Talk:Randal L. Schwartz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]


Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Randal L. Schwartz, has edited Wikipedia as
RandalSchwartz (talk · contribs)
Oregon Portal
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
Stub This page is rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article is rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

All issues formerly mentioned here have been resolved. (If you disagree, please either fix the article or raise the issue again.)

Contents

[edit] Usenet post about Star Wars

Some mention should be made here that Schwartz posted what is believed to be the first Usenet article to mention Star Wars in 1982. DLCinMaine 23:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't the first post to mention Star Wars... it was probably the first post to mention Episode Six (getting the name wrong as the interim "Revenge of the Jedi") - the details are at http://groups.google.com/support/bin/static.py?page=timeline.html --Randal L. Schwartz 01:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merlyn?

Shouldn't the nickname Merlyn be explicitly stated somewhere in the first paragraph? Frankie


[edit] Expungement

Although Schwartz has been legally expunged, shouldn't the information about his history remain? It seems to me quite an important part of computer legal history and it should either be documented on his biography page or referenced by his biography page. — Chris Page 20:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP - he has asked for it to be removed, it is legally non-existent, so it shouldn't be here. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 21:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I am troubled by the concept of removing it entirely. The original case was clearly notable, and the expungement is notable too. I feel that there should be some mention of it, even if it's something like, "Schwartz was involved in a lawsuit filed by the State of Oregon, Oregon v. Schwartz. Schwartz was originally found guilty, but on later review it was determined that the judgment was in error, and his record was expunged." That's neutral and covers the situation. I guess I'm thinking about if other people were curious about Schwartz's status, and came to his Wikipedia bio to find out the latest, there should be some mention of the fact that his name has been cleared. --Elonka 00:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
First, there was never a lawsuit. Second, nobody found "the judgement in error". This was just time ticking away, pure and simple. --Randal L. Schwartz 03:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not "legally non-existent." It is notable, it is verifiable, so it SHOULD be here, and I am adding it back with a notice about the expungement. 216.144.201.98 03:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Chris and Elonka that it should be mentioned "somewhere." What do you folks think about spinning it off into a second article, where this article can simply have a {{seealso}}? The case is important to computer history in general as an event, but it is kind of a thing where he got stuck with the short straw; something like this could've happened to any number of consultants. He is notable enough with Perl contributions, etc, to warrant an entry without the case. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Should whether or not Randal got stuck with the short straw be a factor here? That it is a notable event, and verifiable, is enough, isn't it? And while Randal is clearly notable apart from this -- no question there -- this is something he is well-known for. Not having it on his page would be like not having the Lewinsky affair on Bill Clinton's page. It's a big part of his public history, whether he was a victim or not, and removing this from his biography seems exceedingly odd. If there is a policy I don't know about that justifies removing well-known and important events from someone's page just because they make him look bad, please let me know; otherwise, I think it has to stay.
All that said, I wouldn't mind shoving the details off into a separate article. Maybe have this article just say "Schwartz is well-known for his involvement in State of Oregon vs. Randal Schwartz." Doesn't even have to say he was convicted and that it was expunged, I think, so long as that is all made clear on the linked-to page. I am not out to make Randal look bad, and I understand what I think are his concerns, and I agree they are legitimate, but I also don't think erasing this from history is reasonable, even if it is expunged, as it is an important and well-known case. Pudge 03:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI, I'm paying attention to the thread, and will be correcting any factual errors, but I'm abstaining from trying to influence the result. I take full responsibility for the legacy I have left behind me, both good and bad. Whatever the WP-community decides to write or not write, separate or merge, is something I must ultimately include in the legacy as well. Thanks. --Randal L. Schwartz 14:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I second what pudge is saying. It's significant, it's noteworthy, the facts of what happened need to be recorded. I previously tried to address this with the editor that first removed the information, but got nowhere. I'm glad the broader community is taking a look.
IMO, this should be pretty much addressed the way FORS has chosen to address it, as of today (they explain how things came out, link to the expungement (so should we), etc.). And, to Randal ... personally, the fact that I think you have left a good legacy through all of this is part of why I think the facts should be reported in this encyclopedia, not left out. I think most other folks would tend to view it that way, as well. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting discussion. I'm not sure if you can say most other folks would view it that way without asking more people, though! At this moment, there seems to be an imbalance in the article and there isn't much said about Perl (which I'm more interested in finding out). Anyway, setting aside the "should we" discussion, no one has brought up the irony that if the records have been legally expunged, technically, the main source of the information is gone. Of course, hundreds of links about it can be found through Google, but despite there being many, "technically-speaking", none of them can be verifiable anymore, either. And isn't this one of the requirements of Wikipedia articles? Of course, the entire section doesn't have to be deleted because (interestingly), the fact that it was expunged is probably public -- only what was expunged is now gone. Anyway, just wanted to mention this -- Wikipedia articles have to be verifiable, but now there's this gray area... Or have I misunderstood what "expunged" means?? --Rayjapan (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Cite a specific source and make a case for it no longer being verifiable, and we'll have something to discuss, I suppose. --- tqbf 09:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a need to cite something? The article already cites a Case Summary of State of Oregon vs Randal Schwartz that says the case is sealed. That should be enough to say that the information is gone and there is no longer a verifiable source anywhere in the world... Generally speaking, what is Wikipedia's policy with regards to something that was verifiable at some time but is no longer verifiable? --Rayjapan (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FLOSS Weekly, but not Geekcruises News-es?

