Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pioneers in computer science

List of pioneers in computer science

List of pioneers in computer science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

To me, this article is pretty clearly WP:OR, and definitely original synthesis. As a case in point, there is a pages-and-pages long debate on the talk page about who "deserves" recognition, which is not rooted in reliable sources of any kind. Wikipedia is not a hall of fame. Lists should be based on objective, recognized criteria. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. There is an on-going discussion on the talk page on how to formulate an objective criteria for inclusion that seem to be leaning for modern individuals (that make up the vast majority of the list) to receiving an award from a closed set of awards.Icewhiz (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there is no consensus on whether to adopt that approach, nor on which awards should be included if that approach is adopted, nor whether receipt of such an award should be a necessary criterion for inclusion or merely an adequate criterion. Zazpot (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

There is an on going discussion that seems to be leaning in the direction I stated above, with specifics being ironed out. It has not ended without consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That's your view, but I'm not the only person who is sceptical of your judgement here. We'll have to agree to disagree about it. Zazpot (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep There are clearly evolving views on the Talk Page as to how this page should be managed, but there are WP:RS sources out there which do cover this topic, and the elements within it all link to blue-linked articles; and a brief summary on each person's respective contribution is helpfully provided. It does not appear (to a non-expert like me) to duplicate the much longer List of computer scientists. So, whilst this page is causing healthy debate, as per Icewhiz, I see no justification to delete or to blow it up and start again. It looks the kind of Wikipedia article that, once stable, would be the sort of encyclopaedic page any uninformed student or user would welcome as a starting point on the topic. I don't see it as WP:OR or WP:SYNTH in the form that it's in, even if opinions or what goes in or out clearly vary between editors. It seems a good adjunct to History of computing. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, the page is a very interesting summary of the pioneering historical personages involved in the mathematical "long march" into and within the computer age. I've often used it as both a starting point for research and a run-through of the history. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• I have added it to Category:Science pioneers and linked to it from the appropriate section in List_of_people_considered_father_or_mother_of_a_scientific_field#Formal_sciences. Keep per above and WP:CLN. We don't have a category just for Computer science pioneers it seems, is that right? That surprises me given what else is there at Category:Pioneers by field but I daresay we could. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I mean, I would argue that most of those categories should be deleted too, as they seem to be a way of ranking or judging people rather than categorizing them by any encyclopedic criterion. "Pioneer" seems to me a very subjective and loaded term. CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Shawn in Montreal's point about existing categories seems to reduce to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Zazpot (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment @Shawn in Montreal: Unfortunately it is not yet clear what this list is supposed to be. Some editors want the "father or mothers" definition, some want "winners of certain major awards in computing", and others seem to want "notable but more notable than just having a wiki article" (including an apparently failed RFC to include "overcoming of social barriers present within the field"). Despite User:Icewhiz's claim that the discussion is leaning towards the inclusion criterion being having won one of a select group of awards I'm not at all convinced that the inclusion criteria are settled, or even leaning. Meters (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. The article is in serious breach of Wikipedia policy. Its edit history shows deliberate, repeated removal of many of the women present (despite Wikipedia's known concerns about systemic bias), and its talk page bears evidence of editors effectively proposing quite serious breaches of policy. (Note: I assume these editors were acting in good faith, but that they simply did not realise just how deeply opposed to policy their suggestions were.) Examples:

• Randy Kryn suggesting that the article should be "an unofficial but important Wikipedia-based hall of fame". This would be WP:SYNTH.
• Dicklyon and Icewhiz suggesting that "We should formulate" what "we mean by pioneers." This would be WP:OR.
• MrFlowerpot suggesting that we Wikipedia editors should "evaluate ... the scientific accomplishments of [each] given individual" to determine whether or not they should be included. This would be WP:OR.
• MrFlowerpot suggesting that Wikipedia editors should infer pioneering status (or not) from the number of citations in the literature. This would be WP:SYNTH.
• Bubba73 suggesting that the article should include recipients of a specific list of awards, with the list being chosen by the article's editors. This would be WP:SYNTH.

