![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
... tkWWW, released May 1993, was the first X11 HTML editor.
Will post more when I come across them. If you have trouble viewing postscript and need them converted to pdf, let me know and I'll email you the pdfs. Smallman12q ( talk) 21:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
X-Windows info.cern.ch /pub/www/src tkWWW Browser/Editor
I went through the citations for this article and they really fail WP:RS... Sorry Mabdul... you seem like a seasoned editor and I'm wondering why you would put citations like these into the article? As such, I'm also not seeing what makes TkWWW notable as it is also not passing WP:N. Please help me understand? Pmedema ( talk) 23:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
(citations are broken or not related to the material or outright fail WP:RS Please fix - if template is removed before fix then article will go to
--> neither of the reference were broken as I added them. --> but as you said the article fails RS, then please give me the help and say which references fail. All citations are (at the moment) from universities, primary sources, part of the application itself or pioneers of the WWW like Berners-Lee or Cailliau. So since all are related/official published what fails? mabdul 05:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
1. Is a message/forum thread - fails WP:RS
2. Is an text overview from a university course that does not show WP:N
3. Is about Mosaic and is a passing mention - fails WP:3PARTY
4. Closest to WP:RS so far.
5. Broken
6. Is a one line web page from a university course with no real context
7. From www.w3.org with no real context other then we tried it, you can edit http with it, and you can get it at so and so location. Joe Wang is mentioned but he does not have a wiki article - WP:N?
8. PS file... sorry don't want to go through the learning curve to open/read it.
9. Is a couple lines of text, again from a university course that says "this is what it can do"
10. Seriously... a ToDo list!? from the same university course as the other cites?
11. Is an email/forum announcement for it's release - no WP:RS or WP:N here.
12. Same thing as 11 but for a different release - fails WP:3PARTY
13. Same thing as 11 again but for a different release- fails WP:3PARTY
14. Same thing as 11 again but for a different release - fails WP:3PARTY
15. System requirements and "what is in this release" - fails WP:NOT
16. Is a info/news release that fails WP:3PARTY
17. Release of another version. [WP:3PARTY]]
18. same as 17 but newer
19. same as 17 but newer
20. ftp site that would not load and fails [WP:RS]]... possible security risk?
21. Again another "announcement - fails WP:3PARTY
I'm not going to go through all of them at this point. I think I would like to reverse this and other then #4, is there anything else that does not fail the basic policies of Wikipedia and shows both
WP:RS and
WP:N I acknowledge that tkWWW exists but I really don't see anything that makes it notable. -
Pmedema (
talk)
18:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
mabdul 19:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any real problems with the references. The sources referred to as forum releases are either being published directly by MIT, or with an MIT email address. That should be enough to meet
WP:V.
--
Gyrobo (
talk)
19:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Some of the claims are just not appropriate for WP. You just can't cite the author for predictions about the future, e.g., that "tkWWW should replace rrn and should become a "swiss army knife" of networked computing." You also just cannot make the leap from "tkWWW was part of many Linux distributions" to "and thus was very popular." It should go without saying that putting it on the distribution and lots of people actually using it are two different things. Similarly, one (cryptic) post by a single individual does not support the claim in the section on the Eolas patent that "As the tkWWW community noticed correctly tkWWW and ofther web browsers were able to include external content before the patent." Matter of fact, it's not even obvious what that whole section adds to the article. Finally, you need to check your links to be sure they work; the very first one doesn't. Msnicki ( talk) 05:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Linking to "revision control system" without providing WP:RS relating the two topics is WP:OR at best. TEDickey ( talk) 08:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
For those interested internet historians, most of the emails from and to the devs around 1992-1993 are available on an MIT web server here:
http://web.mit.edu/kolya/.f/root/net.mit.edu/athena.mit.edu/course/other/cdsdev/OldFiles/mail-archive/ Rsemmes92 ( talk) 19:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
... tkWWW, released May 1993, was the first X11 HTML editor.
Will post more when I come across them. If you have trouble viewing postscript and need them converted to pdf, let me know and I'll email you the pdfs. Smallman12q ( talk) 21:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
X-Windows info.cern.ch /pub/www/src tkWWW Browser/Editor
I went through the citations for this article and they really fail WP:RS... Sorry Mabdul... you seem like a seasoned editor and I'm wondering why you would put citations like these into the article? As such, I'm also not seeing what makes TkWWW notable as it is also not passing WP:N. Please help me understand? Pmedema ( talk) 23:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
(citations are broken or not related to the material or outright fail WP:RS Please fix - if template is removed before fix then article will go to
--> neither of the reference were broken as I added them. --> but as you said the article fails RS, then please give me the help and say which references fail. All citations are (at the moment) from universities, primary sources, part of the application itself or pioneers of the WWW like Berners-Lee or Cailliau. So since all are related/official published what fails? mabdul 05:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
1. Is a message/forum thread - fails WP:RS
2. Is an text overview from a university course that does not show WP:N
3. Is about Mosaic and is a passing mention - fails WP:3PARTY
4. Closest to WP:RS so far.
5. Broken
6. Is a one line web page from a university course with no real context
7. From www.w3.org with no real context other then we tried it, you can edit http with it, and you can get it at so and so location. Joe Wang is mentioned but he does not have a wiki article - WP:N?
8. PS file... sorry don't want to go through the learning curve to open/read it.
9. Is a couple lines of text, again from a university course that says "this is what it can do"
10. Seriously... a ToDo list!? from the same university course as the other cites?
11. Is an email/forum announcement for it's release - no WP:RS or WP:N here.
12. Same thing as 11 but for a different release - fails WP:3PARTY
13. Same thing as 11 again but for a different release- fails WP:3PARTY
14. Same thing as 11 again but for a different release - fails WP:3PARTY
15. System requirements and "what is in this release" - fails WP:NOT
16. Is a info/news release that fails WP:3PARTY
17. Release of another version. [WP:3PARTY]]
18. same as 17 but newer
19. same as 17 but newer
20. ftp site that would not load and fails [WP:RS]]... possible security risk?
21. Again another "announcement - fails WP:3PARTY
I'm not going to go through all of them at this point. I think I would like to reverse this and other then #4, is there anything else that does not fail the basic policies of Wikipedia and shows both
WP:RS and
WP:N I acknowledge that tkWWW exists but I really don't see anything that makes it notable. -
Pmedema (
talk)
18:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
mabdul 19:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any real problems with the references. The sources referred to as forum releases are either being published directly by MIT, or with an MIT email address. That should be enough to meet
WP:V.
--
Gyrobo (
talk)
19:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Some of the claims are just not appropriate for WP. You just can't cite the author for predictions about the future, e.g., that "tkWWW should replace rrn and should become a "swiss army knife" of networked computing." You also just cannot make the leap from "tkWWW was part of many Linux distributions" to "and thus was very popular." It should go without saying that putting it on the distribution and lots of people actually using it are two different things. Similarly, one (cryptic) post by a single individual does not support the claim in the section on the Eolas patent that "As the tkWWW community noticed correctly tkWWW and ofther web browsers were able to include external content before the patent." Matter of fact, it's not even obvious what that whole section adds to the article. Finally, you need to check your links to be sure they work; the very first one doesn't. Msnicki ( talk) 05:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Linking to "revision control system" without providing WP:RS relating the two topics is WP:OR at best. TEDickey ( talk) 08:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
For those interested internet historians, most of the emails from and to the devs around 1992-1993 are available on an MIT web server here:
http://web.mit.edu/kolya/.f/root/net.mit.edu/athena.mit.edu/course/other/cdsdev/OldFiles/mail-archive/ Rsemmes92 ( talk) 19:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)