Topmind On Objects Discussion
Topmind On Objects DiscussionI don't see this page as retribution. It's naive to think that anyone can remain truly anonymous here if they contribute often enough. Even if they don't sign their name, their opinions (and to a lesser extent, their IP address) identify them. I don't care if we call him by his real name or a pseudonym, but I think it's useful to make it clear that these are the opinions of one individual. -- EricHodges
No, it is retribution, Eric. Since the guy expressed more than often enough his desire to remain anonymous because his opinions might affect his employment situation, what you and/or Steven are doing is clearly retribution (unless you somehow can claim that you didn't know the situation, but you can claim it no longer). And if it is you who are going to be the one to throw the stone you might want to face up to your trolling mode behavior.
Why don't you go and chase all anononymous contributions on wiki? There are plenty of controversies, ThreadMode, platitudes, stupid stuff, even FlameWars? being carried in anonymous mode. Still, this is the first time it happened, that somebody has been singled out. This is way beyond what I think is acceptable behavior. -- CostinCozianu
Like I said, I don't think anyone can remain anonymous here if they contribute often enough. We're bound to assign them a name, even if it's in our own head. I don't care if we use his real name or not. I wish him no harm. -- EricHodges
As the originator of [this] page, let me reiterate: the real name is not the important thing, but some kind of organizing principle seemed appropriate. Something like Jacobsian Programming Theory would be fine, if a bit pretentious sounding. The intent was to collect a set of internally cohesive statements about a particular point of view into a common, non-duplicated, location. We have an AlanKayOnObjects, for example, WingOnTypes, Schwartzian transform, BloomTaxonomy, and so forth. However, if the use of the real name is an issue, something agreeable can easily be substituted. -- StevenNewton
Those are specific subjects and fairly small pages. It is not logical to have a huge page with a bunch of somewhat different topics, especially because wiki has no "#" equivalent to jump into the middle of a page. Thus, the reader has to scroll and read to find a specific topic from a link.
[The problem is that without a name associated with the opinions, a new visitor may believe the opinions are contributed by more than one person. -- EricHodges]
About 40 percent of wiki content is unsigned. Besides, maybe they are held by more than one person. Why should the topic division depend on the popularity of an opinion? Further, is there not another way to indicate popularity besides grouping by person?
[How did you arrive at 40%? Maybe these opinions are held by others, but they aren't contributed by others. The topic division does not depend on the popularity of the opinions. The topic division identifies the source of the opinions. Identifying these opinions as Topmind's doesn't mean they are or aren't popular. It means they came from Topmind. Some readers will be familiar with Topmind's contributions to comp.object and it will be helpful to them to know these contributions are from the same source.]
Then leave the content in-place, but put a "Topmind" moniker on them. The problem is that this conflicted with RealNamesPlease, and most voted against pseudonyms. Grouping by author is just not a useful way to group content, especially if it is more than a few paragraphs and covers a lot of topics. The 40 percent is a rough survey. You are welcome to do your own survey.
One of the odd side-effects of this particular organizational scheme is that it seems as if we're elevating Topmind to the level of AlanKay or EwDijkstra - an authority in the field. Treating Top's contributions as if they are a special case - either especially eminent or especially troublesome - may end up causing more trouble than it's worth.
