Jump to content

Talk:Carl Hewitt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This biography is extremely out of date

[edit]

Please add link to homepage of subject of article as follows http://CarlHewitt.iRobust.org.

Carl (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've done so. Thank you for using the edit request system and respecting our conflict of interest guidelines! I'm sorry your other requests haven't been answered; it's likely because they're so extensive and require a familiarity with your field to correctly appraise.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Neil!
Improvements to User:Prof. Carl Hewitt/EditRequestsForArticleCarlHewitt are greatly appreciated.
Carl (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

[edit]

It would be great if the improvements in User:Prof. Carl Hewitt/EditRequestsForArticleCarlHewitt could be incorporate in the biography. Carl (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interactions of subject of biography with Wikipedia

[edit]

{{BLP noticeboard}}

The subject of this article has published on their interactions with Wikipedia including the following:

Carl (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your viewpoint will only be important enough to mention if WP:SECONDARY sources discuss it. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the subject of the article is engaged in an ongoing online debate with certain other parties about participation in Wikipedia. It seems only fair that the publications of both sides of the debate should be reported. Carl (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that WP:SECONDARY sources are greatly preferred is that they establish the fact of importance to at least a segment of society. Without that, the issue is not shown to be important enough for us to mention. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as was demonstrated by subsequent publications, the following are not reliable sources becuase the authors all have conflicts of interest with respect to the subject of this article:
  • Kleeman, Jenny (December 9, 2007). "Wikipedia ban for disruptive professor". The Guardian.
  • Udell, John (November 24, 2008). "Carl Hewitt on cloud computing, scalable semantics, and Wikipedia". blog.jonudell.net. Retrieved October 20, 2016.
  • Ayers, Phoebe (2008). How Wikipedia Works: And how You Can be a Part of it. No Starch Press. p. 55. ISBN 159327176X.
You can access the whole horrid history from Wikipedia archives of Administrator proceedings, some of which is discussed in "Corruption of Wikipedia".
Carl (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm seeing is the continued failure to cite a reliable secondary source (not a blog) regarding the issue of Carl Hewitt criticizing Wikipedia. So nothing about this should be added to the biography. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet:It looks like you have not acknowledged the one-sidedness of the current presentation in the article. Nor have you acknowledged that the current sources in the article are not reliable. The current article violates Wikipedia policy on the biographies of living people.
It seems that this whole thing is going to be escalated and re-litigated once more.
Carl (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are threatening a legal prosecution then you will be quickly blocked per WP:NLT. For the last time, your concerns are not worth mentioning unless independent third parties have taken notice and discussed them. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet:Of course, as in the past, these things are litigated in the court of public opinion where publications have to get around censorship that is practiced in various places.
Carl (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet:Unfortunately, it looks like you are dodging the issue that the current article violates Wikipedia policy on the biographies of living people by making wild accusations.
Carl (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Why can't "Corruption of Wikipedia" be added as a reference/footnote to the subjects "other interests" regarding his view of editing of Wikipedia? The footnote can explain it's the subject's view of his experience. I find it quaint that he likes to edit Wikipedia. Raquel Baranow (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly WP:WEIGHT has a bearing on the issue. "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all..." If Hewitt's viewpoint was being discussed by other scholars or the media it would be worthy of inclusion. Another relevant guideline is WP:SELFPUB which says self-published material can be used if it's about the subject themselves, but not if it contains claims about third parties. Binksternet (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet:Unfortunately, you are still taking sides against the subject of the article while pretending to be neutral by bringing up Wiki-legalistic points in favor of an article presentation that violates Wikipedia policy on the biographies of living people. Raquel is correct that in fairness and balance "Corruption of Wikipedia" should be added as reference.
