This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I clicked the link, and it takes me to page 242 of a book about Final Cut Pro. Seems unrelated. No idea how to find the real source to cite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenXO ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
BenXO ( talk) 12:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Why not make the jargon file a wiki? --Anon.
A paragraph in the article:
From some reason I highly doubt that Charles Spurgeon (died 89 years before that date) managed to somehow hack and get a portion of the File as stated in that paragraph. Is it the hacker's true name, or a nickname? Or maybe it's just wrongly-spelled? In any case, maybe the link shouldn't lead to Charles Spurgeon's (who was more of a Baptist preacher than a hacker) page? -- 85.65.13.27 01:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
"Particular instances that attracted much attention were the addition of tendentious pro-Iraq War and pro-gun ownership entries"
This links to a Slashdot article. The entire text of the article is "As reported by NTK, ESR appears to have embarked apon the process of recasting the Jargon File in his own image, adding terms like "Aunt Tillie" and "GhandiCon" that he dreamt up and seemingly no-one else uses, and various terms from (of all places) the warblogging community, where he is active. He's also updated the "Hacker Politics" page to be more closely aligned with his own views."
This contains no mention of Iraq or gun entries. Eric himself already objected on the Eric Raymond page to that and claimed it was false and there were no such entries.
I'm going to rewrite this as an allegation unless someone can come up with an Iraq or gun entry he added. Ken Arromdee 19:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
anti-idiotarianism would seem to be one entry that comes close to this, though it doesn't specifically mention Iraq.
Overdone. Kashami 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
User:68.36.192.168 changed the start date of the Jargon File from the 1960s to the 1950s at 09:18, 11 August 2006, citing Steven Levy's Hackers:_Heroes_of_the_Computer_Revolution. I don't have access to the book, so I can't confirm it. Can anyone confirm it? Phelan 13:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I tried reading it but as I have never heard of it before making out what it really was grew hard. Can someone make a section just simply account for it. Keldon 12:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The interwiki link is yielding the following error from the Canadian system:
Are you getting something different? -- David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍) 18:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The section about critics of raymond's version includes phrases like "Critics lament that…", "Some hackers have become dissatisfied…", "He has also been criticised for…". These are weaseley and should be sourced: see WP:WEASEL. -- jacobolus (t) 06:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
14-Oct-2007: I've read and revised the entire article, but it does not contain excessive acronyms, IMHO. Keeping that abbreviations-tag would be like complaining that an article about corporations had too many abbreviations, such as AT&T, GM and IBM, or an article about television shows was overrun with acronyms: TV, ABC, NBC, CBS, ESPN & CNN. I've moved that abbreviations-tag lower inside the article, but I really want concensus to remove it totally, and refer to this debate for the decision. Most acronyms have even been wikilinked, so warning about the acronyms seems absurd. Has this tag issue been decided in a similar article? - Wikid77 14:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Computerese? -- Abdull 20:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
"In 1976, Mark Crispin, having seen an announcement about the File on the SAIL computer, FTPed a copy of the File to MIT. He noticed that it was hardly restricted to "AI words" and so stored the file on his directory, named as "AI:MRC;SAIL JARGON"."
Is this meant to be a self referential joke, cause it sure sounds like it. Gigitrix ( talk) 16:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, much of this article has been directly plagiarized from the jargon itself at [ [1]]. I don't know enough about the background to rewrite it - should we tag this for cleanup or similar? Verin ( talk) 14:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please add to this article a brief definition of "
Crunchly"?
"Crunchly" redirects here, and the article briefly mentions "the Crunchly cartoons" but will be of little help to anyone not already familiar with them.
(Please add any info to the article - not just here on Talk.)
Thanks. --
201.53.7.16 (
talk) 15:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Has the Jargon File passed from living document to icon once again? The present hiatus since the last update in 2003 is now almost as long as the 1983-1990 hiatus before the document was revived. *Dan T.* ( talk) 14:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
> I emailed the address given in the file [jargon@thyrsus.com] with this question today (9/24/11 10:00 PM EST) and while the actual thyrsus server seems to be up (I went to thyrsus.com) the email bounced back. I believe this should be confirmed and hope that someone takes up the project of keeping this document alive. I think it is also important to note that while the HTML on the website claims to be v4.4.7, the file's homepage claims to be 4.4.8, and WAS updated Oct 2004 according to the top of the page. 108.7.217.138 ( talk) 02:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The jargon file doesn't seem to have been updated in almost 8 years. Does this development merit its own section in the article? Lukeritchie ( talk) 15:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
That was Burroughs MCP, in 1960, written in extended ALGOL and NO assembler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 ( talk) 20:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It's gone. If there are any mirrors, change the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.103.116 ( talk) 00:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
A cursory googling reveals that no one other than yourself is linking to your supposed fork. I understand wanting to attain notability, but this is not the place to do that. Come back and re-add your link AFTER you attain notability. As I said before: I could fork the jargon file tomorrow, but that doesn't make my fork notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.251.27 ( talk) 05:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, sorry. I just thought it was in a murky gray area of notability, given that it has gained some linkage from areas such as barrapunto. Sorry about that. There is some outside linkage, but I do recognize that much of it is my own. Cosman246 ( talk) 06:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
67.160.251.27 is misapplying WP:Notability. That guideline pertains to entire article subjects, not mere mention in articles. It's entirely reasonable to mention that someone had continued to work on the JF for several years after Raymond abandoned it; I've re-added mention of Tulsyan's version (though Tulsyan should not be editing about himself, per WP:COI). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of New Media: An Essential Reference to Communication and Technology by Steve Jones (2002) [5] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
This section here should be expanded, as the 17th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style was published in 2017. It is "Impact and reception."
