Content deleted Content added
Nowhere man (talk | contribs) |
Pi Delport (talk | contribs) →Needs verification: respond to points; suggest mediation |
||
Line 272:
:: How could I make the claim more clear: a banner, examination of cited papers and quotation with links to another contradictory paper! As for Baker's paper, the quote you give doesn't say that generators have any relationship with loops or control structures, and clearly state that a PRNG is a classical example of generator. So I maintain that the article is plain false. It still cites papers that are contradictory to itself. If you can find a reachable reference that clearly support the old version, there's room to improve it based on those references. Until then, I'll revert to my modification.
:: I gave plenty of time to counter my claim, so don't revert to the previous state of the article without a strong reference. just saying that noone saw the long-standing claim isn't enough. [[User:Nowhere man|Nowhere man]] ([[User talk:Nowhere man|talk]]) 21:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
::: I find the paper clear, unambiguous, and non-contradictory. It meets all the qualifications of a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]]. If you disagree with the paper, Wikipedia is ''not'' the avenue to pursue it: Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]], not truth, and [[Wikipedia:No original research|not original research]].
::: Regarding your individual points:
:::* I don't know what you're trying to imply about the text i quoted; it doesn't directly say anything about generators and their relationship with loops / control structures, but that's the subject of the rest of the paper.
:::* Baker's paper does not say that PRNGs are ''examples'' of generators, it says that PRNGs are ''prototypic of'' generators, which includes the sense of being precursory or inspirational to. (Indeed, PRNGs are generally well-implementable both as "plain" procedures and as generators in the sense of this article.) You could quibble over which sense of "prototypic" was meant in the introductory sentence, taken out of context, but any doubt is rendered moot by the body of the paper, which is quite precise, and never mentions PRNGs.
:::* The article is not backed by the Baker citation alone, but by Kiselyov, Omohundro (Sather), Liskov (CLU), Shaw (Alphard) and the rest (Python, C#, JavaScript). There are no grounds for reverting the article without a convincing argument that these citations are all invalid.
::: If you wish to continue this further, the next [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] step is probably to solicit a third opinion, or informal mediation. <span style="white-space:nowrap">—[[User:Piet Delport|Piet Delport]] <small>2008-04-01 00:07</small></span>
== Suggestion for clarifications, definitions, etc. ==
| |||