| |
Acorn System 1 and the automatic cow feeder |
| |
pwx (08:17 26/4/2012)
pwx (08:19 26/4/2012)
pwx (08:26 26/4/2012)
swirlythingy (13:13 26/4/2012)
trevj (14:03 26/4/2012)
flibble (17:21 26/4/2012)
trevj (18:19 26/4/2012)
pwx (18:28 26/4/2012)
trevj (18:35 26/4/2012)
trevj (09:58 27/4/2012)
pwx (10:58 27/4/2012)
trevj (11:35 27/4/2012)
pwx (13:09 27/4/2012)
arawnsley (14:18 27/4/2012)
trevj (20:07 27/4/2012)
pwx (13:18 30/4/2012)
arawnsley (13:24 30/4/2012)
pwx (13:35 30/4/2012)
trevj (15:30 30/4/2012)
flibble (10:48 2/5/2012)
trevj (11:23 2/5/2012)
filecore (06:04 3/5/2012)
pwx (08:33 3/5/2012)
|
| |
|
Philip Webster |
Message #120199, posted by pwx at 08:17, 26/4/2012 |
Member
Posts: 227
|
I noticed that the Wikipedia page for the System 1 claims that it was 'based on' the automatic cow feeder that Sophie Wilson developed at uni - citing a ZDnet article which makes this claim.
The article is here:
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/after-hours/2011/04/25/acorns-land-at-bletchley-park-40092287/
Now, I checked out various interview with Sophie over the years, and none suggest that this is the case - the suggestion is that Sophie got the Acorn job as a result of having done the cow-feeder work and also an idea she had for her own microcomputer - and that it was her microcomputer project that the System 1 was based on.
Here is an example of an interview which seems to contradict the ZDnet claim:
http://www.stairwaytohell.com/articles/SG-SophieWilson.html
So before history gets rewritten by lazy journalists copying wikipedia 'facts' - does anyone know for certain what the System 1 was 'based on'?
I also note that today's Register has an article which describes a number of retro micros, and claims that the Atom is based on the System 1 motherboard. Wikipedia suggests it is in fact the System 3 that led to the Atom - and given that the System 1 is two Eurocards sandwiched together, I fail to see how it is in any way similar to the large board in the Atom.
Link to Reg article here:
http://www.reghardware.com/2012/04/26/retro_week_product_roundup_12_1980s_classic_micros/ |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Philip Webster |
Message #120200, posted by pwx at 08:19, 26/4/2012, in reply to message #120199 |
Member
Posts: 227
|
A different interview with Sophie Wilson which seems to establish a link between the cow feeder and the System 1:
http://speleotrove.com/acorn/acornWilson.html |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Philip Webster |
Message #120201, posted by pwx at 08:26, 26/4/2012, in reply to message #120200 |
Member
Posts: 227
|
"The following summer, the cow-feeder project begat the hardware for one of the first British home-build microcomputers, the Acorn System 1. This was "very much Sophie's baby", recalls Steve Furber, another member of the Acorn microcomputer team. "The origins of the System 1 were in the Science of Cambridge MK14. I built the first prototype MK14 by hand", Furber continues, "and Sophie looked at it and said 'I could do better than that!', and went away and did so." "
http://everything2.com/title/Sophie+Wilson |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #120203, posted by swirlythingy at 13:13, 26/4/2012, in reply to message #120201 |
Posts: 460
|
I think you might have won an award for the thread title most likely to get people to click on it. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Trevor Johnson |
Message #120204, posted by trevj at 14:03, 26/4/2012, in reply to message #120199 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
So before history gets rewritten by lazy journalists copying wikipedia 'facts' - does anyone know for certain what the System 1 was 'based on'? As someone familiar with that edit, the statement "It was Acorn's first product, and was based on an automated cow feeder" was added at the same time as the cited reference. (It may have been present in an earlier version of the Wikipedia article, or taken from elsewhere on Wikipedia - but wasn't present in that article between 12 July 2011 and 22 November 2011.)
I agree that some journalists may sometimes turn to Wikipedia for "facts", without actually checking the sources to see if what's claimed is correct. This is a disadvantage of the site, although if used with caution I personally believe that the advantages of shared knowledge can outweigh such disadvantages. To give a recent example of confusing information, I believe that the absence of "Pointer (graphical user interfaces)" there probably contributed to people (including journalists) preferring the term 'mouse cursor' over 'pointer'.