Carl (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you chose to make a personal attack rather than to address the guidelines I pointed to. Apparently, Wikipedia's longstanding policies and guidelines don't concern you. No wonder you had trouble in the past with editing Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make a personal attack; I only pointed out the wiki-legalistic tactics that you have used.
The important point is that the article currently violates Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people, which you have ignored.
Raquel has made a constructive suggestion on how to improve the article, which you have also ignored.
Carl (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your restrictions include personal attacks and personal comments. You said I was "pretending to be neutral" which is a personal attack against my character. At the very least it is a personal comment, a violation of your restrictions. You still have not described how your suggested edit could be carried forward in light of WP:WEIGHT and WP:SELFPUB, the points I brought up. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, "pretending to be neutral" is using wiki-legalistic arguments which ignore that your latest edit to the article has created a severe violation of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people. So, I am commenting your current tactics and not you as a person (who has done some excellent work in the past for Wikipedia).
Carl (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Raquel Baranow:Perhaps Raquel could suggest how to repair the article's current severe violation of Wikipedia policy.
Carl (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think my pointing to two relevant guidelines is "wiki-legalistic argument" then your path forward will be steeply uphill.
If you think your accusation that I was "pretending to be neutral" was not a personal remark then your sense of English is not standard.
You said I ignored Raquel Baranow's post, but I answered her question. She asked why not? and I responded why not.
Your claim that the biography is now a "severe violation" is laughable, which is why I have been ignoring that assertion. The text closely follows the cited sources, making it neutral.
You have persisted in your refusal to address the intersection of the guidelines I linked and your suggested changes. This means you have no answer to my policy-based opposition. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at WP:SELFPUB and the only reason not to use "Corruption of Wikipedia" as a reference/footnote would be "it ... involve(s) claims about third parties" however I'm not sure if it involves claims about 3rd parties, WP is a second-party. The revision seems inappropriate, out of place but I'm not an expert, maybe we should request comments from outside editors. (I'm an outside editor, saw reference to it on a Noticeboard regarding potential legal threat.) Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "only reason"? When I looked through "Corruption of Wikipedia" I saw an attack on User:Ruud Koot, and in the letter to Wikipedia, "Re: Misbehavior on Wikipedia", User:Arthur Rubin and User:CBM are accused. That makes both of these self-published sources unusable. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "Wikipedia Wars" involved attacks by all sides as reported in "Corruption of Wikipedia". However, you have included in the current Wikipedia biography only the attack by Jenny Kleeman on Professor Hewitt. It later turned out that Kleeman had been successful "cultivated" to write stories favorable to Wikipedia in a previous Wikipedia PR campaign to counter negative publicity caused by a Wikipedia scandal. So Charles Matthews (then a high level Wikipedia official) enlisted Kleeman to write the article for which you have included a reference in the current Wikipedia biography that attacks Professor Hewitt. Consequently, the Observer article is not a reliable source.
Carl (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion about Kleeman is unsupported, therefore The Observer/The Guardian remains a valid source. The reason your own response is not listed in your biography has been explained to you: it would be shown to be important if independent third parties were discussing it. All you need to do is get a journalist interested in your side of the affair. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Assertions about Kleeman are supported by the following references in "Corruption of Wikipedia":
Carl (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Nonbovine Ruminations blog link has nothing relevant. The note from Charles Matthews to SlimVirgin warning her to stop contacting him is likewise empty of useful material for us here. That leaves the November 2008 question-and-answer between SlimVirgin and Charles Matthews. SlimVirgin accuses Matthews of passing your name "and some of the allegations to a freelance reporter". Matthews describes the context of ongoing collegiality with the journalist Jenny Kleeman, who was writing her own stories about Wikipedia, not regurgitating Wikimedia Foundation PR fluff. She performed her own research, contacting Professor Kowalski herself. So the news item by Kleeman remains her own, and it remains a reliable source here. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor SlimVirgin had a different take one it:

