Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geek Code

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Geek Code

Geek Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Potentially amusing, but doesn't make any real claim to notability. The only references are to blogs and personal web pages and the only implementations are personal projects. Why did you do it (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep If you don't see the formal notability references in the article - please bother to find and add them, before putting anything you don't understand for the deletion. Funny that I spotted this AfD request not by looking over some afd logs, but because I needed the information on the geek code myself, and the first place I decided to consult was Wikipedia. Honeyman (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Now, to the point: the most prominent reference is the own article in the Jargon File, currently maintained by somebody called Eric S. Raymond (his personal homepage may give you some more clues on it). Btw, Jargon File is 26 years older than Wikipedia. Also, a quick lookup on Google hints us about 69 books whose authors are aware about Geek Code and want either to tell about it a word or two, or at least mention their own geek codes in the book. This includes the books from marginal and sociological ones as The New Hacker's Dictionary by the aforementioned Eric Raymond (and in fact being the print version of the Jargon File) or Communities in Cyberspace by Peter Kollock, or Ethnologies by the Folklore Studies Association of Canada (where the Geek Code named "one of the more fascinating folkloric creations to come out of the internet"); but also the books purely technical like The SAGE handbook of online research methods‎, or ENTERPRISE 2.0 IMPLEMENTATION. Honeyman (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Uh yes, and the latter book tells us that the geek code is a part of FOAF ontology standard. That should close any other questions. Honeyman (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • These are only passing references, not substantial coverage. The Jargon File does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable secondary sources as it is a personal project of Eric Raymond and not subject to formal editorial control. And inclusion in FOAF is similarly unconvincing: as a minor, little known feature of the standard, it too is no more than a passing reference. Why did you do it (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
      • The Jargon File ... is a personal project of Eric Raymond and not subject to formal editorial control. - please reconsider the Eric S. Raymond and Jargon File articles; the Jargon File first appeared in 1975 while Eric Raymond claims that "his involvement with hacker culture began in 1976". The Jargon File is a manuscript of geekdom knowledge that changed several authors and editors (most important one, besides Eric Raymond, is probably Guy Steele), and passed several published editions (note Guy L. Steele, Eric S. Raymond, eds. (1996). The New Hacker's Dictionary (3rd ed.). MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-68092-0.). I doubt it could ever be considered "not a subject to formal editorial control" with such a long history. As for the FOAF, the [FOAF vocabulary specification] clearly shows that it is not "a minor, little known feature" but just the usual vocabulary term like "age", "publications", or "weblog". Honeyman (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
        • If I've understood the reliable sources rules correctly, the kind of editorial control that Wikipedia looks for is specifically a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, such as you get from peer reviewed scientific journals, and to a lesser extent, news sources, especially from the high end of the market. Even if you accept that the Jargon File meets those criteria (which is debatable), it is still a dictionary and a collection of trivia. We don't have articles for everything in the Jargon File (banana problem? bit paired keyboard?) and nor should we. As far as FOAF is concerned, it gives the Geek Code a status of "archaic" (which judging by [1] seems to indicate that it's not actively being used) whereas the important bits all have a status of "stable," and even describes it as "somewhat frivolous and willfully obscure". I stand by what I said that this counts as no more than a passing mention. Why did you do it (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
          • In general, I agree with your addition. But there is one thing that differs Banana problem and Bit-paired keyboard (which are not included in Wiki) from Geek code, Befunge, Bells and whistles, and the Cargo cult programming. To date (and IMO, at least for three of the above, unfortunately), the latter ones are known and used. And this is where (contrary to the notability proof), the Google Search numbers (78100 for the "BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK" query) act as a perfect endorsement. Yes, it is incredibly outdated; but the people use it nevertheless. 119 on Wikipedia; 312 on LiveJournal; 87 on Facebook; 5540 on MySpace; hell, do all of them indeed know what VMS or Kibo is? Honeyman (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
            • WP:GHITS and WP:BIG. Why did you do it (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
