Talk:842 (compression algorithm)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

"Too closely associated" tag

User:MarioGom has added a Third-party "too closely associated" tag to this article. I created the article and think that assessment is unfair.

Sources cited in the article were written by people with knowledge of the algorithm. Of course.

The article is about an algorithm, a mathematical statement of steps to solve a problem. The article cites an academic paper with a more detailed description of the algorithm. The algorithm per se is not something anyone would want to promote or sockpuppet.

I suspect MarioGom's problem is that the algorithm has been implemented in a product by IBM. The article mentions IBM in one sentence. 3 out of 8 sources are from that company - 2 from their research publications, and only one from product documentation. Who else is going to document the capabilities of the IBM processor? Should I remove those citations merely because they come from a company? Should I remove any mention of a product that implements the algorithm? Should mentions of a product be uncited?

I assure you I have no connection with IBM, with the authors of the academic papers cited, or with the authors of the implementation of the algorithm in the Linux kernel. I wrote this article because when I first encountered a mention of the 842 algorithm, I had no idea what it was. I looked it up on Wikipedia, and there was nothing there. So I did a bit of research and wrote the article. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for?

I think the article is fine as it stands and the "too closely associated" tag should be removed. If you have specific objections to the article, please edit it or detail problems you see. Paul Foxworthy (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul Foxworthy: GitHub repositories are primary sources. A reference a soruce code file is generally not useful. IBM specs are primary sources, and while they are usable, the article needs additional independent reliable sources. I have no problem with IBM, and have no suspicion of conflict of interest here, the tag is about the used sources. The article needs multiple independent, secondary, reliable sources (see WP:RS) for verifiability, and also to demonstrate notability. Please, see the general notability guideline for the explanation on the relation between reliable independent sources and notability. If there is any doubt about any of this, I'm happy to answer further doubts. For what it's worth, there is no problem with IBM, and the mentions of the product should not be uncited. MarioGom (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]