He !voted Delete, but immediately closed with a contrary conclusion to his vote. And his closing justification was simple, but correct. DRV would be proper. But *I'm* certainly not going to touch that close! I'm with Horlogium, waiting for an uninvolved admin to close. Because the very possibility is controversial, I'd not advise any non-admin to close at this point. Though, I suppose, if you'd like to be a part of a possible (not very likely but possible) ArbComm case later, you could try it, and we could see who else would take the bait to revert you based on your allegedly inferior status. Don't listen to me, I'm enjoying the fireworks. Don't get yourself singed. Or wikitrouted. Best thing now: sit back and watch, unless you've got buttons and care to take on this monster AfD. --Abd (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes- A too-hasty closure without looking at the facts is what got us here. More of the same cannot get us out. Friday (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So what do you guys propose we do now?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 18:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait for an uninvolved admin to close. (There's 1500 admins; not all of us have participated in this discussion, although it may feel like it.) Horologium (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: It may take a while, because a lot of sane admins are going to look at this train wreck and decline to close. Eventually, some hardy soul will take the plunge. Horologium (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ain't that the truth. I agree that it's very essential that only an uninvolved admin should close this. Preferably one with experience closing very difficult and contentious AfDs and a reputation for providing well reasoned closing rationale. Someone like Sandstein, for example, although why should he have to deal with this mess. I would love to hear what's going on relative to this in the admin IRC channel. ☺ — Becksguy (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How about just leaving it open until you all find some valid sources? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How about taking the time to learn how AfD works before arguing every point tenaciously? Did you notice that an experienced Wikipedian (very early registration) claimed to be very familiar with the field, knew about mKR and its significance independently and offered to work to improve the article if this process doesn't delete it. Why not now? Think about it. It's work. And AfD's can be quirky, and it's a pain in the rump to work on an article, come back here, note that you found a reliable source, and then along comes an administrator who doesn't read everything -- happens all the time -- and decides, "Delete." I've put off my own work on the article until this is closed, for similar reasons. I did some search for sources, and, as has been seen, there was more than was being claimed. So ... I'm simply trusting that process will be followed, the decision will be reasonable, and then I'll know where to put my work. No, we don't take a large AfD like this and leave it open, there is no process for that. Period. However, it may take time to close, because it's not an easy task, this one. There is a collision of two different streams of thought in Wikipedia here, and it isn't Deletion vs Inclusion. It is Rules vs. Process. So, as I've been saying, sit back and watch the show. If you really really care about an individual article and you are attached to the result, you may find yourself getting hurt. Don't be. Do your best, stay out of trouble. --Abd (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You're arguing procedural stuff. I'm applying logic and reason, and also trying to follow the cardinal rule of wikipedia, that wikipedia does not originate information, that all information presented must come from valid sources. So far, there aren't any. The fact that some wikipedia claims to be an expert is irrelevant. He still needs to provide actual valid sources. His opinion is not a valid source. So far, there aren't any to be found. Until or if they can be found, and to demonstrate that this language is "notable" beyond some original-research opinion, this article has no business being on wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually a reliable source was found and discussed above. There are others as well, but, hey. Horse Dead. Doesn't Care if You Beat It. Feels No Pain. And certain editors won't be able to remove sources from the working copy of the article. It's actually a decent result, probably the most efficient possible, given that those editors would be buzzing around the article in article space. See you around! --Abd (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)