Compare the suggestions above with actual Wikipedia guidance:

Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.

— WP:VERIFIABILITY

[Be] aware of original research when selecting the criteria for inclusion: use a criterion that is widely agreed upon rather than inventing new criteria that cannot be verified as notable or that is not widely accepted.

— WP:LISTV#INC

It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one.

— WP:LEADFORALIST

Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.

— WP:LISTCRITERIA

Several editors besides me have called out the bias shown in this article's edits and talk page (thank you): Andy Dingley here, SemanticMantis here and here, and David Eppstein here.

The key issue, though, is that there is no pristine, bias-free means to establish what constitutes a "pioneer" of, or a "transformative breakthrough" in, computer science (or computing, or electronics, per the lede). A much better alternative to keeping this article would be simply to categorise relevant articles as is standard practice, and to have Wikipedia articles for each notable award in the field. This would let us completely avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, while upholding WP:VERIFIABILITY and (I hope!) reducing contentiousness.

Zazpot (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not suggest that it "should be" an unofficial hall of fame. You truncated my quote at its start and at its end. Please don't do that. Here is my exact quote: "It's like an unofficial but important Wikipedia-based hall of fame, so we should be careful to get it right, and the people who care about this page seem to be going in that direction." See how quoting the whole thing in context changes the meaning you gave it? Randy Kryn (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that adding the rest of your quote changes the meaning one iota. There should never be a "Wikipedia-based hall of fame" within Wikipedia (because Wikipedia is not a primary source), and so there is nothing to "get right" about such a thing. Zazpot (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Zazpot, I did not suggest nor would I advocate a Wikipedia based hall-of-fame, you said in your original post that I "suggested" it "should be". I was making a statement about how it might look to someone, not that it is or should be. That you missed the subtlety here might be also why you miss the concept of the page and think women and others should be added on the basis of their sexual identification rather than on the basis of their work as major and field-changing computer-related originators. The present criteria seems clear: "a list of individuals who made transformative breakthroughs in the creation, development and imagining of what computers and electronics could do". Any decision about inclusion should be on the basis of 'transformative breakthrough', not on a sexual or national formula. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, you seem to be saying that the second instance of the singular neuter pronoun ("it") in your quote referred to something other than the first instance did, and indeed to a concept that you did not even mention in your quote. I.e. that instead of referring to an "unofficial Wikipedia-based hall of fame", your second instance was instead referring to "selection criteria"? If so, then I appreciate your clarification, but feel that the issue is not that I misunderstood the meaning of your sentence, but that you did not write what you meant to convey. Zazpot (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The 'it' you've pointed out referred to the list, not that it 'should be' something to the inclusion of all the other things it is or could be. The 'like' in the sentence means it resembles-but-is-not. The 'is' in the sentence in this post depends what the "meaning of the word 'is' 'is'", to coin a phrase. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Delete or move "Pioneer" is a subjective adjective, I doubt It is possible to avoid OR in the article, unless the title and criteria are changed to something more objective (salting would be overkill IMO). Tornado chaser (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Tornado chaser (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)Icewhiz (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. It is not canvassing to notify editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Zazpot (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

When you chose to notify 4 particular users (and two possibly non neutral user groups) who happend to agree with you at some point in the article TP, while not posting the same at other users' talk - you are choosing a possibly partisan group, which is the definition of canvassing.Icewhiz (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering if Zazpot was canvassing. (I was going to comment here anyway and already had the page on my watchlist before being "canvassed") Tornado chaser (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN as one can immediately find entire books about it, including:

1. International Biographical Dictionary of Computer Pioneers
2. Pioneers of the Computer Age: from Charles Babbage to Steve Jobs
3. The Computer Pioneers: The Making of the Modern Computer
4. Computer Pioneers
5. American Computer Pioneers
6. Giants of Computing: A Compendium of Select, Pivotal Pioneers
7. Pioneers of Computing
8. The Man who Invented the Computer: The Biography of John Atanasoff, Digital Pioneer

