Content deleted Content added
→Efficiency: Reply |
→Efficiency: Reply |
||
Line 140:
:I won't speak for anyone else, but all I want is for the sourcing requirements to be followed. Come up with a proper source and I will have no further objections. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 02:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
::I have found a peer reviewed source now. Do you have no further objections? Or are you going to revert it a third time? [[User:Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO|Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO]] ([[User talk:Lxvgu5petXUJZmqXsVUn2FV8aZyqwKnO|talk]]) 04:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm going to revert the inclusion, and here is why: what you have is a primary source, a research paper, that looks at the question of energy efficiency. You have cited the same paper three times, but it is a single [[WP:PRIMARY]] source. Please read that link. Wikipedia articles should be written from secondary sources, so that is the first problem. Nevertheless, if the paper unequivocally showed what you say it does, and if that were uncontroversial, we could let it go. But it is not. you quote the paper comparing C and Python. But of course C uses less energy and is more efficient than Python. You are comparing apples and oranges. But the claim you have made is that C generally uses less energy than other languages, which is not what the paper says. For instance, the fasta results table put Fortran and Rust ahead of C. So what you are doing is [[WP:SYNTH|synthesising]] a conclusion based on the data in that primary source and your own editor selection of the parameters. Incidentally it goes without question that more efficient languages consume less energy. Whether it needs saying is unclear, but we could say that. Your attempts to quantize this, however, are not appropriate and especially from a primary source. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 08:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
| |||