"You're not really answering the key question, which is why you [Charles Matthews] feel it's appropriate for a member of the ArbCom and communications committee to be tipping off reporters in order to have negative material published about a Wikipedian. I'd have thought it was the job of the communications committee to head off these stories, not to be behind them." SlimVirgin 18:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
...
"Okay, you're not answering the question, so I won't keep pushing. Thank you for the responses you've given.
As for your relationship with the communications committee, you discussed this story with the committee prior to publication, and they either encouraged you or didn't stop you. The point is that it's an odd thing, in my view, for an ArbCom member to do. When editors come before the ArbCom, they have to feel assured that they're not going to end up in The Observer — at least not at the instigation of one of the arbitrators." SlimVirgin 18:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, the Kleeman story is a tainted source for basing your Wikipedia biography attack on Professor Hewitt.

Carl (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin had a problem with Charles Matthews, not with the piece by Jenny Kleeman. Nothing said by SlimVirgin indicated that she thought Kleeman was not performing her own research and writing her own news article.
By the way, the only reason I'm here is that I'm attempting to keep this article neutral. Your characterization of my activities as an "attack" is hyperbolic. If you refrain from making this personal then you will not be in violation of your ArbCom restrictions. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My colleague Professor Kowalski has expressed regret for being ensnared.
If the Observer has any integrity, then it will publish a retraction of the article.
Wikipedia policy should be changed to allow victims to respond to attacks in their biographies.
Carl (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


As pointed out in "Corruption of Wikipedia" and many other publications, Wikipedia has an unfortunately long sordid history of unfairly attacking people in their Wikipedia biographies.
Carl (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By his latest edit to the biography, Binksternet has sharpened his attack on the subject of the article. Consequently, the biography is now in severe violation of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people.

Carl (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short history of Hewitt at Wikipedia

[edit]

User:CarlHewitt began editing Wikipedia in June 2005, working on Planner (programming language), Scientific community metaphor, and other computer science topics and related biographies including his own, but especially on Actor model.

User:Binksternet thank you for this detailed list of Prof. Hewitt's bad deeds. However I do not think it is applicable or relevant. How does it help to improve this BLP article that the subject clearly has issues with? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reference, to preserve institutional memory. It improves the BLP if it prevents Wikipedians from underestimating Hewitt's devious persistence. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, many of the insuations listed at the beginning of this section are incorrect.
Carl (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of Professor Carl Hewitt at Wikipedia

[edit]

The following publications lay out interactions of Professor Carl Hewitt with Wikipedia:

"Corruption of Wikipedia" is recommended for placing the interactions in perspective with numerous references to both Wikipedia and external publications. The article also has recommendations as to how Wikipedia can be improved.

The biased partial chronology above is part of an attack by User:Binksternet.

Carl (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are not allowed to make personal comments, because of your ArbCom restrictions.
Second, the above list cannot be biased as it shows a list of times that you violated WP:MULTIPLE. It's a fact-based list, not an opinion-based one.
Third, I'm here to prevent violations of WP:Neutral point of view. I'm not here to "attack" you. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Hewitt uses "Actor" upper case to distinguish it from the use of "actor". a thespian.

[edit]

Professor Hewitt uses "Actor" upper case in running prose to distinguish it from the use of "actor" for a thespian.

Carl (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't usually follow the preferred style of organizations and individuals who are not using standard English style. See MOS:TMRULES where it says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices..." The a in actor model is lower case in running prose in these books.[2][3][4][5] Some other books use it capitalized, so the issue is not strongly settled one way or the other. With that in mind, Wikipedia's own style rule stands. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The usage "Actor model" is correct and standard. I'm a researcher on Actor programming languages and that's the spelling I normally use. Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your observation. The four books in my links above do not conform to your stated style. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prolog was designed as a backward inference subset of Planner

[edit]

An editor of the article mistakenly claimed that Prolog was not strongly influenced by Planner.

However, according to van Emden [2006], Kowalski designed Prolog as a backward inference subset of Planner:

"He [Kowalski] took great pains to carefully study PLANNER and CONNIVER."
Maarten van Emden. The Early Days of Logic Programming: A Personal Perspective Association of Logic Programming Newsletter. August 2006.

Further information can be found here: Inconsistency Robustness for Logic Programs

Carl (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking "great pains" to study someone's work does not mean the subsequent work is derivative. The study could just as easily reveal that the earlier work was not along a productive line.
The idea that Prolog is based on Planner is a controversial one, introduced by you but opposed by many here for a decade now. You will have to find much stronger sourcing. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course in his article, van Emden did say that Prolog was derivative work. In fact, Kowalski [2008] admitted that Prolog was a backward-inference subset of Planner that was not so different:

"In the meanwhile, critics of the formal approach, based mainly at MIT, began to advocate procedural representations of knowledge, as superior to declarative, logic-based representations. This led to the development of the knowledge representation and problem-solving languages Planner and micro-Planner. Winograd’s PhD thesis (1971), using micro-Planner to implement a natural language dialogue for a simple blocks world, was a major milestone of this approach. Research in automated theorem-proving, mainly based on resolution, went into sharp decline. The battlefield between the logic-based and procedural approaches moved briefly to Edinburgh during the summer of 1970 at one of the Machine Intelligence Workshops organized by Donald Michie (van Emden, 2006). At the workshop, Papert and Sussman from MIT gave talks vigorously attacking the use logic in AI, but did not present a paper for the proceedings. This created turmoil among researchers in Edinburgh working in resolution theorem-proving. However, I was not convinced that the procedural approach was so different from the SL resolution system I had been developing with Donald Kuehner (1971). During the next couple of years, I tried to reimplement Winograd’s system in resolution logic and collaborated on this with Alain Colmerauer in Marseille."