Andrew D. (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That aspect of WP:LISTN isn't the only issue of concern here. Please look at the discussion above. Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The comments Zazpot makes above are rather irrelevant, and way off-beam. The list should be based on WP:RS, and those clearly exist. So anyone listed as a 'Pioneer' in a book on 'Pioneers' of computing can easily be regarded as a Pioneer, and could go in the list, whether male or female, with refs cited. That wouldn't be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The fact there was discussion on the Talk page of how the List could be structured is a good thing, and it's nonsensical for him/her to state: The article is in serious breach of Wikipedia policy, even if some of the suggestions on the Talk Page were a bit off-beam. Had the list been full of redlinked names, there might be some merit in that assertion. It's a shame editors can't cooperate on maintaining what should be a really useful and informative list of names and contributions in a helful, sortable order. But to suggest WP:SALT indicates there's an 'out-to-get-this-page' mentality, and that's a real shame. If there is a genuine attempt to expurgate women from this List that would be a grave concern and should be brought up elsewhere, with sanctions considered if proven. But, as is stated below, "AfD is not for cleanup" Nick Moyes (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, "The comments Zazpot makes above are rather irrelevant, and way off-beam." I can see how I might look a little unhinged to someone coming at this with fresh eyes. "The list should be based on WP:RS, and those clearly exist. So anyone listed as a 'Pioneer' in a book on 'Pioneers' of computing can easily be regarded as a Pioneer, and could go in the list, whether male or female, with refs cited. That wouldn't be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH." A month ago, I, too, thought the matter was as simple as that. Let me explain how I went from that position to "delete and salt".

A month ago, sharing your view that anyone listed as a "pioneer" in a source on "pioneers" of computing could go on the list, whether male or female, with refs cited, I posted a list of some such sources to the talk page. These sources were reputable: the SIGCSE Bulletin, The Ada Project (of Yale and Carnegie Mellon University), and two newspapers of record (The Guardian and The Telegraph). Those sources were rejected by other editors on spurious grounds, such as that the lists were "large, and almost ... exclusively mention women", or that the women they contained weren't really pioneers even though the sources explicitly described them as such.

Over the course of the last several weeks, the pattern of denying the authority of WP:RS, and advocating inclusion or removal based on editors' expertise or on WP:SYNTH methods such as number of citations in the literature became increasingly serious, and people (especially women) were being deleted despite appearing as pioneers in WP:RS:

(I will flesh out this table as time allows - maybe next week. Feel free to contribute.)

Person deleted	Characterised in pioneering terms by	Notable why?	Inclusion criticised by	Deleted by
Kathleen McNulty Mauchly Antonelli	"Pioneering Women in Computing Technology". Carnegie Mellon University. Schwartz, Juliana; Casagrande, Lindamir Salete; Leszczynski, Sonia Ana Charchut; de Carvalho, Marilia Gomes (2006). "Women in computer science: who have been the pioneers?". Cad. Pagu (27): 255–278. doi:10.1590/S0104-83332006000200010. "Women in Technology Hall of Fame, 1997 inductees: ENIAC programmers".	One of just six original programmers of ENIAC, the first general-purpose electronic digital computer. One of the inventors of subroutines.	Bubba73 Bubba73 (again)	Icewhiz Icewhiz again Icewhiz again
Jean Jennings Bartik	"Betty Jean Jennings Bartik: 2008 Computer Pioneer Recipient". IEEE. "Jean Bartik, Software Pioneer, Dies at 86". New York Times. 2011. "Jean Bartik - American computer software pioneer". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Pioneer Programmer: Jean Jennings Bartik and the Computer that Changed the World. Truman State University Press. "Pioneering Women in Computing Technology". Carnegie Mellon University.	"For pioneering work as one of the first programmers, including co-leading the first teams of ENIAC programmers, and pioneering work on BINAC and UNIVAC I."	Bubba73 Bubba73 (again)	Icewhiz Icewhiz again Icewhiz again
Sophie Wilson	"ARM technology creators among top scientists honoured by the Royal Society in 2016". The Royal Society. 2016. "An unsung heroine of the 21st century". European Patent Office. Bidmead, Chris (2012). "ARM creators Sophie Wilson and Steve Furber: Your phone, your tablet - their chip tech". The Register. "Sophie Wilson - Computing History". Curtis, Sophie (2013). "Original ARM developer Sophie Wilson nominated for European Inventor Award". Computerworld UK.	Created the most widely-used microprocessor instruction set in the world: that of the ARM processor.	No-one	Icewhiz Icewhiz again Icewhiz again

That was when it began to dawn on me that this wasn't simply a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, it was really a dispute about whether to forge ahead with an article whose editors seemed to be forming a consensus that the basis for inclusion should be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, in defiance of core policies like WP:VERIFIABILITY, and in which mischief like removing all citations for an entry or removing women was considered to be in keeping with the article's intent. An article like that has no place in Wikipedia now or ever, IMO. Hence my "delete and salt" position. Zazpot (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This is beginning to get ridiculous. We're not going to delete a page just because you've got some content bone to pick. Please do not flesh out your list. What this or that editor did has nothing to do with deletion. EEng 17:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed. Concerns should be on the Talk Page, Zazpot, and I can see you do really care. But this page is solely for WP:AFD discussion. I think there may need to be a WP:RFC, and possibly concerns over editing practiced raised at WP:ANI. But lets stick to AfD matters here, please. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, thanks. I have already raised several concerns on the talk page, without much success. As for what's relevant to the AfD, the point that I am making (along with CapitalSasha and Tornado chaser) is that the edit history of the article and its talk page show that this article does not have selection criteria [that are] unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, is unlikely to gain them, and therefore should not be kept.

About the editing practices themselves: if you are (or anyone else is) in a position to help with an intervention of some kind, I would appreciate it. With any luck it would succeed in reducing WP:OR, etc, but would be a lot of work to take on, and I can't spare the time at the moment :( Plus, it's probably better for it to be led by someone relatively uninvolved. Thanks again, Zazpot (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The actions of those editors illustrate the difficulty (impossibility?) of achieving consensus on inclusion/removal criteria, and on having a WP:VERIFIABLE, encyclopaedic article on this topic. This in turn speaks to whether or not the article should be kept.

The actions of those editors are also germane to Nick Moyes's comment above, "If there is a genuine attempt to expurgate women from this List that would be a grave concern and should be brought up elsewhere, with sanctions considered if proven." Where else would you suggest I raise this? Zazpot (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

On the article's talk page. You're just going to have to make your case that this or that person should be included, or help thresh out inclusion criteria. (Personal attack removed) EEng 9:39 am, Today (UTC−8)

EEng, please be WP:CIVIL. I have removed your personal attack. Zazpot (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Zazpot, (Personal attack removed) your talk of other editors' deliberate, repeated removal of many of the women present, like it's some kind of conspiracy, is the PA (Personal attack removed). If you disagree take it to ANI and see what kind of laugh you get. I've restored my post; do not fuck with other editors' posts again. EEng 11:16 am, Today (UTC−8)

I have already provided diffs to justify my characterisation of the edits as "deliberate, repeated removals". These removals were discussed on the article's talk page, conducted without consensus, and then repeated after being reverted, so it is hard to think of a more accurate, neutral characterisation. Zazpot (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Your mass additions of figures, based on their social attributes, that included game programmers and the first XYZ to receive a PhD, were roundly rejected on the talk page. A still open RfC shows little support for such inclusion criteria. I was acting within consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

"Your mass additions of figures..." Kindly withdraw that comment. I have never added anyone to the list. Zazpot (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed Sophie Wilson as her inclusion was inconsistent with the exclusion of similar caliber early home-computer / 80-90s microprocessor innovators (e.g. Steve Furber which was on her team, Steve Jobs & Steve Wozniak, etc.) - it is really a discussion to be had on the talk page - but we should be consistent regardless of sex/LGBT status. Some other additions such as: Carla Meninsky, Mary Shaw (computer scientist), Sister Mary Kenneth Keller, or Megan Smith were simply beyond any defense.Icewhiz (talk) 07:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

There are also books called "the 100 best X in category Y" but we don't have wikipedia articles about that.... CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability clearly shown and AfD is not for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Keep This is one of the stupidest AfD nominations in a long time, and that's some stiff competition. Hard work hammering out criteria is a good sign, not bad. On WP we don't delete everything not "pristine". EEng 11:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the distinction between "hammering out criteria" and original synthesis/personal judgment, that's my issue. (And please let's try to keep the conversation civil, I know your comment isn't intended as a personal attack but it can feel that way. :) ) CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, for Christ's sake, you've wasted a large chunk of editor time by making this silly nomination. With your limited experience you should have consulted one or two more experienced editors first before putting the ponderous AfD machinery into motion. Will you be nominating List of aviation pioneers, List of Internet pioneers, Category:Radio pioneers, Category:Automotive pioneers, and List of railway pioneers as well? EEng 16:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

EEng, please WP:KEEPCOOL. At least three longstanding editors had discussed the idea of taking the article to AfD before CapitalSasha did so. See the article's talk page. Zazpot (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Give diffs. (Personal attack removed) EEng 11:16 am, Today (UTC−8)

Sure: Meters and I had this discussion; Tornado chaser chimed in here. Zazpot (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

What your links show is:

• Meters telling you Disagreement over inclusion criteria is not a reason for deletion... If you think this should be deleted then take it to AFD, but I suggest that you will need more than just this weak argument (emphasis added since you seem to have missed it the first time).
• With less than 3K article edits, Tornado chaser is hardly the kind of editor I was suggesting you consult.

Stop fucking with others' posts [1]. The next time you do that I'll simply undo all your changes back to before you did that. EEng 05:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Though I did not and still do not entirely agree with Meters's characterisation, I did and still do entirely understand what Meters said. Note that I did not open this AfD. Re: Tornado chaser, you didn't suggest that I consult anyone. Six months and ~7K+ constructive edits is far more than most registered users seem to achieve (which is sadly unsurprising, given the uncivil nature of all too much treatment of other editors on Wikipedia). I'll follow WP:RPA - "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor" - and I respectfully ask you to leave those edits as they are. Let's stay on-topic, thanks. Zazpot (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I would be inclined to delete those pages and categories too, yes. Wikipedia should not be in the business of anointing people "pioneers" any more than it should be in the business of anointing people "heroes" or "success stories". If you want to criticize me personally, maybe that's a better topic for my talk page, to avoid derailing this discussion.... CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

QED. EEng 22:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep -- The article is a mess at present, but has the merits of providing a place where this is an overview of a complicated subject. A major issue is the order, which is partly chronological and partly alphabetic; I would recommend that it should be chronological, according to the dates of successive breakthroughs. On the other hand, I do not think the tag for references is at all appropriate. The right place to look for references is in the bio-article on each individual. Encumbering a list with loads of references will detract from its usefulness. (I came to this because I watch history AFDs). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:LISTCRITERIA says, "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed ... it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." So references should be included. Zazpot (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem with a chronological ordering is that some don't have a definite date. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep at least pending a final decision about what the inclusion criteria are going to be. Some of the possible criteria appear to make for an acceptable list, so it's premature to AFD this. Content disagreements and discussions of inclusion criteria, no matter how protracted, are not a reason for deletion. Meters (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)