Wikipedia and a little piece of Python History

[Paddy]

I just had a link to Tim peters first post on doctest:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....57cfb7b3772763
removed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctest as it doesn't fit
their guidelines for external links.
I wonder, could maybe the official website be persuaded to host a copy
so that it could be linked to?

Tim, would you object?

- Paddy.

[Sebastian Bassi]

On 21 Mar 2007 12:18:50 -0700, Paddy <pa*******@googlemail.comwrote:

I just had a link to Tim peters first post on doctest:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....57cfb7b3772763

.....

AFAIK, Google doesn't offer a permalink to usenet/group post (since a
mayor "upgrade" they made some time ago). So this link may change in
the future and point to somewhere else.

Best,
SB.

[John J. Lee]

"Paddy" <pa*******@googlemail.comwrites:

I just had a link to Tim peters first post on doctest:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....57cfb7b3772763
removed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctest as it doesn't fit
their guidelines for external links.
I wonder, could maybe the official website be persuaded to host a copy
so that it could be linked to?

Tim, would you object?

It (wikipedia) is a wiki, why not edit the page and paste it in?
John

[Paddy]

On Mar 21, 8:20 pm, [e-mail] (John J. Lee) wrote:

"Paddy" <[e-mail]:

I just had a link to Tim peters first post on doctest:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....57cfb7b3772763
removed fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctestas it doesn't fit
their guidelines for external links.
I wonder, could maybe the official website be persuaded to host a copy
so that it could be linked to?

Tim, would you object?

It (wikipedia) is a wiki, why not edit the page and paste it in?

John

They have rules, and periodically trawl pages and clean them. I'd like
to stay within the rules.

- Paddy.

[Paul Rubin]

"Paddy" <pa*******@googlemail.comwrites:

I just had a link to Tim peters first post on doctest:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....57cfb7b3772763
removed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctest as it doesn't fit
their guidelines for external links.

Just sit tight for a while. It looks like someone went a bit
overboard removing those links with a bot, and is now in the process
of putting them back.

[Cameron Laird]

In article <11**********************@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups .com>,
Paddy <pa*******@googlemail.comwrote:

>On Mar 21, 8:20 pm, [e-mail] (John J. Lee) wrote:

>"Paddy" <[e-mail]:

I just had a link to Tim peters first post on doctest:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....57cfb7b3772763
removed fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctestas it doesn't fit
their guidelines for external links.
I wonder, could maybe the official website be persuaded to host a copy
so that it could be linked to?

Tim, would you object?

It (wikipedia) is a wiki, why not edit the page and paste it in?

John

They have rules, and periodically trawl pages and clean them. I'd like
to stay within the rules.

- Paddy.

Phaseit would be honored to memorialize a permanent URL for
that post, or even the thread from which it's taken. Is that
an appropriate resolution, Paddy?

[John J. Lee]

"Paddy" <pa*******@googlemail.comwrites:

On Mar 21, 8:20 pm, [e-mail] (John J. Lee) wrote:

"Paddy" <[e-mail]:

I just had a link to Tim peters first post on doctest:
>http://groups.google.com/group/comp....57cfb7b3772763
removed fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctestas it doesn't fit
their guidelines for external links.
I wonder, could maybe the official website be persuaded to host a copy
so that it could be linked to?

Tim, would you object?

It (wikipedia) is a wiki, why not edit the page and paste it in?

John

They have rules, and periodically trawl pages and clean them. I'd like
to stay within the rules.

Which rule would pasting in the post break?

You've explained that *linking* to a non-permanent URL would break the
rules. You haven't explained why *pasting in* the text of the post
would break the rules (I don't say it wouldn't break them, I'm just
curious).
John

[Paul Rubin]

jj*@pobox.com (John J. Lee) writes:

You've explained that *linking* to a non-permanent URL would break the
rules. You haven't explained why *pasting in* the text of the post
would break the rules (I don't say it wouldn't break them, I'm just
curious).

I've looked into this situation and I advise just not worrying about
it for now. The link is likely to be restored pretty soon if it
hasn't been already. If not, wait a day or two and then put it back.
It was removed along with a zillion other Usenet links because someone
got overzealous about spam reversion and turned an automatic script
loose that removed all such links indiscriminately, including a lot
that there wasn't anything wrong with. There was a discussion on the
wiki about it, the person stopped the script, and is now (slowly)
undoing the script's removals.

[Paddy]

On Mar 21, 8:39 pm, Paul Rubin <http://[e-mail]:

"Paddy" <[e-mail]:

I just had a link to Tim peters first post on doctest:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....57cfb7b3772763
removed fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctestas it doesn't fit
their guidelines for external links.

Just sit tight for a while. It looks like someone went a bit
overboard removing those links with a bot, and is now in the process
of putting them back.

I could not wait, and have just reverted the page.

Thanks guys.

- Paddy.

P.S. Now all I need is the time to reorganize The Duck Typing entry -
The Explanation in the Talk section is better than the article
itself :-)

[Paddy]

On Mar 21, 10:31 pm, [e-mail] (Cameron Laird) wrote:

In article <[e-mail] .com>,

Paddy <[e-mail]:

On Mar 21, 8:20 pm, [e-mail] (John J. Lee) wrote:

"Paddy" <[e-mail]:
I just had a link to Tim peters first post on doctest:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....57cfb7b3772763
removed fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctestasit doesn't fit
their guidelines for external links.
I wonder, could maybe the official website be persuaded to host a copy
so that it could be linked to?

Tim, would you object?

It (wikipedia) is a wiki, why not edit the page and paste it in?

John

They have rules, and periodically trawl pages and clean them. I'd like
to stay within the rules.

- Paddy.

Phaseit would be honored to memorialize a permanent URL for
that post, or even the thread from which it's taken. Is that
an appropriate resolution, Paddy?

Thanks Cameron for the kind offer, but after Paul Ruben made me aware
that the initial edit was done by a rogue 'bot, I reverted the page to
its prior state.

Maybe, if you email Tim, he might welcome you adding his post to your
site anyway? - I think its wasted just being available as a newsgroup
search, and should at least be available somewhere on the official
Python website. Doctest is a great idea that is in harmony with the
language it is expressed in.

- Paddy.

[Jorgen Grahn]

On 21 Mar 2007 12:18:50 -0700, Paddy <pa*******@googlemail.comwrote:

I just had a link to Tim peters first post on doctest:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....57cfb7b3772763
removed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctest as it doesn't fit
their guidelines for external links.
I wonder, could maybe the official website be persuaded to host a copy
so that it could be linked to?

Wikipedia should have some guideline for referencing Usenet postings,
somewhere ...

Anyway, it's a good thing to provide at least the Message-ID of the
posting. As an example, your your posting here was uniquely identified
by the Message-ID

<11*********************@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups. com>

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu
\X/ snipabacken.dyndns.org R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

[Paul Rubin]

Jorgen Grahn <gr********@snipabacken.dyndns.orgwrites:

Wikipedia should have some guideline for referencing Usenet postings,
somewhere ...

It has one (WP:RS). The guideline is don't do it. The problem is
that these guidelines arise out of disputes, i.e. maybe someone tried
to use a Usenet post to prove something about a politician, and the
result (reasonably) was a guideline that said Usenet posts weren't
reliable sources of info. In the cases where it's something ok, the
editors use common sense and leave it alone. Until that bot got loose
and started removing all Usenet links whether they were ok or not.