User talk:Allan McInnes/Concurrency project

Suggestions for clarifying the goals or scope of this project, or for organizing the concurrency articles, are most welcome. --Allan McInnes 21:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap with Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science

Doesn't this project have too big an overlap with the (dead) Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science? —Ruud 20:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To a certain extent. I did consider the idea of just using the existing infrastructure of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science. But it seems to me that this project has a much tighter focus than the larger CS project. That said, I am more than willing to be persuaded that this (proposed) project should be either absorbed into Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science (or perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing, which seems more active), or made a child project of one of those projects. --Allan McInnes 21:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It requires some expertise and knowledge to effectively edit concurrency articles. Also concurrency is an area under rapid development and the number of Wikipedia articles will expand in the near future. So we may well be better off having a separate project although it might be a child project. --Carl Hewitt 16:31 22 January 2006 (PST)

I would argue though, that the number of editors is a more an important criteria than the number of articles. While this project is in principle a very good idea it might slowly bleed to dead just as the computer science project did, due to lack of interest. If we would revive the computer science project however (their are loads of computer scientists on Wikipedia, you just have to look very hard) you have a much larger chance that people with a smaller interest in concurreny would input usefully as well. Just my two eurocents, which everybody is free to ignore. —Ruud 01:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruud has a good point that critical mass can be important. Maybe the child project idea is a good compromise? Carl Hewitt 30:01 22 January 2006 (PST)

The real point is getting the page on people's watchlist, though. (And preferably having them post a message on the talk page once in while.) —Ruud 04:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that getting critical mass is, well, critical :-) That being the case, perhaps it would be better to place the work intended for this project under the aegis of a larger project. After looking at both project pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science seems a more appropriate place than Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing, although the computing project is far more active. But perhaps generating some concurrency-related activity will help to restart other CS project activities. I'd be more than happy to integrate the material from this proposal into Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science somehow. Any suggestions on what the best way to tackle that might be? --Allan McInnes 07:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allan: Good luck with this. I am happy to keep an eye on it and perhaps contribute in a small way. --Jonathan Bowen 14:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plans as of 2005-01-24

After a little more thinking about Rudy's comments about the potential overlap with Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science, and the need for critical mass, I have decided that it probably makes more sense to join (and attempt to revitalize) the CS project rather than starting a new project. In the worst case, assuming that revitalization fails, the CS project can just get taken over by the concurrency crowd :-) Best case, the CS project starts rolling again (let's face it, a lot of CS articles on Wikipedia need work), and we get a lot more people working in concurrency too.

That said, I will be leaving the Concurrency project page up (possibly with some edits to make it read less like a project proposal) as a point of reference. Depending on how things go over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science I may eventually look at spinning it off into a CS child project. In the mean time, lets try to use the CS wikiproject as a venue for concurrency discussions. --Allan McInnes 05:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe another collaborative space is better than wikipedia

Allan, When Wikipedia started many people collaborated, with your enthusiasm and good spirit. And, like you people that know what their are talking about. I was too busy to write entire articles but helped with small changes, because I reviewed articles before recommending to my students.

What discouraged me, to do a more active collaboration is the change in the attitude of Wikipedians. It seems to exist a boycott against Wikipedia or maybe just the product of the way it works.

The problem is that many articles are controlled by kids with no formal education in the subjects that they pretend to write about. They even insulted Bertrand Meyer when he fixed the article about Eiffel. I don't know him but he took it with good attitude understanding the immaturity of those who insulted him.

Those kids gain control of Wikipedia because they have time to spend in learning how to write boots to advice them when changes are made in the articles they control. They believe that they know about many subjects, but many times is what they learned in high school repeating their lessons. With a very arrogant attitude they censor everything that don't match with their school notebooks, using a lot of pretexts to delete changes that they don't understand, for example "that is original work". or "Wikipedia is not ...", "need more references".

Concurrency is a tough subject, I don't know if those controllers had irrupted in those articles, because the main changes that they do are in things they studied in high school or general introductory undergraduate courses. With that criteria they ruin many articles. But they have all the time to spend hours doing that, earning more points to get more privileges to gain more control.

There are more serious alternatives to Wikipedia, maybe you should move there if you are still motivated in this task. You have a very good panorama of the subject, perhaps you want to write a collaborative book in a git repository. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:106E:B:50B6:44D1:9C42:AC2A:EE80 (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]