User talk:Benhocking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Archive 1 (Most recent archive)

[edit] OO.o

In regards to this discussion, do you think that the current way to, ummmm, "represent" the group of knowledge is the best? What I mean is, I find myself agreeing more with you, but is there a category (or could there be a category) for all open source uses? —ScouterSig 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be, but it might not be. I believe a category for all users of open source code would be too broad to be helpful, except possibly as a parent cat. That said, I could imagine there exists a better representation, although I cannot imagine what that representation is. I do believe, that unless/until there is a better category to merge it into, it is better to have an imperfect user category than no user category for that type of collaboration. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I read your comment at the top of the section of WIkipedians by software. Your point was responded to (at least by me). But maybe it was missed in the voluminous text : )

Anyway, I think that your comparison of an office suite to a programming language in the medium of Wikipedian categories is just like comparing apples to oranges. Yes, they're both fruit (software), but they're decidedly different.

Even if you look over the link you posted, the commenters make it clear that the p/l cats are useful for those who create bots, and so on.

To me, there is a major difference between someone who creates software through a P/L and someone who creates text through an office suite. The latter is generic to any text editor, whereas the former has direct use on Wikipedia, both through article collaboration, and through collaborating on tools/bots/code for Wikipedia. Wikipedians by "word processor" just doesn't even come close to comparison.

I hope this helps clarify what "I" was thinking/attempting to say.

That said, I'm interested in your further thoughts on this. (Though I'll warn you in advance that I'm currently considering nominating at least some of the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by text editor for deletion...) - jc37 07:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The bit about the bots is a useful distinction. However, there were many other points made during that previous discussion about P/L that still apply here. It was not my impression that the bots were the only reason those cats were kept. That said, there's no way I'm arguing that knowledge of a P/L is the same as knowledge of an office suite (or text editor). However, there is a bit of a continuum. For example, are MATLAB and Mathematica proper programming languages? Do you think they can be useful for bot creation? (Possibly surprisingly, they can, although I'd be surprised if they were being used that way.)

Do you think it would be useful if I pointed out those arguments made previously that apply here? If I pointed out the numerous similarities between apples and oranges? (Both are good for you, they both have seeds, they come from flower-bearing trees, etc.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is implied (but not stated), when suggesting that both are fruit : )

(mumble... presuming that others see what seems obvious to me, and noting that by implication, rather than directly explaining, seems to be a concern of late, I suppose I should work on that... It's just that they seem so obvious : ) - jc37 14:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how it's been closed, I suppose not. I also know that taking it to DRV won't help. I suppose when the only categories left are the babel categories and rouge admins, then maybe the pendulum will begin swinging the other way. (Yes, that's my frustration showing. Don't take it personally.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I've been there myself. It's funny (and you may or may not feel the same way...), but it's interesting to watch the subtle progression of your comments at UCFD. I see paths I too have tread. (logic, consensus, precedent...) I don't know how to better explain than that.

Anyway, I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 14:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than paths, perhaps they could be considered stages (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and, possibly, acceptance). Anyways, I'll be mostly away for awhile. I won't have much access to computers during Christmas vacation, and shortly after that I'm flying out to Albuquerque to help some archaeologists out at Chaco Canyon, NM. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

An archaelogical dig? Ok, I'll admit it, I'm envious : ) - jc37 16:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, they're not allowed to dig, actually. Indigenous rights and all that. We're documenting things (mainly architectural structures) that were previously dug up in less enlightened times. (Less enlightened in more ways than one. Much of the old work was also destructive. My favorite story—in the heart-wrenching sense—is when George H. Pepper used 1,000 year-old wood that would have been useful for dendrochronology purposes, as well as other purposes, to help fuel his fires.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that story was gut-wrenchingly painful. - jc37 17:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas