leejo
Joined 12 years ago
Karma
2,278
Submissions
325
Member since
Jun 2
https://leejo.github.io/
View on Hacker NewsRecent submissions
Comment · 4 months ago
OP could have made this point in a better way without expressing it in a way that isn't true or implying that nationality is by birth. Let's do that having looked at https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/population/m...
* 41% of the permanent resident population aged 15 and over has a migration background
* 27% of the permanent resident population is not Swiss
* 22% of the permanent resident population was born outside of Switzerland
Here's some more countries by immigrant background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_im... # Switzerland is on a par with Austria, Australia, and New Zealand, and way below many other countries that have > 50%.
Comment · 4 months ago
> That’s unrelated to the fact you reply to.
I was addressing the implication in the "fact", which is incorrect anyway. One in five of that 27% were born in Switzerland: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/population/m...
Comment · 4 months ago
> 27% of Swiss residents were born outside the country.
Swiss nationality is not linked to your birth country, it is linked to lineage. There are second, third, (fourth, fifth, sixth?) generation immigrants in Switzerland that are not Swiss. Conversly, there are Swiss nationals that have never set foot in Switzerland.
Comment · 5 months ago
@cylo (I think the author) - get in touch, I'd like to use this essay as part of a photo book project. With your permission of course.
Comment · 8 months ago
> I've read the issue is that some countries require you to renounce your previous nationality to get citizenship, and people have taken advantage of not needing a British passport by lying about renouncing their British citizenship.
Oh that's an interesting little loophole that might be a[nother] reason. A handful of EU member states disallow dual citizenship, so those taking advantage of "EU and British" might be impacted by this.
Comment · 10 months ago
There it is, right? Seven days and twenty years, gone. To quote, it is "the slow decline, the emptying out, and the long, long process of forgetting".
Wikipedia's deletion proposals are the online equivalent of putting a small poster on a village noticeboard and being surprised that the entire world doesn't see it.
It's disgraceful.
Comment · 10 months ago
You're basically reinforcing my arguments - these are the policies, deal with it.
I believe the 7 day deadline to avoid the deletion of 20+ years of history is destructive because most of the people that would be notified of this have long since moved on, no longer care, or are off Wikipedia.
The cursory Googling by those who have the power to delete is also concerning. As stated elsewhere in this discussion, Google hasn't been great for search for a long time.
Comment · 10 months ago
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that. As stated below in several other comments, none of this makes sense and the Wikipedia editors hiding behind "this is the policy, you do not get to question it" stinks.
The original user withdrew their deletion suggestion and added the "This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources." banner, sure. Why didn't they just do that in the first place?
Instead they looked at an article that had existed for twenty years, with a comprehensive history of changes, had lots of information, links, and [albeit primary] sources; they did some cursory Googling, then suggested it for deletion - with a deadline of 7 days: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CPAN&diff=1327587...
Wikipedia literally has its own page to suggest that you don't do that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence...
Wikipedia's own policies around deletion mean it's easy to delete articles you don't particularly like - if they are old enough they probably lack secondary sources. You can't inform users who would be able to contribute off-Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Stealth_c... which means it's unlikely they will be updated before the deadline passes. Many of these articles were contributed by people who have long moved on, and few of us are paying attention to every possible thing on Wikipedia. Twenty years of history deleted in a week. That's wrong.
This feels like the actions of a newly promoted editor, inexperienced, and eager to start "cleaning up" Wikipedia, which it is damaging. It also feels like the actions of an editor who, when editing another article, saw that the thing they were adding didn't point to what they expected on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Camel_award... # instead of adding a page to disambiguate, they decided to go on a crusade to purge articles that had existed for twenty years. And because these were mostly articles that predate Wikipedia's sourcing policies, they knew it was likely they would succeed.
As I've stated in one of the talk threads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Left_guide#c-Leejeba... # I'm not particularly concerned about the restoration of some of the articles, instead I'm more concerned about the blunt application of policies that means important reference, history, and culture are being deleted.
Comment · 10 months ago
> The sources is the only part that matters. And they sufficed to keep the CPAN article on site, so the system works.
The system works if the sources remain available, and in an environment predisposed to link rot that can be a problem. Imagine the hypothetical situation of archive.org disappearing overnight? Should we then delete all pages with it as their sole source if they're not updated within a week?
And the system works if intentions are pure - it seems here the user that suggested the deletion of several Perl related pages is a fan of film festivals[1] and clearly wasn't happy that the "White Camel Award" is a Perl award, since the late 90s, and not a film festival award (since the early 00s). At least according to Google. So they went on a bit of a rampage against Perl articles on Wikipedia.
You could argue "editor doing their job", but I would argue "conflict of interest".
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahara_Internatio... # amongst many in their edit history
Comment · 10 months ago
> Why is the deletion (or even deletion proposal) regarded as such a heinous act that people feel the need to attack and bully others?
FWIW I don't see this as an attack (with, perhaps, the exception of a couple of comments in the linked thread) and posted the link to the reddit thread as I see it more as an interesting observation around the myriad issues facing "legacy" languages and communities. To wit:
* Google appears to be canon for finding secondary sources, according to the various arguments in the deletion proposals, yet we're all aware of how abysmal Google's search has been for a while now.
* What's the future of this policy given the fractured nature of the web these days, walled gardens, and now LLMs?
* An article's history appears to be irrelevant in the deletion discussion: the CPAN page (now kept) had 24 years of history on Wikipedia, with dozens of sources, yet was nominated for deletion.
* Link rot is pervasive, we all knew this, but just how much of Wikipedia is being held up by the waybackmachine?
* Doesn't this become a negative feedback cycle? Few sources exist, therefore we remove sources, therefore fewer sources exist.
Comment · 10 months ago
The CPAN page on Wikipedia has existed for 24 years, has dozens of references, yet an editor nominated it for deletion - I can't help but feel that as hostile. Fortunately this one has been voted "keep", but still...