Content deleted Content added
→Nova Trex/Wang: Response |
→Valid Criticism is NEVER Vandalism: Updated comment |
||
| (92 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 149:
Wukunendo comment made to Caleb prior to his reverts: "Please stop engaging in edit wars. Read your talk page. Be specific in V's talk page or reply to your talk page. Do not violate the three-revert rule" (changes are after this request and without any consensus).
{{smalldiv|
# 4 November 2023 Caleb Stanford talk contribs 16,578 bytes −2 heading undo Tags:
# 4 November
# 4 November
# 4 November
# 4 November
# 4 November
# 14:56, 4 November
# 14:
# 14:
}}
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V_(programming_language)&diff=prev&oldid=1183470155]
Line 512 ⟶ 510:
== 0xDeadbeef series of edits/reverts/tags without discussion or consensus==
Includes removal of sources, shown above.
{{smalldiv|
# 07:43, 11 November 2023 0xDeadbeef talk contribs 15,639 bytes +131 Added '''Tone''', '''Overly detailed''', and '''Unreliable sources''' (Note- placement of tags over article).
# 07:
# 07:
# 07:
# 07:
# 07:34, 11 November
# 07:
# 07:
# 07:
# 07:22, 11 November 2023 0xDeadbeef talk contribs m 17,379 bytes 0 →History: position of originally undo Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
}}
::# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V_(programming_language)&diff=prev&oldid=1184574278]
Line 617 ⟶ 613:
::The question looks like it's being asked as if suggestions, compromises, or specifics were never/are not given. All while the tagging (continuous changing of tags), degradation, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing disruptive looking editing] continues. New tags now placed, "Non-important content should likely be moved to another article or removed", are creating the appearance that more content should be removed. This, after yourself and what appear to be selected editors had already removed lots of relevant content without debate. And that content being removed, was already a compromise.
::A very clear example of what was done: On [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V_(programming_language)&diff=cur&oldid=1184471742 16:46, 10 November
::You (0xDeadbeef) have made the last '''23''' of the last '''30 edits''' (and counting), since Caleb's last edit. This has been intense, turbulent, and an odd sustained focus on this particular article. For unclear reasons, because it's not like research and editing on a draft for an upcoming review.
Line 661 ⟶ 657:
::I'm going to remove it right now despite your objects because it violates [[WP:COPYPASTE]]. [[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] ([[User talk:Jan200101|talk]]) 11:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Please do not make false statements. The explanation above the example on heap structs comes from the reference provided, page 172 and "Understanding heap structs". Additionally, a particular person's lack of understanding about programming terminology or the material covered, would be their personal issue and not grounds for removing sourced content ([[WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE]]). [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 15:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
::::You are correct, page 172 of the book briefly talks about Heap Structs after the introduction of Structs however the exact text on the wiki can be sourced back to the Vlang documentation which is licensed under MIT and copied without attribution.
::::This is a blatant violation of at least [[WP:COPYPASTE]] and the MIT License in multiple cases [[Talk:V_(programming_language)#copy_pasted_article_contents]].
::::I also don't understand why you are talking about programming terminology, I do not take issues with the terms used but with how the content is layed out to give incomplete information while also not detailing how the functionality of the language actually works. [[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] ([[User talk:Jan200101|talk]]) 06:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::From the statements, what you appear to want or are focusing on has nothing to do with copyright law or Wikipedia's policies. Small {{tq|'''code snippets'''}} are {{tq|'''not'''}} protected by copyright (especially common and simplistic small examples), unless more than a dozen or so lines of code, where they can then be considered creative enough. {{tq|'''Paraphrasing'''}} is {{tq|'''not'''}} WP:COPYPASTE and is what editors of Wikipedia are suppose to do when explaining text from a reference. The point of an example, is to {{tq|visually illustrate}}. The text above the example is to {{tq|describe}} what the example is doing. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 08:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::I've been told that the best way to resolve this is to simply add attribution.