AlanKay did not invent OOP, he merely popularized it and clarified some of its concepts and mantra. Ironically, I am planning on writing a book which popularizes relational thinking by removing some of the history-based and math-based teaching approaches, replacing it with simpler, catchier metaphors and notations. Thus, I am attempting to be the AlanKay of Relational. Whether I achieve that goal or not is too early to tell. -- Tablizer
May I humbly suggest that if you want to see those pages cleaned up, that you begin to refactor them as if they were any other page? Of course, given the contentious nature of the recent discussion, some contributors may be less amenable to this idea than others. But you may be surprised by other people's acceptance, or even trust. And at any rate, we know what to say to those participants who can't stand to see their words refactored, right? -- francis
Refactoring of GeographyExample worked pretty well, it seems. There's now quite a lot of very useful and detailed information on how to model maps in software. The problem with some of the other pages is that once the invective and ThreadMode is factored out, there's very little left other than the writings of one individual and a handful of corrective responses. That's what gave me the idea to collapse the ideas into a page organized by the author. The thought of the (ironic) appearance of Topmind in the same space as AlanKay or EwDijkstra did occur to me, however I believe that thoughtful readers would be able to tell the difference. If the writings contained more specific information about the ephemeral TableOrientedProgramming they'd go there, but they were largely of the form "objects are X IMO". In many cases, the opinion itself is an attempt to cast doubts on object-oriented programming, in most others, the explanation that follows the opinion is the slight. To restate the goals:
If there is duplication across pages, it should be reduced or extracted. If Top has started scores of new pages that should only be one, go ahead and merge them into one. And if TableOrientedProgramming is a crap page, you can refactor it until it's not crap any more. It's not like Topmind owns that page or anything.
As far as waiting for some future time: there will always be people watching who might object to the changes you make. If they are respectful, you have to slow down and try to find compromise. If they are rude, say "the hell with it" and keep going. (LifeIsTooShort? to try to satisfy people who already think you're an asshole.) But in my experience, "waiting for the right time" is just another way of saying "procrastinating". Either it's worth doing or not. And if it's worth doing, it's probably worth doing right now. -- francis
How about this: propose a change next to the content itself. If there are no significant objections after 2 weeks, then move it.
Why be so timid about it? You move that slowly you're never going to get anything done. -- francis
Why are you in a hurry?
Me, in a hurry? I'm barely involved in this one. Just offering my opinion. This page looks like it stems from frustration, and I'm suggesting a way to deal with that frustration directly. Waiting is not part of that way. Today is the first day of the rest of your WikiNow. -- francis
Although Topmind's rhetorical style can be fairly irritating, there's no reason to think his opinions are so unreasonable that they should either be deleted or quarantined. Top's opinions (which may be shared by others here) deserve to be integrated into the rest of the Wiki. In what proportion, and what form, is another matter entirely, of course. -- francis
An example of the kind of views that pop up repeatedly and inappropriately inspired the original page:
"I find that trees are often inadequate. Larger corporations are rarely a simple hierarchy, but have all kinds of cross-links. LimitsOfHierarchies. Some sort of set-based approached would be preferred IMO."
Found, of all places, in RoleBasedAccessControl.
Yes, this is a problem. Refactoring can fix it. -- f
I find it nice to have a breif summary of the link rather than let the link do all the explaining. I suppose in a pure sense it is a violation of OnceAndOnlyOnce, but I like short summaries. It helps the reader get a better idea about whether they want to persue the link or not. If it is against wiki norms, then I guess I will just have to live without it. But it appears that somebody even removed the LimitsOfHierarchies link. That, I don't understand. (I put it back.) -- Top
But then, I wouldn't even call the man a troll. I think he just has a particular worldview, a remarkable inability to genuinely process differing opinions, and a complete disregard for when his conversational style might actually be bugging the shit out of other people.
If you are clear about why I am bugging other people, I will stop. It appears that you just don't want to hear my opinion because you don't give specific, constructive criticism. -- top
He reminds me of the old guys out on the streets handing out the Marxist newspapers. They're not trolls, either. I just wouldn't want to sit next to one of them at a dinner party. -- francis
Well, wiki is a corner bar, not your dinner party.
Re: but they were largely of the form "objects are X IMO". In many cases, the opinion itself is an attempt to cast doubts on object-oriented programming...
A consensus definition of OOP is still lacking at this stage. And, there is a wide variety of methodologies out there. No definition or characterization of OO is going to make everybody happy, and probably not even a majority.
EditText of this page
(last edited June 9, 2006)
or FindPage with title or text search