Prolog even adopted a not so different subset of the Planner syntax for backward inference. Carl (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your supplied quote shows inference, not so strong a statement as "Hewitt's work was the basis for Prolog". Lots of stuff influenced Prolog – Kowalski cites 23 sources, some of them multiple times, but he cites Hewitt only once in his 1974 paper "Predicate Logic as Programming Language". Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prolog is obviously a backward-inference subset of Planner. Just look at the syntax :-)
The issue for Kowalski was how he could preserve the reputation of resolution theorem proving. In an attempt to achieve this preservation, Prolog took only the backward-inference part of Planner, and did not take the forward-inference Logic Program part of Planner. Consequently, Prolog missed out on half the capabilities of Logic Programs.
van Emden's article is much more reliable soruce for the history of Logic Programs than "Predicate Logic as Programming Language."
Carl (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to van Emden [2006]:

The run-up to the workshop [Machine Intelligence 6 organized by Donald Michie in 1970] was enlivened by telegrams from Seymour Papert at MIT announcing on alternating days that he was (was not) coming to deliver his paper entitled "The Irrelevance of Resolution", a situation that caused Michie to mutter something about the relevance of irresolution. The upshot was that a student named Gerry Sussman appeared at the appointed time. It looked as if this was going to be his first talk outside MIT. His nervousness was compounded by the fact that he had been instructed to go into the very bastion of resolution theorem proving and tell the assembled experts how totally misguided they were in trying to get anything relevant to AI with their chosen approach. I had only the vaguest idea what all this was about. For me theorem proving was one of the things that some people (including Kowalski) did, and I was there for the programming. If Bob and I had anything in common, it was search. Accordingly I skipped the historic Sussman lecture and arrived late for the talk scheduled to come after Sussman's. Instead, I found an unknown gentleman lecturing from a seat in the audience in, what I thought a very English voice. It turned out that a taxi from the airport had delivered Seymour Papert after all, just in time for the end of Sussman's lecture, which was now being re-done properly by the man himself. The effect on the resolution people in Edinburgh of this frontal assault was traumatic. For nobody more so than for Bob Kowalski.

Carl (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this next quote is no more useful than the last. An explicit statement would work, and that's not it. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is clear: Prolog is obviously a backward-inference subset of Planner. Just look at the syntax.
Kowalski admitted as much. His concern was in opposing the judgment that the Planner procedural embedding approach had overthrown resolution theorem proving. So he took a backward-inference subset of Planner and showed how a particular way of using resolution could be mapped to this kind of backward inference. In this way, he claimed that Planner was "not so different" from resolution theorem proving.
Prolog only had backward inference. However, Kowalski later added a separate production rule system (also a subset of Planner) that can do forward inference in his systems after Prolog.
Carl (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current biography has an unfair attack on a living person

[edit]

The current biography has an unfair attack on a living person.

One of the biography editors has actively prevented repairing the biography to have a more balanced presentation

Wikipedia policy should be changed to allow victims to respond to attacks in their biographies.

Carl (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. What text do you wish removed, to eliminate the attack portion? Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the attack is going to be allowed, then the subject of the biography should be allowed their own published response "Corruption of Wikipedia".
Carl (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see an attack anywhere? Theroadislong (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out by SlimVirgin (see above), the attack was instigated by a high Wikipedia official.
By attacking professionals in this way, Wikipedia discourages their contributing to the project.
Carl (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I still can"t see it in the article? Theroadislong (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should try talking to some professionals? Carl (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you talk in riddles I can't help you...have a good day. Theroadislong (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to be helpful. Often professionals have a different take when they are attacked in their Wikipedia biographies. Carl (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can't help you, unless you specify precisely where the attack is, in the article. Theroadislong (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested wording for "On Wikipedia" section is below. Carl (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two different concepts: "unfair" and "attack on a living person".
The article is fair and neutral. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.
If the article considered neutral by a consensus of editors here, then it is not an "attack". Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the face of it, the section in the biography is a continuation of the attack initiated by Matthews (then a high Wikipedia official), which is unfair because it uses publications sourced to Matthews that present only one side.
Carl (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Matthews didn't attack Hewitt, so that assertion is wrong. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to SlimVirgin: When editors come before the ArbCom, they have to feel assured that they're not going to end up in The Observer — at least not at the instigation of one of the arbitrators.
Carl (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet:Are you proposing that just one side of the controversy should be presented in the biography?
Carl (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin was voicing her opinion, not policy.
I am not "proposing" anything. I am interested in keeping the article neutral. If WP:Reliable sources are published about Hewitt's activities on Wikipedia then they can be summarized in the biography here. So far, we have no reliable source defending Hewitt's stance. Once one is published in a reliable third party source, we can bring it in. Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet:You are requiring that only one side of the controversy appear in the biography.
Carl (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The current situation is such that one side is published and therefore represented. As soon as the other side is published in a reliable source, then both sides will be represented. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the only way that this kind of abuse can be curbed is by a change in Wikipedia policy. See below.
Carl (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia

[edit]

I suggest the following wording for a section in the biography titled "On Wikipedia": Carl (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hewitt currently edits on Wikipedia as User:Prof. Carl Hewitt. His previous experiences were controversial. [1] [2] [3] [4]

References

  1. ^ Jenny Kleeman. "Wikipedia ban for disruptive professor" Observer. December 9, 2007.
  2. ^ Phoebe Ayers. Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates. "How Wikipedia Works: And how You Can be a Part of it" No Starch Press. 2008
  3. ^ Carl Hewitt. "Corruption of Wikipedia" Google+ January 1, 2016.
  4. ^ Carl Hewitt. "Letter to Wikimedia Foundation" Google+ November 9, 2015.

The above suggestion has two publications each from both sides of the controversy. Carl (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reports on what the reliable secondary sources say about a subject. Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, Wikipedia policy should be changed to allow victims to respond to attacks in their biographies.
Besides, what Professor Hewitt published about the controversies is more reliable than Jenny Kleeman and Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, et. al.
Carl (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to suggest changes to Wikipedia policy, so there's nothing I can do about that. This page is to discuss changes in the article. The statement in the article "Hewitt edited Wikipedia during 2005–2007 but was banned for self-promotion" does not appear to me to be an attack of any sort and is reliably sourced are you disputing that you were banned? Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording in the biography represents a continuation of the attack initiated by Charles Matthews that resulted in the hatchet jobs by Kleeman and Ayers, Matthews, et. al. Consequently, the Kleeman and Ayers, Matthews, et. al. publications are not reliable sources.
Carl (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jenny Kleeman is an award winning, well respected journalist and The Guardian newspaper is usually considered an impeccable reliable source, so I don't know what to suggest. Theroadislong (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kleeman is a usually a competent journalist; but in this case she was snookered by Matthews in The Observer article. Kowalski was then exploited to his regret. The other publication is a hatchet job co-authored by Matthews. Carl (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your evidence for this is what? Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are supposed to summarize the sources. If we properly summarize Kleeman then we must say that Hewitt was banned for self-promotion. If we shy back and say that Hewitt's editing was "controversial", with no reason, we are just going to frustrate the reader who will not then know what happened.
Regarding the Ayers book, what is the relevant page number? I was unable to find anything about Hewitt in the book.
Regarding the Hewitt source, we cannot use it because it's a self-published source which accuses a living person or persons of wrongdoing. See WP:SELFPUB.
If you repeat your request over and over, the relevant guidelines will always be the same ones. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On its face, the current biography is a continuation of the attack that Matthews perpetrated on Kleeman, who took Mathews word at face value. So the Observer article by Kleeman is not a reliable source and should not be used in the biography. Of course, official wording for the Wikipedia ban must be quoted from Wikipedia archives. The stuff that Kleeman got from Matthews is hearsay. The two unreliable publications sourced from Matthews unfairly attack Professor Hewitt by name.
Are you proposing that just one side of the controversy should be presented in the biography?
Carl (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Matthews didn't "attack" Hewitt when he told Kleeman that Hewitt would be an interesting research challenge for her, with regard to her interest in writing about a disruptive Wikipedian. Kleeman performed her own research, so your comment about hearsay is wrong. The Observer/The Guardian remains a good source. 15:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
As pointed out by SlimVirgin, Matthews was then a high Wikipedia official. Are there other known examples of high Wikipedia officials attacking editors?
Carl (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Matthews didn't "attack" Hewitt by suggesting Kleeman write a story about the case. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Matthews also served as a "Senior academic" source for Kleeman's hit piece even though he is not one. If Kleeman has any integrity, she will request that The Observer retract the article. Carl (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Followed up by the attack in book that he co-authored. Carl (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kleeman's news piece reported facts. It wasn't a "hit piece" unless she twisted the truth, which she didn't. There's no evidence that Matthews served as a senior academic for Kleeman, so that line of inquiry is a non-starter. She quoted only Kowalski. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kleeman did not set out to write a hit piece. Instead, she was taken in by Matthews with whom she was previously acquainted having been "cultivated." Matthews was used as a "Senior academic" source for the Observer article.
There is still hope that Kleeman will request that the Observer article be retracted.