              • ... which both claim that the Google numbers cannot be used for notability confirmation (what I don't), though sometimes thay may be used as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet to disprove the notability (what they fail); and they don't restrict to use Google numbers to prove the fact of "still in use and known" (what I do). Honeyman (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
          • And once again, besides the Jargon file, the dictionaries and the FOAF standard, there are multiple sociological works which describe the Geek Code, its relation to the geeks and the community, some of them name the Geek Code the early criteria for being the geek, some of them tell about it as a witty manifestation of the computer-specific culture, but none of them somehow mentioning its "insignificance" or "negligibility". They are apparently peer-reviewed or cited, and independently published. Honeyman (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
            • I only see one (The Cultures of Computing) which gives it more than one or two sentences, and even then, most of its coverage is quoting the Geek Code verbatim. Why did you do it (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Also, I cannot agree with your "archaic" argument for FOAF standard. Neither it goes well with the "notability is not temporary" Wikipedia concept, nor in fact it indeed means "outdated" in the FOAF scope; it is used in the scope of Vocabulary Status Vocabulary, which tells that "archaic... This term is marked as old-fashioned; although used, it is not considered typical of current best practice and alternative expressions may be preferable"; and the FOAF Vocabulary tells us that "The definitions of 'stable', 'unstable', 'archaic' and 'testing' cannot be defined as global absolutes, but only in relationship to the practices, expectations and social structures around some vocabulary"; in other words, I'd consider the "stable" term is the standard one which is used for very long, and without any spec changes, which the opposite, "archaic", is still the standard one, which though is being used rarely, with decreasing popularity; while both stay the same supported and standard ones, unless mentioned otherwise. And for the "otherwise", I mean the numerous marks like This property is a candidate for deprecation..., This property is considered archaic usage, and is not currently recommended for usage, which are not present in the term_geekcode definition. That is, if I decide to implement a blog service that provides the FOAF profiles which contain the term_geekcode, it's not the standard who could define my service as "incompatible" - it's my service and its positive experience of term_geekcode implementation that may redefine the term_geekcode status from "archaic" to "unstable" or "testing". Honeyman (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
            • That still does not convince me that it's non-trivial. For comparison, the Colemak keyboard layout is included with Ubuntu Linux and even appears prominently on the installation screens. Yet this was considered insufficient at AfD a couple of years ago -- a point that, regrettably, I have had to concede. Why did you do it (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, to stop this nonsense, let's pedantically apply the WP:N to this topic, and review the references in-depth.
        • Significant coverage - 65 books in Google Book Search, and also 37 mentions in Google Scholar. more than a trivial mention - a couple of paragraphs in "The new hacker's dictionary", including a brief historical overview and its influence ("... there is now even a Saturn Geek Code for owners of the Saturn car"). About a full page in "Communities in Cyberspace", with even more details, including basic decyphering rules. A couple of paragraphs in "The telecommunications illustrated dictionary", just between the GDI and the Geissler tube (and likely about the same in Data & telecommunications dictionary, unavailable for review), and the geek code generator mentioned in the Linux Journal article (and I bet the Linux Journal magazine definitely has enough editorial oversight) - not that much a coverage, but a broad interest. The amount of coverage in "Ethnologies, vol 21" is unknown, but it seems sufficient enough to explain how to decypher the Star Trek addiction from the code. "The cultures of computing" by The Editorial Board of the Sociological Review, edited by the Associate Professor in the University of Illinois - just the whole Geek Code spec is cited on a dozen of pages, and the geeks concept is defined through it; and its authorship/editorship makes me think it's not just yet another book by a hacker about the hackers' inner jokes. In "Two bits: the cultural significance of free software" by Christopher M. Kelty, the Geek Code is used to distinguish between the early geekdom characterization (called in the book "the Hayden-style geeks") and the subsequent geekdom after the explosive growth of the Internet. A pity but the contents of "The Incredible Internet Guide to Star Wars: The Complete Guide to Everything" by Peter J. Weber is not available due to the copyright issues; but it is interesting to know that the Geek Code might be known to the usual Star Wars fans rather than just to the hackers community; similarly, it worths mention its mention in "Role-playing games (RPGs)" by Sean Winslow.
        • Reliable - among the books above, there are books that passed several editions, and there are multiple sociological works.