For this specific case, how about considering the following?- Posting a comment on the ZDNet article page
- Contacting the author of the ZDNet article
- Discussing your concerns on the Talk:Acorn System 1 Wikipedia talk page
- Contacting the authors of the other interviews you've linked to, in order to ask whether they'd be willing to submit them for publication in what Wikipedia likes to term a "reliable source"
Finally, if you happen to be attending the Wakefield Show on Saturday, please come and have a chat on the WikiProject RISC OS stand! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #120205, posted by flibble at 17:21, 26/4/2012, in reply to message #120204 |
Posts: 892
|
https://xkcd.com/978/ |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Trevor Johnson |
Message #120206, posted by trevj at 18:19, 26/4/2012, in reply to message #120205 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
https://xkcd.com/978/ That's one I'd not seen before! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Philip Webster |
Message #120207, posted by pwx at 18:28, 26/4/2012, in reply to message #120204 |
Member
Posts: 227
|
Finally, if you happen to be attending the Wakefield Show on Saturday, please come and have a chat on the WikiProject RISC OS stand! I won't be at the show, but you may not know that I wrote many of the stubs for Acorn Archimedes games on Wikipedia - particularly the release dates, publishers and author names.
That was a while ago, but sadly very little fleshing out has been done since... |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Trevor Johnson |
Message #120208, posted by trevj at 18:35, 26/4/2012, in reply to message #120207 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
I won't be at the show, but you may not know that I wrote many of the stubs for Acorn Archimedes games on Wikipedia - particularly the release dates, publishers and author names.
That was a while ago, but sadly very little fleshing out has been done since... Cool! That can be done from magazine reviews etc. Two of the main problems as I see it are: (1) locating the printed mags containing reviews/commentary; (2) finding people with enough time to do the fleshing out. Sorry about assuming a lower level of knowledge than you obviously have - but maybe it'll be useful for others reading this who have similar concerns. Cheers  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Trevor Johnson |
Message #120213, posted by trevj at 09:58, 27/4/2012, in reply to message #120207 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
I'm guessing you've used more than one username there (or edited anonymously). Anyway, I'm requesting that the article on Gordon J. Key be resurrected. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Philip Webster |
Message #120214, posted by pwx at 10:58, 27/4/2012, in reply to message #120213 |
Member
Posts: 227
|
I'm guessing you've used more than one username there (or edited anonymously). Anyway, I'm requesting that the article on Gordon J. Key be resurrected. One username - but many anonymous edits. I'm very annoyed that so much useful Acorn gaming info got deleted from Wikipedia. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Trevor Johnson |
Message #120216, posted by trevj at 11:35, 27/4/2012, in reply to message #120214 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
I'm very annoyed that so much useful Acorn gaming info got deleted from Wikipedia. The "policy states that prods will be restored on request". Is there any chance of you digging out some old mags and trying this for one or two deleted articles?
Providing the info can be (reliably) sourced (and the topics are notable), the content should be kept after undeletion.
[Edited by trevj at 12:39, 27/4/2012] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Philip Webster |
Message #120217, posted by pwx at 13:09, 27/4/2012, in reply to message #120216 |
Member
Posts: 227
|
Providing the info can be (reliably) sourced (and the topics are notable), the content should be kept after undeletion.
How 'notable' does something in the obscure (to the Americans) Acorn games scene have to be for Wikipedia to deem it worthy of an entry? If they could propose deletion of the profilic Gordon J Key's entry then what hope do any of the other authors have? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Rawnsley |
Message #120218, posted by arawnsley at 14:18, 27/4/2012, in reply to message #120217 |
R-Comp chap
Posts: 600
|
To be honest, I don't know why an online encyclopedia needs to delete anything (unless it is blatently bogus/trolling). It all adds to the sum of human knowledge which is, AFAIK, the stated goal of such projects? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Trevor Johnson |
Message #120219, posted by trevj at 20:07, 27/4/2012, in reply to message #120218 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
AFAICT, all these things have been extensively discussed in the past. Although the consensus could change in the future (which is why such things as Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement are alarming) it'd take an overwhelming majority to decide why nothing should be deleted.