Carl (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kleeman performed her own research. Nobody has questioned that. You have no proof that Matthews was used as a senior academic source. It's highly unlikely that Kleeman will retract the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When questioned, Matthews did not deny that he was a "Senior academic" source for the article.
The article is an embarrassment, which the Guardian has unfortunately inherited from the Observer. It is not clear that they have the integrity to retract it. However, your making a fuss about it increases pressure that they do so ;-) If they wished, they could quietly remove the article from the Guardian website along with other embarrassing articles that they inherited from the Observer.
Carl (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Did not deny" is not the same as "affirmed".
It is you making the fuss, and none other.
If a published source disappears from its source domain, we don't normally remove the citation, nor do we remove dependent text. See the guideline at Wikipedia:Link rot which says "do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer." And if the Guardian takes down the article, there's always the Wayback Machine.[6] So the only way the Guardian could make an impression on the Hewitt biography is to print a substantial retraction. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So Wikipedia should continue to pursue its unfair attack in the biography even if the Guardian withdraws?
Carl (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Such nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for a page number in the Ayers book. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. Page 56. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • user:Binksternet at the very least, the sentence "Hewitt edited Wikipedia during 2005–2007 but was banned for self-promotion" needs to be updated to reflect the fact that arbcom has unbanned Prof Hewitt. However you are unlikely to find a reliable source that would cover this. If this is not possible the sentence should be removed as it is a BLP violation. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest referring to this ArbCom announcement which says that Hewitt is unbanned with restrictions? I can see at WP:BLPPRIMARY that primary sources may be used very carefully to augment a secondary source. It seems to me that Kleeman saying Hewitt is banned should be followed by the Hewitt is unbanned announcement by ArbCom. I'll implement that and you can determine how it works for you. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The section should also say that the subject of the biography edits under the name User:Prof. Carl Hewitt.
Carl (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it say that? You have edited under multiple accounts, the others now blocked or abandoned, and you've edited using IP addresses. The quantity of the evasion edits is enormous. Observers have said that you also encouraged meatpuppets to edit according to your wishes. You have done this stuff for ten years – all of it a violation of policy. If we tell the reader anything about your username, we would say that the ArbCom decision of April 2016 restricted you to a single user account. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a simple factual matter that should appear in the section of the biography that the subject of the biography edits only under the name User:Prof. Carl Hewitt
Previous activities by students during the Wikipedia Wars are irrelevant.
Carl (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia Wars" – that's funny. The policy page Wikipedia:Sock puppetry has a section on meatpuppetry which says that it is prohibited for you to urge your students to team up on Wikipedia to make your desired edits. So the "previous activities by students" are indeed relevant to your editing history.
You're a logical guy. Please explain how you can prove to a simple observer that you have not edited under any other registered username or IP address since April. If something is nearly impossible to prove then would a logician call it a "fact"?
The citable, provable fact is that you have been restricted by the Arbitration Committee to the use of only one username. Binksternet (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The early Wikipedia Wars are recounted in the following: "Corruption of Wikipedia".
As per agreement with Wikipedia, I edit only under User:Prof. Carl Hewitt.
Carl (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the mildly elastic use of the word 'agreement' there :) Muffled Pocketed 05:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a wee bit of fast and loose happening with that agreement. "He may not engage in personal attacks or make personal comments about other editors." Whoops, I think there are several comments directly about various editors here. "Suggestions should be polite and brief and should not be repetitively reposted if they do not find consensus." Errrr, yeah. Surely there's nothing repetitively posted here. Nope. Nothing at all! Ravensfire (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravensfire and Prof. Carl Hewitt: I think there's probably room at Arbcom for this. Muffled Pocketed 08:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would be very pleased if there could be improvements in the following articles:
Carl (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP policy should be changed toallow victims to respond to attacks in their biographies

[edit]

What is the best way to propose that Wikipedia policy should be changed to explicitly allow victims to respond to attacks in their biographies?