If you feel my little part-time gig being a co-host on FLOSS Weekly is encyclopedic, I'd offer that I'm far more attached in my 61-episodes-and-counting weekly podcast for Geekcruises: Geekcruises news-es: The Podcast. I'd suggest either adding GCN (because it's more important than FLOSS), or dropping FLOSS (since it's a tiny part of my life). --Randal L. Schwartz 21:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of the materials about the criminal case

Although you've flagged the paragraph as "pov", the link to the Steve Pacenka site is referenced, which is a neutral site containing many transcripts and government filings which will allow people to form an opinion for themselves. If you need further hoisting of the balancing material from that site, feel free. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd like to balance the paragraph a bit more. I'm not sure a site titled "Friends of Randal Schwartz" can be called neutral. I've reduced the tag to an inline; my concern is specific to the one paragraph. --- tqbf 02:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The site's name came from the "friends of randal schwartz" mailing list, but was designed from the beginning to be neutral, and accepted all verified materials. I can understand the confusion though. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of this archive is to help prevent what happened to Randal Schwartz from happening to any other well-intentioned computing professional. Let's agree to disagree about the neutrality of the site, which I am familiar with. We're probably discussing less than 10 words in the article; I'll try to get them up ASAP. Thanks for the polite response. --- tqbf 02:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a SWAG at it. I'm treading lightly, working directly from the court materials. Here's what I have to say about this: the Intel case is what Schwartz is primarily notable for. Schwartz' name obviously appears regularly in speaker bios and Perl articles, but virtually every piece written about Schwartz I can find in reliable sources is about the case. I do have a point: instead of cramming the pro/con of the case into 2 grafs, can't we expand this a bit, with a full graf for the prosecution's argument and for Schwartz' defense? Also, the case belongs in the article lede. --- tqbf 18:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you'll accept a google search as counter-evidence, please search for "Randal Schwartz" in google. Less than 1 hit in 5 is about the legal case in the first page. Please consider that when you talk about "primarily". Maybe primarily to you, but not to what people are linking to. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Continuing that rationalization, "randal schwartz intel" is about 10,000 hits (yes I know it's an approximation), while "randal schwartz perl" is about 60,000 hits. And Perl isn't even the only other thing I do. --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm working from WP:N, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject., and observing that this article excludes from its lede something its subject is indisputably notable for. I don't doubt subject's immense contributions to the Perl community are noteworthy, but do assert that coverage in mainstream news outlets --- those with a reputation for fact checking and with intense editorial scrutiny --- tends towards the court case.
I'm not looking for an argument. I observe only this:
  • The article could be improved by adding the court case to the article lede.
  • The section on the court case could be improved, probably to the subject's benefit, by being expanded to at least 1 graf for the defense and 1 graf for the court's findings. --- tqbf 19:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think there's already more than enough information in the article on the legal case. The subject, Schwartz, was convicted as a felon, and then through considerable effort was able to have his record expunged. I think that, per WP:BLP, we should respect that, and minimize the information about the case here in the bio. I don't think we should delete it entirely, as it was clearly a notable event, but I see no need to further expand that section of the article. Schwartz's primary notability is in regards to his writing about Perl, not about the legal case. --Elonka 19:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand that you believe the subject's Perl work is more notable than the court case. That is your POV. I disagree, and cite as evidence the majority of articles written about the subject in reliable sources. --- tqbf 19:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I would assume you consider articles written about the books and magazine articles I've published and classes I've taught and conferences at which I've appeared as relevant. If that's the case, then the Perl items are far more numerous than the case-related items. I question your ability to count. :) --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I feel like we're about to devolve into a discussion about the relative merits of O'Reilly blogs versus The Washington Post. Even the first news hit for "Randal Schwartz Perl" is an article about the court case. Please note that the majority of what is returned in a Google search does not qualify as a source for a WP:BLP. --- tqbf 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:WEIGHT still specifies that the article be weighed. I don't think any properly attributed material should be removed, and in that we see eye to eye. Nor, do I think POV should be called into question. Anyone, at the least, can submit a rewrite to this talk page for review. I do agree with Randal though, while I feel the criminal case made Randal a much higher profile character, he deserves more on the side of Perl but not by way of deleting the case. EvanCarroll (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Happily conceded: the article should feature the Perl work more prominently than than the court case. The problems then are twofold:
  • There isn't enough coverage of the subject's notable Perl work to balance the court case details
  • As a result, the "weight" allocated to the court case provides clumsy coverage for the case.
Both should be expanded, the court case to the exact degree necessary to effectively convey the details of what happened, neutrally, and no further; the Perl material to the greatest extent possible in a WP:BLP. This doesn't seem like a tricky problem. --- tqbf 20:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding WP:BLP --- the standard BLP demands is that everything in the article be rigorously sourced. It does not demand that we defer to a POV regarding the validity of the conviction. --- tqbf 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related to Cat Schwartz?

Not sure how common the last name Schwartz is, or if Schwartz is really eithers given last name (though Cat is now married), but was wondering... Should be included, if so.-JT 17:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should institute a policy of logical assumptions, I see one datum that would suggest they are related, and zero that would suggest otherwise; therefore, all evidence is in favor of conclusion: all Shwartzs are in fact blood-kin. EvanCarroll (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
If you notice my home page, I have a paragraph about "Am I related to any other famous Schwartz folks?". Answer: no. :) --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)