Enzopalmer27 ( talk) 22:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I clicked the link, and it takes me to page 242 of a book about Final Cut Pro. Seems unrelated. No idea how to find the real source to cite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenXO ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
BenXO ( talk) 12:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Why not make the jargon file a wiki? --Anon.
A paragraph in the article:
From some reason I highly doubt that Charles Spurgeon (died 89 years before that date) managed to somehow hack and get a portion of the File as stated in that paragraph. Is it the hacker's true name, or a nickname? Or maybe it's just wrongly-spelled? In any case, maybe the link shouldn't lead to Charles Spurgeon's (who was more of a Baptist preacher than a hacker) page? -- 85.65.13.27 01:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
"Particular instances that attracted much attention were the addition of tendentious pro-Iraq War and pro-gun ownership entries"
This links to a Slashdot article. The entire text of the article is "As reported by NTK, ESR appears to have embarked apon the process of recasting the Jargon File in his own image, adding terms like "Aunt Tillie" and "GhandiCon" that he dreamt up and seemingly no-one else uses, and various terms from (of all places) the warblogging community, where he is active. He's also updated the "Hacker Politics" page to be more closely aligned with his own views."
This contains no mention of Iraq or gun entries. Eric himself already objected on the Eric Raymond page to that and claimed it was false and there were no such entries.
I'm going to rewrite this as an allegation unless someone can come up with an Iraq or gun entry he added. Ken Arromdee 19:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
anti-idiotarianism would seem to be one entry that comes close to this, though it doesn't specifically mention Iraq.
Overdone. Kashami 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
User:68.36.192.168 changed the start date of the Jargon File from the 1960s to the 1950s at 09:18, 11 August 2006, citing Steven Levy's Hackers:_Heroes_of_the_Computer_Revolution. I don't have access to the book, so I can't confirm it. Can anyone confirm it? Phelan 13:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I tried reading it but as I have never heard of it before making out what it really was grew hard. Can someone make a section just simply account for it. Keldon 12:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The interwiki link is yielding the following error from the Canadian system:
Are you getting something different? -- David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍) 18:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The section about critics of raymond's version includes phrases like "Critics lament that…", "Some hackers have become dissatisfied…", "He has also been criticised for…". These are weaseley and should be sourced: see WP:WEASEL. -- jacobolus (t) 06:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
14-Oct-2007: I've read and revised the entire article, but it does not contain excessive acronyms, IMHO. Keeping that abbreviations-tag would be like complaining that an article about corporations had too many abbreviations, such as AT&T, GM and IBM, or an article about television shows was overrun with acronyms: TV, ABC, NBC, CBS, ESPN & CNN. I've moved that abbreviations-tag lower inside the article, but I really want concensus to remove it totally, and refer to this debate for the decision. Most acronyms have even been wikilinked, so warning about the acronyms seems absurd. Has this tag issue been decided in a similar article? - Wikid77 14:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Computerese? -- Abdull 20:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
"In 1976, Mark Crispin, having seen an announcement about the File on the SAIL computer, FTPed a copy of the File to MIT. He noticed that it was hardly restricted to "AI words" and so stored the file on his directory, named as "AI:MRC;SAIL JARGON"."
Is this meant to be a self referential joke, cause it sure sounds like it. Gigitrix ( talk) 16:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, much of this article has been directly plagiarized from the jargon itself at [ [1]]. I don't know enough about the background to rewrite it - should we tag this for cleanup or similar? Verin ( talk) 14:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please add to this article a brief definition of "
Crunchly"?
"Crunchly" redirects here, and the article briefly mentions "the Crunchly cartoons" but will be of little help to anyone not already familiar with them.
(Please add any info to the article - not just here on Talk.)
Thanks. --
201.53.7.16 (
talk) 15:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Has the Jargon File passed from living document to icon once again? The present hiatus since the last update in 2003 is now almost as long as the 1983-1990 hiatus before the document was revived. *Dan T.* ( talk) 14:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
> I emailed the address given in the file [jargon@thyrsus.com] with this question today (9/24/11 10:00 PM EST) and while the actual thyrsus server seems to be up (I went to thyrsus.com) the email bounced back. I believe this should be confirmed and hope that someone takes up the project of keeping this document alive. I think it is also important to note that while the HTML on the website claims to be v4.4.7, the file's homepage claims to be 4.4.8, and WAS updated Oct 2004 according to the top of the page. 108.7.217.138 ( talk) 02:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The jargon file doesn't seem to have been updated in almost 8 years. Does this development merit its own section in the article? Lukeritchie ( talk) 15:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
That was Burroughs MCP, in 1960, written in extended ALGOL and NO assembler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 ( talk) 20:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It's gone. If there are any mirrors, change the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.103.116 ( talk) 00:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
A cursory googling reveals that no one other than yourself is linking to your supposed fork. I understand wanting to attain notability, but this is not the place to do that. Come back and re-add your link AFTER you attain notability. As I said before: I could fork the jargon file tomorrow, but that doesn't make my fork notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.251.27 ( talk) 05:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, sorry. I just thought it was in a murky gray area of notability, given that it has gained some linkage from areas such as barrapunto. Sorry about that. There is some outside linkage, but I do recognize that much of it is my own. Cosman246 ( talk) 06:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
67.160.251.27 is misapplying WP:Notability. That guideline pertains to entire article subjects, not mere mention in articles. It's entirely reasonable to mention that someone had continued to work on the JF for several years after Raymond abandoned it; I've re-added mention of Tulsyan's version (though Tulsyan should not be editing about himself, per WP:COI). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of New Media: An Essential Reference to Communication and Technology by Steve Jones (2002) [5] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
This section here should be expanded, as the 17th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style was published in 2017. It is "Impact and reception."
Enzopalmer27 ( talk) 22:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)