Thanks! Carl (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP policy should be changed to prohibit attacks in a person's biography for their WP editing

[edit]

What is the best way to propose that Wikipedia policy should be changed to explicitly prohibit attacks in a person's biography for their Wikipedia editing?

Thanks! Carl (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks are already strictly NOT permitted in any Wikipedia articles. Theroadislong (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Where can I find the prohibition? Carl (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Theroadislong (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any specific prohibition on attacks in a person's biography for their Wikipedia editing. Carl (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Writing_style Theroadislong (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The writing style guide does not specifically prohibit attacks in a person's biography for their Wikipedia editing.
Experience on this page demonstrates that the prohibition must be made explicit.
Carl (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can post any concerns here too Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard but I don't see how anybody would agree that you are being attacked, sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP policy should be changed to explicitly require fairness in biographies

[edit]

What is the best way to propose that Wikipedia policy should be changed to require fairness in biographies by presenting both sides of controversies about what might be considered negative information about a person?

Thanks! Carl (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biography has unfair attacks based on subject's participation

[edit]

The biography has unfair attacks based on subject's participation in scientific debates on Wikipedia. Because the subject has published scientific articles, they are charged with "self-promotion" and "emphasizing their own viewpoints."

Meanwhile, Wikipedia can't get it's act together to correct serious errors and inaccuracies in a number of articles such as the following:

Carl (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no "attack" on you, merely a fair and neutral statement about your editing record on Wikipedia. And you fail to mention how the Arbitration Committee judged your behavior as overemphasizing your contributions to computer theory etc, an emphasis with no basis in WP:Reliable sources. So don't misrepresent the case. Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a Wikipedia editor, you are allowed to take sides attacking the subject of the biography. And you are allowed to take sides in the complex scientific controversies listed immediately above in this section. However, on its face your participation has not been "neutral." In all fairness, you should declare that you are taking positions against the subject of the biography.
Carl (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's where you and I disagree. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cult of the Amateur

[edit]
Closing discussion initiated by block evading User:Prof. Carl Hewitt.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It seems unfortunate that Wikipedia is not more devoted to truth. Instead, it seems to be governed by the The Cult of the Amateur.

Suggested edits by Professor Hewitt seem eminently reasonable to me. 50.0.72.20 (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's suggestions sound reasonable to themselves. Nothing new there.
The problem here is not the amateurs trying to force facts but rather the topic subject trying to skew facts to favor himself. The amateurs are correct to stop such abuse by Hewitt. Binksternet (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carl Hewitt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal

[edit]

@Yngvadottir, Carrite, and Prof. Carl Hewitt: The subject's image I deleted with summary Image removal of local copy on en:wp of French work. Not Fair Use. No proof photographer obtained subject's consent for a) taking b) publishing as required under French law see www.droit-image.fr was restored with summary Original image and earlier modification are on Commons; that's the place to nom for deletion. Additionally, from a Flickr album, still freely licensed, no issue has been raised ?

However, after reading the archives I observe, Carl Hewitt or IPs related to him, has objected to the original image on Commons being included in this article and without his consent.

Recalling WMF Resolution:Images of identifiable people and its principles, eg. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify

In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:

  • Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied consistently.
  • Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations.
  • Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same.

As this image is hosted on en:wp this content dispute must be processed under this project's policies and not Commons policy.