        • Secondary sources - even the dubious Jargon File is the secondary source for Robert Hayden's Geek Code, not to mention everything else. Neither of the books in the Google Book Search output lists Robert Hayden as the author.
        • Independent of the subject - see above.
        • the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan" - well, we here in 2010 are discussing the topic of 1993. Apparently it was not.
        • Self promotion and indiscriminate publicity - unlikely with the RPG or Star Wars books not to mention the other ones.
        • a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage. - well, it definitely had the coverage by the end of 20-th century. And the "ENTERPRISE 2.0 IMPLEMENTATION‎" which mentions its FOAF inclusion is written in 2008.
      • And for the assistance, let's also consult the WP:NSOFT:
        • Reviews must be significant, from an reliable source, and/or assert notability. - oh yes. "...a classic mock self-diagnostic called the Geek Code" from here, and "one of the more fascinating folkloric creations to come out of the internet" from here should be enough.
        • The history of computing and of personal computers. Software from the era of 8-bit personal computers may be notable even if it was distributed or documented under pseudonyms - well, the Geek Code is from the times of Ultrix, SCO Unix, NeXT and VMS.
        • It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown. - I don't recall any commercial or closed-source versions of Geek Code.
        • Notability of one package does not automatically mean that each of its competitors are notable as well - I won't say a word if every article else from Category:Internet self-classification codes is deleted (though I might reconsider the Hacker Key, as it was covered by some of the same sources as Geek Code), cause all of them are no more than the less known neighbours of the Geek Code.
        • On the other hand, software of significant historical or technical importance is notable even if it is no longer in widespread use or distribution. - precisely. Though the people still include the Geek Code in their profiles and signatures to date.
        • Editors should evaluate various aspects of the coverage: the depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage. - well, it is covered in the books from a couple of overview/historical paragraphs to the full spec, from 1993 to 2008, from published hacker bulletins through RPG/StarWars books to the sociological analysis... and regarding the geography, Robert Hayden is assumed to be from US or UK, while I am from Russia. Honeyman (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm still not convinced. The above are all a couple of paragraphs at most. I do not consider a couple of paragraphs or a dictionary definition to be more than just a trivial mention. If you can give me, for instance, three substantial and independent newspaper articles for which it is the main subject, I will withdraw the nomination. Why did you do it (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Unfortunately, neither you cannot do this IIRC (as long as least there is a single Delete vote besides yours); nor we ever need the three substantial and independent newspaper articles to prove the notability, quote WP:N: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material; going in details in about every book reference (Geek code is created by bla-bla, used for bla-bla, influenced bla-bla, you can encode the fact you can distinguish Mr. Spock from Picard using bla-bla) is definitely far from a trivial mention (... and examples of such obscure self-representation methods are Geek Code, Furry Code, Bear Code, Nerd Code, Dork Code, and several thousand more ones; now let's go to the next chapter.) Honeyman (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Oh, and by the way, WP:NSOFT has a warning in big bold letters at the top of it saying "This is not a wikipedia policy and should not be used as a basis for article inclusion." Why did you do it (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
            • And precisely this big bold warning contains the words though it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion; what matches my usage of it: And for the assistance, let's also consult the WP:NSOFT. Honeyman (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can come up with substantial coverage in reliable sources. I'm utterly unconvinced by the above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry for importunity, but I need to stress again that the geek code is a part of standard in the FOAF Vocabulary Specification, together with such fields as Myers-Briggs classification or the list of other people the person being covered by FOAF data personally knows. Honeyman (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • As I noted above, that does not qualify as substantial coverage in a reliable secondary source. Why did you do it (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep After looking over the evidence presented there seems to be sources for this. "Communities in Cyberspace" looks like a reliable source. It has a real publisher and editor. It devotes a fair amount of space to the geek code. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Evidently notable. I have cited one of the numerous books which cover the topic in detail. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per the colonel, the first one to contribute here who actually believes articles can & should be sourced. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - I think notability has been satisfactorily established here. Robofish (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Enough sources to establish notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, it’s evidently assigned. --Frakturfreund (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I think notability has been established here. Agharo (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - sourced and notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Essential piece of Internet culture. Sources that establish notablity have been presented above. --Cyclopia^talk 18:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.