Talk:Mike Shaver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on December 3, 2005. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

[edit] Discussion

Shaver's a founding member of the Mozilla Project, an open-source rockstar, and a strong voice in the emerging field of open source business models.

Let's be consistent, people. If Blake Ross is important enough to have a page, then so is Mike Shaver.

This is where I'm at so far. I'll continue to edit in here, I guess.

Mike Shaver (born in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, on February 17, 1977, the year of disco and Star Wars) is a software developer who is known for his work on multiple open source projects. He is at least partially responsible for a good deal of the technology that makes today's web pages interactive, such as the Javascript language, and yet resolutely refuses to accept responsibility. He also makes a BBQ lamb steak with crumbed blue cheese that is out of this world.

After a high school career that can at best be called "confrontational", Mike began working with Ingenia Communications, an Ottawa area computer consultancy. His machinations saw him rise from a humble summer student who worked as a system administrator and software developer to chief system architect and eventually CTO. Having exhausted all that Canada had to offer a young, up-and-coming technology tyrant, Shaver began working with Netscape Communications. His modus opperandi was similar: beginning as a visiting developer, he quickly rose through the ranks and eventually gained Internet fame by becoming a founding member of the Mozilla Organization in 1999. And yet, the authorities never took notice.

Yes, that last sentence completely redeems you. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

---

For what it's worth, I agree with Beltzner here. Mike has been (and continues to be) a major force in the Open Source community in several ways, and so long as this page is edited to meet NPOV requirements, should be allowed to exist. Outright deletion (particularly while the article is in-progress) seems a shade harsh. -- Dria 05:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits are killing America (and in subtler ways, boring people to tears)

re: "it's not a good picture anyway" -- it's the one on his blog, people.

re: "article cites no sources to support it" -- I cite the subject, Mike Shaver; as to its importance, I think it's important for people to know that not everyone who ended up getting somewhere in the world had the best grades in high school.

Also, fwiw, and while I defer to your editing prowess, NPOV != boring writing. It's possible to be interesting and yet neutral.

People don't read an encyclopedia to be amused (that's what Uncyclopedia is for), they read it to learn about something. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

I find it hard to believe that making something interesting (or even amusing!) somehow prevents learning. The two are not mutually exclusive. --GavinSharp (Talk | Block)

I'm sure there's a policy on this somewhere, I just don't know where. My lack of experience betrays me. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

I believe you're referring to NPOV, which has no mention about use of humour. Nor is there a style guide for biographies (that I can find). Also note something in Gavin's comment that I agree with: interesting writing isn't neccessarily humour writing. Beltzner

Sigh. Once again the phrase "his job is to know what's wrong with your technology, your business model, your licensing arrangements and maybe even your technique for barbecuing food" has been edited out. I give up. If anyone cares, that is a valid description of his job. Certainly a more informative one than "Technology Strategist", which barely covers the gamut. Emulating the style of an encyclopedia at the cost of reducing the value of the information does not lend credibility. Beltzner

Emulating the style of an encyclopedia within an encyclopedia (which is what this project is supposed to be) does indeed lend credibility. Deviating from an encylopedic style while within this encyclopedia is what damages credibility, and gets folks like me to nominate the page for AfD. If the early edits of the page had looked like the current edit of the page, free from the tongue-in-cheek business, I would have never suspected it of being a backhanded attack page and wouldn't have nominated it for deletion. Wikipedia is not a free hosting service for homepages. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 12:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It's the perfect picture

As someone who has met him in person, that's a good picture. Also, learning can be fun, I don't see why biographies can't be a little more lighthearted maybe there's a middle ground.