It's also not clear how the image uploader gets to take a CC-2 licenced image of French origin taken by a French photographer apparently in Paris,France and to release it unrestricted into the public domain as follows no copyright claimed for the work, file released to the public domain without further restriction. HeLaJackson (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this modified image is now an English WP file. So go ahead and nominate it there if you wrongly thing French panorama law is going to bump off the image on En-WP. I'll just go back and fill out the Fair Use rationale in the worst case scenario. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify again the basis how A) a CC-2 licenced photographic work authored in a non-public (ie. private) place by a French national in France and uploaded to Commons from Flickr by a third person under that licence can be modified and hosted as a public domain file on en:WP free of copyright as you claim and B) why the French privacy law does not strictly apply to this situation link, link and C) Why the en:WP community does not respect the WMF Board's principles for this clearly identfiable subject in a non-public situation where Prof. Hewitt is clearly unaware he is being photographed in a private situation with his intellectual peers and which publication he has objected to as being without his consent. Thank you. HeLaJackson (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, while you're trolling, "newcomer" @HeLaJackson — please identify your alternate account(s). Carrite (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to your link, which incidentally is not binding policy on WP, we find: "However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation without permission." — This WMF resolution deals with identifiable living persons in a private place or situation, which this is not. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @HeLaJackson: The policies you cite really do apply to Commons and to the original image of which this one is a refined derivative. For example, the basis of its being hosted on Commons is that it was taken at a public event and uploaded to Flickr with a compatible license. Moreover, it was the original image to which Prof. Hewitt raised objections; I see no evidence that he has objected to the modified image, do you have any? So again, I believe you really should be raising these issues in relation to the Commons images. There is no basis for selectively removing this image, which was twice modified to make it acceptable, and is hosted here not on Commons (hence not available for anyone to reuse elsewhere) for the legitimate purpose of depicting the article subject. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I first need to understand certain things from Carrite. I shall respond here thereafter. Thanks for your courtesy and your patience. The photo was taken in 2008 and the law for claiming damages against the photographers was clarified in 2012 by decided appeals. So Hewitt may now have personality rights to demand the photographer control publication of his image (eg. via DMCA) or face damages. Hope you understand. HeLaJackson (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While trying to post to Prof Hewitts's talk page I discovered he is blocked since Nov 2016 so that explains why he hasnt objected to these specific images. Is his consent to these images on file at OTRS ? HeLaJackson (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks HeLaJackson! I object to the images. Regards, Prof. Carl Hewitt 50.242.68.99 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Carrite, who may not have thought to look back here. IP (I can't ping an IP I'm afraid), unfortunately I have no idea whether you are indeed Professor Carl Hewitt. If you are, could you please log in and post to User talk:Prof. Carl Hewitt, which you still have access to post to? (I note that there is also an earlier account, CarlHewitt.) Assuming that you are indeed the subject of the article, I'd also like to know what the basis of your objection is: is it to these pictures in particular (I'm not sure you're aware that the image has been twice modified to improve it) or to where it was taken as per the issues HeLaJackson raises, which I doubt are relevant here, since I understand the picture was taken at a public event. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yngvadottir. I don't see how logging in to a talk page establishes anyone's identity on Wikipedia sufficiently. The right course would be to send a signed letter by registered post to the WMF's designated agent. Actually, my argument for deletion is not founded on the public nature of the event. It is based on that the author of the work is French and the author is therefore automatically governed by French law, and this French work was published at a time (2008) when the privacy law of France was unclear. In 2012 the privacy law was clarified in France so that photographers there do not commit the same mistakes as was done in Prof Hewitt's case. Here are examples of the author's later works link,link,link,link,link where he obscures the faces of identifiable subjects in public spaces. In my view, Prof Hewitt deserves the same courtesy and the community should respect the unamimous privacy principle affirmed by the Board of Trustees for an individual to control the usage of his visage online, including potentially commercially to ridicule him. There is also the serious image use issue of taking a licenced image and placing it into public domain to publish here instead of uploading to Commons. HeLaJackson (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2019

[edit]

Website link "http://CarlHewitt.iRobust.org" is not working, so either it should be updated or removed. Sachin.gorade (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NiciVampireHeart 21:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Please add link to Hewitt's blog for more recent information: https://professorhewitt.blogspot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by FromAcademia (talk • contribs) 18:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Wikipedia does not link to blogs. See WP:ELNO RudolfRed (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ELNO says at the top, "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject," and even without that exception, "Wikipedia does not link to blogs," is not a correct summary of what it says. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is Professor Hewitt's official website. As such, Wikipedia should allow the link. FromAcademia (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2022

[edit]

Change "Carl Hewitt is" to "Carl Hewitt was" Carl Hewitt died yesterday, December 8th Zibetta (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The section on the Actor model says "[the] Scheme interpreter was not capable of fully implementing the actor model" and cites the The First Report on Scheme Revisited, which basically says the opposite (that lambda and alpha were discovered to be the same thing implementation-wise). It then says "actors can change their local state in a way that is impossible in the lambda calculus", but again, the report discusses how they implemented mutation in Scheme. Nowhere man (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2024

[edit]

In Carl's Obituary https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/santacruzsentinel/name/carl-hewitt-obituary?id=38594220, it is said he died at the age of 77. Could we change the years as 77 please, thanks. Aleks92Rus (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nowhere man (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carl_Hewitt&oldid=1207498666"