[kps]

The original programmers might settle the question, but Wikipedia wouldn't allow the answer.

Something similar happened a decade ago with the page for the Unix command `cron` — it contained a made-up backronym (‘command run on …’) that had once appeared in print somewhere, and the guardians of Wikipedia zealously rejected correction (it's from ‘chrono‐’) from the original author, Brian Kernighan.

[b112]

The person would need to be interviewed by a 'reliable news source' or maybe just a 'reliable source' I guess. It is kind of silly, yet at the same time, without identify verification + attestation, how can they the person is who they say they are?

And if they do that, they're now becoming journalists or researchers.

(I know you likely know this, but just clarifying a bit for others to what I think the logic is)

[flexagoon]

Not necessarily. Primary sources are allowed on Wikipedia in many cases, they're just not preferred. In fact, a direct quote from an interview would be as much of a primary source as a Tweet.