::::::To cause no conflict its been added under the WikiProjects on this Talk Page leaving the article untouched. [[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] ([[User talk:Jan200101|talk]]) 09:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Changes should be clearly explained, either in the edit summary or on talk ([[WP:ES]]). Especially to not look like a form of vandalism ([[WP:SNEAKY]]). Adding the date of {{tq|'''3 November 2022'''}} is baffling as well. Additionally, most books written about a programming language and nearly all programming articles have some relationship to the language's documentation. So far, searches on other programming language articles with examples on Wikipedia does not show them doing what was attempted here.
:::::::You left a blank edit summary and have stated on talk that {{tq|'''"I've been told"'''}}. It's vague and gives the impression you are working as a team with unknown persons. {{tq|'''Who told you?'''}} (from your statement of "I've been told"). What specific Wikipedia policy are you referring to and what's the connection to this article? [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 22:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Apologies, the summary got lost when I was previewing the changes.
::::::::I ask you not to accuse me of something that you cannot prove, I've been trying to converse with you in good faith believing that we are both arguing to improve the article.
::::::::The date 3 November 2022 comes the earliest revision of the article {{oldid2|1119793781}} which is the initial revision of the article which also contained the sections copied from the V documentation. The Dual template requires that a date is given so I needed to pick that date.
::::::::I've said that "I've been told" because I've asked on IRC what the best action going forward with this case is since you take any modification to the article as a personal attack.
::::::::What "I've been told" is that this issue is minor and generally not worth fighting over and that simply adding attribution to the Talk page would be the simplest solution since it would satisfy the MIT license and thus count as proper attribution (though I do not fully agree with that but this could be argued about).
::::::::Regarding citing books or documentation, there is nothing wrong with that but it is important to properly cite sources and when entire sections are copied it is important that the license of the source is respected which is not the case here.
::::::::To mention it again, the text is a 1:1 copy from the docs which puts it under the MIT license which requires states
::::::::<blockquote>The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.</blockquote>
:::::::: attributing the original source is good enough in this case.
::::::::I'll put the license notice back up with a full summary that explains everything I have written down here because Talk sections can be archived making it impossible to find this message. [[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] ([[User talk:Jan200101|talk]]) 20:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Being told what to do by unknown persons on {{tq|'''IRC'''}} is {{tq|'''not'''}} Wikipedia policy or a noticeboard. Repeating {{tq|'''false claims'''}}, do not make them facts, Wikipedia policy, consensus, or a decision from a Wikipedia noticeboard. Tags referring to {{tq|'''years old'''}} and {{tq|'''partially non-English drafts'''}} are not the present article. Trying to force {{tq|'''misinformation'''}} into an article can be seen as subtle vandalism ([[WP:SNEAKY]]). [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 02:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::The non-English draft is still the earliest revision of the Article on the english side of wikipedia and where the offending sections were added.
::::::::::If you believe my claims are false or misinformation then lets please put it on [[Wikipedia:Copyright_problems]] so that people more qualified than both of us can judge this.
::::::::::You can even ask for a [[WP:3O]] and if the other party agrees that this isn't at least worth bringing up as a copyright problem then I'm going to willingly drop this. [[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] ([[User talk:Jan200101|talk]]) 06:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::My focus is not about what you want to do. I'm here to be productive, where possible. My intervention in this case was because of an apparent violation on subtle vandalism ([[WP:SNEAKY]]), stopping the injection of misinformation, and {{tq|'''adhering to'''}} Wikipedia policies (including how they are applied on other programming articles). I've already demonstrated how your claims on the heap struct section were {{tq|false}} and went into detail about {{tq|other}} false claims made. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 22:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::I do not see how constantly fighting with other editors and causing edit wars is productive, you've already been blocked for being disruptive in the past but lets forget about that for a moment.
::::::::::::You have never refuted my claim that sections of the article were directly copied without proper attribution which in the worst case can be seen as plagarism because it is not original but claims to be and also a violation of the MIT License under which the V documentation is licensed. I also want to make it clear that I am not accusing you or anyone of actual plagarism, it seems to me that he initial article version used text copied from the docs as placeholders that were simply never replaced and I think other people would view it the same, I'm just stating what this would be in the absolute worst case. It still violates the MIT License.
::::::::::::Your arguments against it have been that citing books or documentation is common or that its paraphrasing, neither of which are true since the copied text matches 100% with the documentation (before your edit).
::::::::::::Again, I know that if I am going to submit this article to [[Wikipedia:Copyright_problems]] you are going to revert it which would be avoidant vandalism ([[WP:VANDTYPES]]) which is why I am asking you to either submit it yourself, ask for a [[WP:3O]] or allow me to submit it without doing the vandalism you are accusing me of.
::::::::::::You do not agree with me on the issue hence why we must submit it the article, Copyright problems handles copyright things but also copyright disputes such as this:
::::::::::::<blockquote>The removal of copyrighted content has been contested.</blockquote> and this Talk page section can be included as reference so all your claims will be available to the people making the decision on that.
::::::::::::And if you aren't willing to let this the article be submitted to [[Wikipedia:Copyright_problems]] then I'm going to do it anyway and report any vandalism that you do. [[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] ([[User talk:Jan200101|talk]]) 06:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::(1) You made {{tq|'''false'''}} statements, like about the heap section, {{tq|"doesn't use the cited source at all"}}, and were proven wrong and shown the source does have it. (2) Based on teaming up with {{tq|unknown persons}} on {{tq|'''IRC'''}} (from your statements), you then attempted to force a tag that related to a {{tq|'''partially non-English draft'''}} from {{tq|'''2022'''}} that is {{tq|'''not'''}} related to the present version of the article. This type of distortion and misinformation falls under subtle vandalism ([[WP:SNEAKY]]), it was removed, and you were notified. (3) It was {{tq|explained}} to you (including other talk section) how the present article does not look to be in violation of plagiarism or copyright, aligns with other programming articles, and that rewritten articles can be {{tq|'''within policy'''}}. (4) Lastly, you appear overly intent on pushing other editors to do as you want. That is {{tq|'''not'''}} Wikipedia policy ([[WP:CHOICE]]). [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 23:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I believe you are confused right now.
::::::::::::::We are having a disagreement right now about what is true and what is false.
::::::::::::::Normally you would go on the [[Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard]] for this however since this is about copyright we need to go to [[Wikipedia:Copyright_problems]].
::::::::::::::This is not about pushing or forcing other editors to do as I want, its to resolve this dispute once and for all and I've said that if they ruled against me and and that I am indeed wrong I would accept that.
::::::::::::::I've also, in good faith, given you the faster option of asking for a [[WP:3O]] to see if someone else agrees that going to [[Wikipedia:Copyright_problems]] is reasonable and if they didn't I would not persue this anymore.
::::::::::::::I'm trying, in good faith, to get you to understand this so we can resolve this dispute through a third party.
::::::::::::::But because this appears to be going nowhere I'm giving you an ultimatum: In 24 hours I will submit this article to [[Wikipedia:Copyright_problems]] myself, this will require that the following template be put on the article
::::::::::::::{{tl|copyvio}}{{tl|Copyvio/bottom}} which will hide the content from view and since you keep accusing me of vandalism you should understand that removing this template all constitutes as avoidant vandalism. [[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] ([[User talk:Jan200101|talk]]) 07:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I've marked sections that I could directly match to the documentation as copyvio and reported it [[Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2025_July_15]] [[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] ([[User talk:Jan200101|talk]]) 16:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::The Copyright clerk has made the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2025_July_15?markasread=338948454&markasreadwiki=enwiki#15_July_2025 determination] that, "{{tq|'''the snippets of code are too short and too functional'''}} to be considered a copyright violation. As it stands, there is {{tq|'''no copyright infringement'''}}". This will also be placed in a separate section of the article's talk, not to instigate, but to guide future editors.[[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 22:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
== References could strongly be improved ==
Line 700 ⟶ 738:
:Examples with an issue, can be easily rewritten to be within the policy ([[WP:PRESERVE]]). Portions were redone and statements above them are all referenced, where on many other programming language articles, they do not go that extra step with providing references with their examples. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 15:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
::I saw that you simply changed variable names and string contents, this doesn't magically resolve the issues and make it less of a violation.
::I'm trying to point this out in good faith but I also don't see me being able to rewrite these sections myself without causing you to revert all the work.
::Is there a way we can come together to work on a solution? Having these sections is valuable to give the reader a better idea into how V code is written however plagarism and violating copyright is a no-go. [[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] ([[User talk:Jan200101|talk]]) 07:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Confusion is being introduced as to what plagiarism and copyright are. The use of provocative words does not mean there was any violation. "Small {{tq|code snippets}}" are {{tq|'''not'''}} protected by copyright (especially common and simplistic small examples), unless more than a dozen lines of code, where they can then be considered creative enough. "{{tq|Paraphrasing}}" (especially a few words or sentences) is {{tq|'''not'''}} plagiarism or a copyright violation either. Editors of Wikipedia are suppose to paraphrase when explaining text from a reference. Examples and code snippets are {{tq|commonly used}} on {{tq|other}} programming related articles. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 08:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
::::"Paraphrasing" is not copying the exact text and code from MIT licensed documentation and not disclosing it. This wasn't an explanation of the book
::::To the MIT license its a violation due to the lack of proper accreditation and because the original work was never cited or disclosed it is functionally plagiarism.
::::You are correct that small code snippets, especially those that try to achieve the same goal, tend to look the same, however this in the case the code matches character for character {{Diff|Main Page|prev|1299286929|until the naming was changed}}.
::::I'm more than willing to put up the work but you have a history of reverting other peoples changes and causing edit wars so I'm trying to find a resolution where we can work together to improve this article. [[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] ([[User talk:Jan200101|talk]]) 12:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::For clarity, it was editors {{tq|'''before me'''}} that added the examples and the basic structure of the article. What later editors and myself did was to be {{tq|productive}} and elevate the draft to an article. This includes finding sources, making corrections, fixing vandalism, and helping it survive the recent attempt to outright delete it. Coming to Wikipedia for such activities as disruptive editing ([[WP:DISRUPTIVE]]), battling ([[WP:BATTLE]]), vandalizing articles of languages that one doesn't like ([[WP:VANDAL]]), and wholesale deletionism is not productive nor what I'm here to do.
:::::Your accusations directed towards me about copyright and plagiarism are {{tq|false}}, just like the {{tq|other accusation}} about heap struct not being cited correctly or paraphrased was also {{tq|false}}. It also appears that you do not understand copyright nor does it look like you have {{tq|checked a variety of other programming articles}} to compare. You can {{tq|'''not'''}} copyright small simplistic code snippets such as {{code|1=a := 3}}. If someone changed a variable from {{code|1=z := 3}} to {{code|1=y := 3}}, that would still {{tq|not}} be a copyright violation, when the code snippet is {{tq|'''too small'''}} to qualify to begin with. Something else to be aware of is that any {{tq|algorithm used}} or the {{tq|functionality}} of the code (what it does) can not be copyrighted. Meaning if someone creates a similar function or small code snippet that gives a similar result, it is not a copyright violation either (especially at the scale of a function, method, or procedure). [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 16:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
== Nova Trex/Wang ==
Line 710 ⟶ 759:
:It is easy to see where such a misleading scenario can lead, by comparing the V article to other programming language articles that are using {{tq|further reading}} or {{tq|external links}}. By the misapplication of such logic, an argument could be made to remove all content under further reading or external links on all of Wikipedia. This would also get into "I don't like it" territory ([[WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT]]).
:Per Wikipedia, {{tq|"Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used with appropriate care to verify some of the article's content"}}. In this case, the article goes the extra step, to
== Decision Concerning Copyright Challenge ==
Per copyright clerk, 24 August 2025, the article has {{tq|'''no copyright infrignment'''}}. Code examples used in the article are also "too short and too functional to be considered a copyright violation". Original statement can be read [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2025_July_15?markasread=338948454&markasreadwiki=enwiki#15_July_2025 here]. Additionally, the license statement placed under references by the copyright clerk should not be removed, unless under their [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems advisement or direction]. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 10:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
== Valid Criticism is NEVER Vandalism ==
Please, [[Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith| assume good faith]]!
Wukuendo has repeatedly tried to assert that criticism against the language is vandalism, which is not the case! This is very clearly an attempt at white-washing the image of the language.
I have tried to add a maximally unbiased critique of the language, as inspired by the [[Java (programming language)]] article, citing very popular articles by developers. Vlang, like any project, has its own fair share of problems with the language and community, as has been noted by not only just one source, but multiple.
I ensured that my paragraph cited not only one source, but rather various. I ensured that the paragraph also highlighted that the project is still in beta, and thus it is natural to have some problems.
User '''Wukuendo''' in specific has repeatedly tried to highlight any critique against the language as "'''vandalism'''" and "'''scandalmongering'''", when it is merely a lens into the reality of the language. They have repeatedly tried to "warn" me that I will be ''blocked'' from Wikipedia for this alleged vandalism. When asked on how this is vandalism, they have not responded.
I don't want to throw any accusations against anyone, but rejecting any valid criticism of a project as vandalism is very suspicious of [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest]]. They do not [[Wikipedia:Ownership of content|own]] this article. Stop trying to edit-war! [[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 06:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:To be more specific:
:# They have accused me of vandalism: Which is clearly wrong! This is not a case of vandalism, I am merely adding unbiased content to an article
:# They have accused me of adding original research: I have not added any of my own original research. I have only cited verifiable and legitimate research performed by others.
:# They have accused me of citing anonymous bloggers: All authors of the articles I have cited used their own name, and neither are they "unknown"! These articles have been shared hundreds of times across many different forums.
:Who else but developers would critique a programming language? [[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 07:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] @[[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] If the criticism is written by recognised experts (with relevant degrees, professions, who had been published in RS), then their attributed opinion can be included in the article, even if that opinion is self-published. [[WP:SPS]]: {{tq|Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.}} [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 14:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::The three blog posts by Xe Iaso from [[Anubis_(software)]] fame should more than qualify as reliable research by a professional but the other two cited sources from mawfig and n-skvortsov-1997 appear to be from unremarkable users with private github profiles (potentially related to them being from russia? Unsure what github is doing) and blogs that only consist of their Vlang review.
::I also don't think that that talking about the chatroom bans is worthwhile since that is more about the character of the people moderating the community and less about the language. [[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] ([[User talk:Jan200101|talk]]) 14:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::By mentioning the contentious material and authors in the talk, this might become more problematic, and was possibly avoidable (but who knows). As you clarified, 2 of the 3 do not qualify as SMEs. In the case of Xe Iaso: (1) appears to have been involved in a personal conflict or grudge over chat room ban (2) has made statements indicative of possible grudge or revenge motives (3) comments in blog and else where can be seen as libelous (4) appears to have conflict of interest as speaker to promote Golang (rival language). Additionally, such content looks to plunge the article into the middle of language wars and to generate scandal. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 15:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::# Xe Laso was not the one banned as far as I can tell? The source containing that mention was another author.
::::# Please specify which statements from the source, what "grudge or revenge motives"? Until you specify, this is pure projection.
::::# Again, please do not be vague. Specify what can be seen as libelous. Because until you do so, any criticism ever can be considered "libelous".
::::# Xe Laso is not associated with the Golang project. There is no conflict of interest.
::::# Merely having a section about criticism does not incite language wars, it merely responsibly provides additional information about the drawbacks of the language, as shown by other decades-old language articles with criticism sections.
::::[[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 15:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::# You are misstating or making false statements about the references that that you tried to force in. To say others are engaged in "pure projection" is ridiculous or something else. Xe Iaso stated, {{tq|on the reference that you gave}}, to have been blocked (banned). Even more, there appears to have been continual hostility, spanning over years that gets into grudge and revenge issues.
::::# Xe Iaso is a speaker that is {{tq|well known}} for promoting Golang, in addition to self interests. There is a very clear and continual association with Golang, at a public level.
::::# The issue was and is about {{tq|'''statements made'''}} that were {{tq|'''not'''}} in the references and problems with the references used. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 17:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::wait hold on, how is Golang a rival language? are you thinking of a competing language since have similarities?
::::Is this why you accused me of having a COI with Zig, to stop me from being able to work on this Article? [[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] ([[User talk:Jan200101|talk]]) 16:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Practically, Golang is at a much higher scale and not even near a "rival" language for V (Especially considering that V is in beta and has been for many, many years). I agree with your sentiment, though I believe you should take the Zig article discussion to a more appropriate place <3 [[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 16:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] @[[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] I looked into Iaso. She has [https://xeiaso.net/talks/ spoken at conferences] and tech publications interview and quote her.[https://www.heise.de/en/news/Like-peeing-in-the-sea-Poisoning-AI-does-not-help-10479432.html] [https://www.404media.co/the-open-source-software-saving-the-internet-from-ai-bot-scrapers/] [https://www.fudzilla.com/news/60755-ai-crawler-bots-turn-open-source-into-a-digital-warzone] [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/open-source-devs-fighting-ai-232739996.html] [https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/21/ai_crawler_traffic/] I would say that her opinion can be included with attribution, although we can always consult [[WP:RSN]].
:::That said, looking at the [https://xeiaso.net/blog/vlang-update-2020-06-17/ cited post], there are other concerns. The post doesn't support the claims in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V_(programming_language)&diff=prev&oldid=1308956867 reverted edit]. I agree with you that the chatroom stuff isn't [[WP:DUE]]. She also doesn't write about "memory leaks", but says that memory management is a work in progress. The post was made 5 years and three months ago so the opinion/information is outdated, so I don't think that should be included either. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 15:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::I agree that the content in the reverted edit is fairly poor but I believe that the source could be used to mention the critisim at launch due to false promises, however I wouldn't find if it was left out until newer information is published. [[User:Jan200101|Jan200101]] ([[User talk:Jan200101|talk]]) 16:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Well, the [[Java (programming language)]] criticisms are 17-20 years old, so I believe that the inclusion of a criticism section citing Xe should still be considered for Vlang. :) [[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 16:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::TurboSuperA+ that is correct, however (and see my response below): (1) if the references are libelous and regardless if the author is an SME, the content is to be removed. (2) References were provided, that are clearly not SMEs. And one is an unknown person. (3) Statements and conclusions were given that were not in the references provided and fall under [[WP:OR]]. (4) references are contentious, disputable, and also appear to involve grudges over chat room bans. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 14:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|if the references are libelous}}
:::That applies to biographies of living persons, not articles about programming languages. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 14:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::[[WP:Libel]] does not state it applies to only biographies, have not seen any interpretation specifying that, nor would libelous content be unconstrained in that way. Otherwise, libelous content about any person could be freely leveled all over Wikipedia. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 15:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::This is a fair look into the matter, and I am willing to remove citations from the other 2 authors (and thus accordingly change the content), and also remove the mention on chatroom moderation. [[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 15:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:{{block indent|em=1.6|1=<small>Notified: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science]]. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 18:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified -->
==== Response to claims ====
:Please do not engage in {{tq|'''false characterizations'''}} and {{tq|'''character assassination'''}} ([[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]). To "assume good faith", goes in both directions and applies to all editors. My intervention in this situation is about multiple violations of Wikipedia policy. Arguments that I'm making are about content and Wikipedia policy. Forcibly trying to include content or material that violates Wikipedia policies can be considered vandalism and/or disruptive editing. Applies for {{tq|'''both'''}} article statements and references used.
:# Wikipedia is not about adding libelous references, injecting personal conclusions not in references cited, scandal creation, grudges for being banned from chat rooms, or using articles for language [[flame wars]] or to promote [[cyberbulling]].
:# "It is a Wikipedia policy to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified". "Libelous material (otherwise known as defamation) is reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation and could expose Wikipedia to legal consequences" ([[WP:Libel]])
:# "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." ([[WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYNTH]])
:# "Do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." ([[WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYNTH]])
:# "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable" ([[WP:RS/SPS]])
:# "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article" ([[WP:Burden]]).[note-changed]
:# "(Subtle) Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles" ([[WP:SNEAKY]])
:# "Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information." "can include inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or false information as well as selective or half-truths" ([[Misinformation]]).
:# "Promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping" ([[WP:NOTSCANDAL]]).
:# Point removed, per TurboSuperA+. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 18:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::Point ten applies to [[WP:BLP]]s. This article is not a BLP. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 14:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::[[WP:ONUS]] also has similar language, and does not specify BLP. "Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page." Even under [[WP:Burden]], it states it as "You should also be aware of", where "also" implies {{tq|in addition to}} and not exclusively for. Though that may require the higher levels to decide or links to past interpretations. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 14:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::What you are doing now is called [[WP:WikiLawyering|WikiLawyering]]. Libel or [[defamation]] applies to legal persons, and to certain state symbols, institutions, and so on. But it does to apply to programming languages. The [[WP:TH|Teahouse]] is always open, you can ask over there. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 15:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Disagree with that assessment. At least one reference used, was not talking about a programming language in a general sense. Rather, that blog author had specified, talked about, and leveled insults using the person's name. Additionally, is was not the only reason for content removal. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 15:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Consider taking a break from this article. Nearly half of all your edits are related to the V programming language. You need to trust that other editors are able to discern reliable sources from unreliable ones and what is due from what is not due. This is a collaborative project. Remember that [[WP:BRIE|being right is not enough]] and it is a fine line between [[WP:Stewardship|stewardship]] and [[WP:Ownership|ownership]]. I gave my opinion on the proposed edit and sources above and I have nothing more to add. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 15:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::The other person in the dispute, has 95% of their comments and attention directed at the V programming language article. The appearance of where edits are focused can be due to back and forth conversations on a specific article, where otherwise, they would have concentrated on something else.
::::::Would like to add, that I respect all editors and their passion, even if we disagree. My involvement, is in regard to policy and doing what is right. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 16:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I have edited Wikipedia for years before making an account from my former accounts, and before that anonymously. The reason I made an account was while motivated by adding this section to this article, it was also motivated by me transitioning online from my old name. [[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 16:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::Though I assume no such thing from their end, I'd like them to be aware that such strong conservatism on the article's end makes it appear as though they are affiliated with the Vlang project (even if they're not.)
::::::[[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 15:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::I've already made a COI statement on this talk (further above). If anything, your attempts at pointing the fingers at others, calls into question what your motives are. Particularly based on the unreliable sources and original research that was attempted. Furthermore, you have made no COI clarifications. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 16:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I am in no way associated with any projects that rival or compete with Vlang and I can confidently state that there is no conflict of interest with my intention to include a criticism section. I am simply surprised by the opposition to the addition of a criticism section. It has already been discussed, and I agree, that only Xe's blogs shall remain. [[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 16:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::# Again, Having a criticism section is '''not''' an invitation to language wars. It is the responsible thing to do when such faults are well-documented by experts into the matter. For example, [[Java (programming language)]].
:::# A critique is not libelous, had I added text such as "The vlang is proven to be incompetent for tasks", that would be clearly libelous. However, the paragraph only remarks that the language has documented drawbacks that the reader, a possible user of the language, should be aware of.
:::# The paragraph drew ''no conclusions'', it only quoted the citations.
:::# Same as above
:::# As discussed earlier, it is agreed that only Xe Laso's articles should remain as the citation.
:::# This was not about a living person.
:::# This is not misinformation. If you're going to continue asserting it as such, I'd like you to specify on how it is.
:::# Again, this is not misinformation!
:::# This is not gossip, please do not infantilize the situation as such. This is a straightforward critique of the language.
:::[[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 15:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Clarified this for you before, and I'm asking you again, stop with the continuous insults and attempted character assassination ([[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]). The issue is about the references you had and are attempting to use. Anonymous bloggers, unreliable sources, references arguably containing insults and libelous comments (referring to the language creator by name) and contentious content that can be considered misinformation. The problem with the references include Xe Iaso, over what look like grudges over chat room bans, a speaker that promotes rival languages, etc... The problems with Xe Iaso, was also noticed by TurboSuperA+, who typed that she should {{tq|'''not'''}} be used as a reference. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 17:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Literally none of the message you're replying to has any insult to you and does not assassinate your character in any way.
:::::As noted by TurboSuperA+, the age of the articles is a downside of the citation. However, leading by other articles as an example, it shouldn't be that big of a problem and can still be considered for discussion in a separate topic. Xe Laso does also still remain a trustable source, and is an expert in the field. [[User:MapleTheColor|MapleTheColor]] ([[User talk:MapleTheColor|talk]]) 17:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
| |||