Talk:Paul Charlton (technologist)

Untitled
work in progress. please make helpful edit suggestions--- for the next several days, please place suggestions here rather than page-edit FrodoFrog (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

please review the policies at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP before editing the page FrodoFrog (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK so; you have a lot of internal references; which is fine; but nothing really has proof that the subject in question was responsible or involved in any of the projects. So take the Java source code reference as an example. It doesn't prove he was a "key" contributor, or the length of his involvement etc. The reference for the Myarc is not a Reliable Source in any way shape or form.
 * So please; don't wave WP:BLP around as an excuse to not provide reliable sources or references. --Blowdart | talk 05:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * start with -- I am new to this media wp and I am doing a research project on the subject --- I would appreciate some help and pointers. I am pretty familiar with burden of proof in a legal context, but not what is desired here, and the policies published here (WP) really are not that clear on what burden of proof or clarity of evidence should be met (spectrum from: (1) probable cause, (2) preponderance, (3) clear and convincing, to (4) beyond a reasonable doubt).  Most of the policy for WP:BLP seem to center around liability and libel. A review and approval by the LP would remove those concerns if we obtained such review.  Take your mention of  Reliable Source ... in a legal context, for something be deemed reliable means that it is hard to impeach ... how would you undermine the foundation of the source cited for Myarc??? There are a lot of such sources, all correlated with each other, and nothing published on the WWW or other research sources which is contradictory -- the preponderance of correlated sources, and lack of published contradiction makes a cite of one of the correlated sources "reliable" from the POV of an ordinary person doesn't it?  There are several dozen published timelines of "home" computer history for the 1980's on the WWW ... they all have the same correlated information, information which appears to be factually reported at a contemporaneous time, rather than opinion.  Stepping to opinion for the moment ... the sources cited for Java2D are clear and convincing if you go to the next level and ask the question: "what percentage of this body of work does the one author represent" ... in the case of Java2D, the source code attributed to the author is in excess of 40% of the original work ... is 40% worthy of the adjective "key"?  is there a guideline for such adjectives? I'd like to learn so that I can be a better citizen here.  thanks.   FrodoFrog (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * found the original citation for Myarc -- replaced the mirror which had less appearance of authority and/or credibility. FrodoFrog (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * independent reliable sources from the 1980's computer history are publications like "Computer Shopper", "Byte", and in this context, publications specific to TI-99 which had narrower circulation (Micropendium, TI-99er, Home Computer Magazine, and a number of BBS and online services such as CompuServe, TIBBS, etc ...) a lot of those sources are disappearing before they can be preserved for historical analysis or determination of significance in how they ultimately influenced the technologies of today and tomorrow.  FrodoFrog (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK so first stop using legal terms to justify your references; wikipedia is not a law court and at some point you are going to end up on the wrong side of WP:Legal. The policies for reliable sources are there for you to read. So does a hobby web site count as a reliable source? Probably not under wikipedia terms; but they are guidelines, so how I interrupt them will be different from someone else. As for Java2d; if, as you say, someone must "go to the next level" to justify some of the weasel words or peacock terms used then either you should have use that level as a reference, or avoided the peacock terms altogether. Certainly your link to a single source file does not show this 40% statistic you are throwing around - the guideline for such adjectives would be don't use them at all. You also have the problem now of no original research - wikipedia is not a vehicle for original research. --Blowdart | talk 09:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * you seem obviously quite knowledgeable ... what would it take to recruit you as a mentor/tutor??? FrodoFrog (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)'
 * PS: the 2nd cite for Java2D is a search result showing over 90 of the individual files with the @author tag. I guess another search showing a sum total of approximately 225  files would make the math ... does a simple numeric ratio of numbers from an unbiased source count as "original research?" --- I think NOT.  FrodoFrog (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd guess that would be synthesis rather than OR; however you'd still need to prove the notability of package in question - far better to avoid the peacock terms. --Blowdart | talk 10:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OIC -- maybe just the numbers rather than the adjective? (per the PeaCock term article) FrodoFrog (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * regarding "notability of the package" ... isn't that already established by its prior mention in WP as Java2D ?? I was poking around for a relevant policy but did not find something on target. FrodoFrog (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

quotes
"if they're too stupid to secure thier computers I can access them if I want"

"I'm not breaking any laws"

"most people are stupid"

(unauthorized access has been defined in the USA as activity that violates the owners stated security policy, and most people don't seem to employ one of those.) Fencelizard (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)