|
|
|
|
|
|
by DiogenesKynikos
26 days ago
|
|
|
Do you want Wikipedia editors to start citing YouTube videos? I'll tell you what will happen if sourcing standards are loosened in that way. You'll get tons of editors arguing, "So and so said this at 21:45 in this podcast." And then someone else will say, "But he said this other thing that contradicts that at 22:30." And then a third editor will come along and say the person was just joking. The signal-to-noise in the sources will go way down, and you'll have editors acting like detectives and investigative journalists with a mass primary sources. It will be a mess, and it won't work. Those "weird websites" have a reputation one can track. One can look at whether they have a history of correcting errors, citing sources correctly, etc. That's why Wikipedia relies on secondary sources with a history of reliability. It's a simple rule that works for a website with tons of anonymous editors. And guess what? There are tons of secondary sources that cover every major programming language. It looks like Odin is highly niche, which is why it has no secondary sourcing. Maybe it doesn't need a Wikipedia article. |
|
|
Do they? I mean, I don't track them.
But as an example, let's use CBC. They've published nearly a redaction per day on their stories... https://www.cbc.ca/news/corrections-clarifications-1.5893564
They're a government run, public broadcaster and they're this poor... But they're an acceptable Wikipedia source.
Meanwhile, someone like the Primeagen has 1.15 million followers and has used Odin. That's not notable?
JangaFX products have been used by creators that cumulatively have millions of subscribers, on top of a website that says they use Odin, on top of the CEO and others X accounts, but that's not enough to convince people JangaFX is a real company with real products?
Remember, CNN and all the "trusted" news outlets also have YouTube accounts.