I wasn't involved in any policy setting (I hardly even knew of the thing at that time) and am more interested in working within the current parameters than proposing sweeping changes.
I think one argument sometimes cited regarding notability is that everybody and their dog would be creating articles about their corner shop, their dead gran, etc. etc. if there were no policies to guide editors. Such content could obviously lead to problems with article maintenance/vandalism, arguments about titles. The short of it is that I'm not conversant with all the ins and outs, but am willing to accept most things as they are right now.
Obviously, anyone who wishes to question such policy issues is quite at liberty to do so on the site. However, it's worth noting that IMHO a more considered response is likely to be forthcoming if queried by those actively contributing to the content rather than merely criticising it (that's not intended to be taken personally, and is a comment in general about anyone querying things there, based on inferences from various discussions I've observed). Does anyone have any experience of questioning such things there?
Anyway, regarding the RISC OS stuff - I think the issue of verifiability is greater than that of notability. Clearly plenty of stuff in the platform's history was notable, as it was reported in the specialist (and often national) press at the time. But the bulk of this content unfortunately isn't available online (and hence not easily verified) and we have to rely on printed sources. This is less convenient and time consuming than online sources, but not completely obstructive or impossible. One of the five pillars includes the assumption of "good faith", i.e. that editors who cite printed sources (which may not be available online, but could be checked by others if they wish) should be believed unless there is good reason not to, e.g. a conflict of interest. I understand that scans of press clippings etc. have been called for in some cases but this seems to be rarely justified IMO.
Please feel free to join in and help (or recommend others do, if you don't have the time)! Thanks. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Philip Webster |
Message #120241, posted by pwx at 13:18, 30/4/2012, in reply to message #120219 |
Member
Posts: 227
|
Please feel free to join in and help (or recommend others do, if you don't have the time)! Thanks.
I think I might start off by making a non-Wikipedia record of this stuff, to avoid losing it all to the WikiBureaucracy at some point in the future. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Rawnsley |
Message #120242, posted by arawnsley at 13:24, 30/4/2012, in reply to message #120241 |
R-Comp chap
Posts: 600
|
It does sound like we need our own riscipidia  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Philip Webster |
Message #120244, posted by pwx at 13:35, 30/4/2012, in reply to message #120242 |
Member
Posts: 227
|
It does sound like we need our own riscipidia On Wikia, perhaps? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Trevor Johnson |
Message #120248, posted by trevj at 15:30, 30/4/2012, in reply to message #120244 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
Feel free, but the readership will be smaller than Wikipedia, and we already have riscos.info. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #120257, posted by flibble at 10:48, 2/5/2012, in reply to message #120244 |
Posts: 892
|
(remove redundant post)
[Edited by flibble at 11:50, 2/5/2012] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Trevor Johnson |
Message #120258, posted by trevj at 11:23, 2/5/2012, in reply to message #120257 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
(boo!)
[Edited by trevj at 12:23, 2/5/2012] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #120268, posted by filecore at 06:04, 3/5/2012, in reply to message #120199 |
Posts: 3868
|
I noticed that the Wikipedia page for the System 1 claims that it was 'based on' the automatic cow feeder that Sophie Wilson developed at uni This is bollocks. As this article notes, although both systems were based around the 6502, Wilson had a penchant for building things from the ground up, and the talks I've heard her give also tend to back up this claim. Based around the same core microprocessor != System 1 was based on the cow feeder. Faulty logic. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Philip Webster |
Message #120269, posted by pwx at 08:33, 3/5/2012, in reply to message #120268 |
Member
Posts: 227
|
I noticed that the Wikipedia page for the System 1 claims that it was 'based on' the automatic cow feeder that Sophie Wilson developed at uni This is bollocks. As this article notes, although both systems were based around the 6502, Wilson had a penchant for building things from the ground up, and the talks I've heard her give also tend to back up this claim. Based around the same core microprocessor != System 1 was based on the cow feeder. Faulty logic.
Yes, that's what I thought. Other articles use a different wording, which implies something entirely different - usually along the lines of 'the cow feeder led to the system 1' - 'led to' having completely different implications than 'based on'. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
