Talk:Dependency injection/Archives/2015/June

Software libraries & frameworks
Dependency injection does not depend on software libraries or frameworks that use it. Car's need wheels but wheels can work perfectly fine without cars. The current introduction confuses this issue. Dependency injection can and has been done using nothing more complicated than a main method that constructs and wires objects together. Galhalee (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Is Stack Overflow really a reliable source?
I noticed the use of Stack Overflow as a citation for several points in the article. I don't think Stack Overflow is a reliable source: to me, it falls under self-published sources, since anyone can submit an answer to a question and there's often little editorial oversight. I also know that there could be several (contradicting) answers given for a single question, so handpicking one or two for a Wikipedia article is inappropriate. I would suggest avoiding using Stack Overflow as a source for these reason. Thoughts? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you going to even reject the stack overflow citation "Explaining dependency injection to a 5 year old" that was published in a book? Galhalee (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That does not nullify my concern that in general Stack Overflow allows answers to be submitted by anyone without editorial oversight, which calls its reliability as an academic resource into question. In regards to the actual quote, it was pasted into the article without any context given. I had brought this up before, when I had removed an entire section that was only made up of quotes pasted from different sources. Even so, I don't see ELI5-type material as appropriate for the article, especially when it can already be expressed in general terms. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Very well, do please express it in general terms. Galhalee (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the Overview section of the article explains the principle and motivation quite well. Are you suggesting that it's still too complex? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, please keep on topic. I'm focusing on the concern whether or not Stack Overflow is a reliable source, not on the material therein. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the late response. Since you object I'll make an effort to find other sources to cite.  I invite you to update as you feel appropriate.

If you wish to debate the quality of Stack Overflow citations I'll say this, Stack Overflow is a peer reviewed publication. It may not be traditional (neither is wikipedia) but I've trusted it with major decisions in my professional career and not been disappointed. But that's only my opinion and wikipedia doesn't deal in opinion.

I see the biggest problem being that it's the highly rated SO answers that I trust. As a SO user I know what those are. Not every wikipedia editor is a SO user so they may not know what is trustworthy on SO. Books and articles that someone besides the author invest significant money in publishing are considered more veted. On this point I will not argue. If I find a better source to cite I will.

I will say that a SO citation seems better than nothing. If you disagree then delete them. I won't start an edit war over it.

On a less general point, I confess that a major motivation I have to cite SO is it is more democratic. A published work like a book on a DI framework may be motivated to exist simply to sell people the framework. I want the article to be fair, not an advertisement. So it's only because it's difficult to find better citations for the counterpoints to the commercial interests that I reach for SO. However, I welcome any edits to improve the citations.

I still consider myself new to Wikipedia and still learning so feel free to set me straight. One thing I've learned is that it's better to write from the source then write and then hunt for a supporting source. Galhalee (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)