Talk:Paul Graham (programmer)

Archives (Index)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2019

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Graham's hierarchy of disagreement?

I have seen this hierarchy around, and find it and its associated figure compelling. But reading this article, I am wondering why this discussion has such notability, such that it warrants an inclusion in the article. I don't challenge the inclusion, I merely ask for additional development that supports why it is important. Is it famous? Why? Where? etc. The supporting citation is to a blogging essay, hardly the sort of substantive citation for Wikipedia. Bdushaw (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I’d also like to know. It seems that any popularity it enjoys presently has in part to do with it being included in this Wikipedia article, which makes it seem self-promotional rather than gaining popularity on its own merit. Louie Mantia (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I found it coming from here Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions at the top of this page the diagram is there with the a link to this page. At first I thought that was really cool a programmer came up with this but something just feels off that this concept would be novel when behavioral psychology has a couple hundred years of a lead on this developer to coin something like this. I will spend some time looking to see if I can find a older concept that this is derived from or a reason it was specifically chosen for the rules page. Maxinfet (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't. No RS notability. I've removed it unless and until some is shown - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

is it not funny how the hierarchy of disagreement section damages both the credibility of this article and it’s subject at the same time. 141.0.145.227 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Career

Paul Graham’s career may span creating startups as well as academic research, though the last few lines of his Career section appear to be… notes about things he’s doing that are unrelated to his career. To me, it almost reads like a news feed from his own website: Paul stopped inviting people to events, Paul stepped down, Paul announced something. I feel like there should be more substance here (if there is substance). From what I can tell, Paul has written essays (which, I’d love clarification on whether these are ‘essays’ or ‘blog posts’) and done little else career-wise since about 2014 when he left YCombinator. Louie Mantia (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

yeah, it's basically fan posting. Graham is notable, but that doesn't mean blog posts of no particular real-world impact should be in the article - David Gerard (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal of diagram

Hello, I wanted you to know that I restored Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement to his biography. You noted in your edit summary that blogs and newsletters are not reliable sources, which is generally true. However I think you may have been too hasty and literal in this case. 1) The "blog" cited is under control of the subject himself and 2) the newsletter cited is a Wikipedia newsletter explaining how Wikipedia uses his Hierarchy. I have also added a source from The Guardian. When it comes to WP:GUNREL sources we can use them provided, "...The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable." Given these arguments I'm not seeing where the sourcing is so deficient as to warrant removal.
Given some admin's using Graham's Hierarchy to set discussion tone (see User talk:Beeblebrox) it would be a shame to keep this out. If you still disagree I suggest that we start a discussion on the Paul Graham talk page and invite other editors to join in. Best regards, Blue Riband► 01:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I think Paul Graham is an established expert on programming, but psychology stuff? I think it's fine to use the diagram in a Wikipedia policy page, but not in his biography. The Guardian source is a bit small to make it warrant an entire section. I am still in favor of removing it here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• (also in response to thread above):

1) The threshold for simply including a given topic in an article is not as high as WP:N's threshold, which is for said topic to have its own article.

2) Not everything about a subject has to be about the main thing(s) for which the subject is notable if we have RS. (Guardian alone establishes this)

3) That said, since the concern is notability, here's another source: How to disagree well: 7 of the best and worst ways to argue, from Big Think (which Media Bias/Fact Check, FWIW, gives the highest possible rating. [1]).  IMO that (and the rest) are sufficient RS for our purposes.

4) And not for nothing, having it here helps both readers and editors, thereby making for a better Wikipedia.

Thus I !vote to include section, adding Big Think RS. Perhaps though, per WP:UNDUE, the section could be pruned. --Middle 8 ^privacy • _(s)talk 06:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The section comes off as as a bit out of his element, and when performing a cursory Google search, most mentions are either from his own webpage or blogs specifically quoting the wiki page (though these seem to have been from as early as 2017, so it's possible the original author pulled the info from those blogs). The diagram showing up in a Wikipedia policy pages, as pointed out by User:PhotographyEdits, isn't enough for it to warrant more than a small blurb, certainly not a third of the article's word count.

To your third point: interestingly, the Media Bias/Fact Check website you point to is classified by Wikipedia as a generally unreliable source.

And to your forth: this point is addressed in the very Wikipedia Page mentioned above WP:USEFUL Lindsey40186 (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, this isn't exactly a big hitter on Google, but the threshold here isn't WP:SIRS. Google certainly turns up a good few articles and discussions, and some of those lead to this page, so the content in debate is already referenced a lot. A section heading doesn't need to have notability in its own right, as made clear in WP:NNC. There appears to be no issue of correctness. So we're left with considerations of WP:UNDUE: at the time of writing, there are under 160 words on Grahams Hierarchy ( those in the diagram), in an article under 1200 words (excluding refs) so it's about 13% of the text content, which seems plausible. Given all that, !vote to retain section. I Chumpih ^t 04:07, 07:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

"Paul Graham (computer programmer" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Paul Graham (computer programmer has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Paul Graham (computer programmer until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)