Talk:Array map: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary
(Deletion on grounds of silliness rather than evasiveness makes even more sense)
Line 8: Line 8:


: That said, I'm also not going to object to page deletion - this task as it currently stands is just silly. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 13:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
: That said, I'm also not going to object to page deletion - this task as it currently stands is just silly. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 13:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

::I agree that the silliness is more relevant that the evasiveness. My concern here is that we have been letting these silly junk tasks through, on the theory that anything which lends itself to easy and instant response can rationally be called "popular". Apparently we have somehow been confusing easy supply with eager demand and approbation :-)

Revision as of 14:07, 9 October 2015

This junk 'task' (documentation lookup proposal) was made from behind a login control evasion service, which has been associated with a number of other attempts to create junk tasks and misleading cross-links, presumably as spamming beachhead manoeuvres. When asked to explain, the user(s) of the BugMeNot evasion service have failed to respond.

Proposal: deletion. Was not even intended to have a task focus, or to provide scope for useful levels of relevance, insight and value to learners Hout (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I am more wait-and-see. Conceptually speaking a collective entity (like a login control evasion service) can be treated as if it were something like a person. And, this particular collective entity has contributed some useful stuff and some useless stuff, but so far has avoided falling into worse choices.
More to the point, we currently do not require accounts have valid email addresses. As near as I can tell, currently all email validation gets you is the right to upload images - a feature which is currently disabled. If we ourselves cannot be bothered to require even a valid email address, I personally don't have the energy to get very worked up about silliness like this bugmenot thing. Instead, I am going to hope that maybe they can be convinced to be good citizens.
That said, I'm also not going to object to page deletion - this task as it currently stands is just silly. --Rdm (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the silliness is more relevant that the evasiveness. My concern here is that we have been letting these silly junk tasks through, on the theory that anything which lends itself to easy and instant response can rationally be called "popular". Apparently we have somehow been confusing easy supply with eager demand and approbation :-)