Talk:Carl Hewitt - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 23:03, 18 August 2009 (→Page protection). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:03, 18 August 2009 by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) (→Page protection)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archive 1

Section on Hewitt's opinion about Misplaced Pages

I'm not comfortable with this section. Carl Hewitt has done much more important things than criticizing Misplaced Pages. Such a lengthy section about Hewitt's issues with Misplaced Pages puts too much emphasis on them and distracts from Hewitt's other work. Quite frankly, it looks like navelgazing. I thus drastically shortened the section and added some historical context, but I would be just as happy if the section were removed all together. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you that the section gives undue emphasis to an issue that is relatively unimportant compared to Hewitt's research contributions. --Allan McInnes (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you actions look like more censorship by Misplaced Pages administrators. In his Knol article, Hewitt criticized the tabloid Observer article that you favorably referenced as follows:

"A recent example of Misplaced Pages libel occurred when I became involved in an academic dispute with Robert Kowalski over a Computer Science research area called “Logic Programming.” Kowalski appealed to an Administrator of Misplaced Pages to intervene in the dispute (see the discussion in the appendix of Corruption of Wikipeida). Thus Kowalski was in effect promoting his own side of an academic dispute by participating in my censorship by Misplaced Pages. (See Middle History of Logic Programming for a detailed discussion of the dispute.)

Although lacking expertise in this particular area of Computer Science, Charles Matthews (a very high level Misplaced Pages official) favored Kowalski’s side and using his Misplaced Pages power enforced it by censorship with the justification of “Neutral Point of View.” Furthermore, Matthews “tipped off” a reporter (who he had successfully “cultivated” to write stories favorable to Misplaced Pages) to enlist her in writing an article that libeled me. Matthews then became the principle unnamed source for the resulting Observer hatchet job appearing under the false guise of an independent “senior academic” in my field of research casting aspersions on me. While he was angry with me because of our academic dispute, Kowalski confided in Matthews. As a result, Matthews sent the reporter off to interview Kowalski. Consequently, the reporter has tape recordings and emails of Kowalski saying some things in anger about me. (Kowalski has subsequently made amends in his emails to me; see below.)

As part of its business model, Misplaced Pages engages in libel and vilification in an attempt to intimidate people into conforming to the censorship of its Administrators."

The material that you deleted from the article is as follows:

Hewitt has published an article Corruption of Misplaced Pages on Google Knol that is highly critical of Misplaced Pages citing "corruption" of its administration. In the article, he characterized the business model of Misplaced Pages as "generating Web traffic (primarily from search engines) for articles of conventional wisdom and morality (as judged and enforced by a commune of mostly anonymous Administrators) to motivate (financial) contributions." He further claimed:

"Misplaced Pages does not allow proper vigorous academic discussion and debate because they are incompatible with its business model as follows:

In normal academic practice, the views of experts are solicited and discussed. On Misplaced Pages, academic experts who have tried to participate have been denigrated as "self-promoters", censored, and then banned.
In normal academic practice, expertise is honored and respected. On Misplaced Pages, expertise has not been honored. Instead, the cult of the amateur has been promoted.
In normal academic practice, open reasoned discussion and debate is the norm for addressing difficult issues. On Misplaced Pages, censorship is the norm.
In normal academic practice, the qualifications and vested interests of participants are open for discussion. On Misplaced Pages, participants are allowed to remain anonymous. In fact, revealing the real name of an Administrator is a severe violation of Misplaced Pages policy." (emphases in original)

Thus he claimed that normal academic practice is in conflict with the combined effect of the Neutral Point of View, No Original Research, Conflict of Interest and No outing the real names of administrators policies as currently practiced by Misplaced Pages.

In his Knol article, Hewitt requested that this biography article be removed from Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.236.203 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This deletion indeed looks like censorship. I quite agree that Hewitt has done more important things than criticize Misplaced Pages, but the section was short and fully referenced (one of the references was deleted and replaced with a tag for no apparent reason). Hewitt obviously thought this issue was important enough to write a lengthy article on the subject, and I agree with him on that point. There was no justification for deleting the section, and I intend to restore it. If you want to revert, please give a better justification than that above. David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now restored a much shorter version of the section. David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this deserves no more than a footnote that is if it belongs at all. He wrote one article about it how the project dealt with the situation. This is so minor I don't think it belongs in the article. This doesn't have anything to do with the work he is doing. I say it should be removed again per WP:Undo weight. Not sure if this falls into WP:BLP issues either. --CrohnieGal 16:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, "Hewitt being banned from Misplaced Pages" and "Hewitt criticizing Misplaced Pages" are both very irrelevant events in his career and deserve no mention. I see at least 4 people agreeing with that and only you disagreeing. —Ruud 21:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Add me to the disagreement column. It may not be very relevant to his career in the grand scheme of things, but it's noteworthy given the rep of the wikipedia and Hewitt taken together. Bios are not just about careers. 67.169.145.127 (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Work on privacy-friendly client cloud computing

Ruud Koot removed the following material from the article:

Hewitt's recent work has centered on foundations for privacy-friendly client cloud computing. This approach to cloud computing focuses on clients that are "privacy-friendly" because of the following

by default clients store information in the cloud that can only be unencrypted using the client's private key
semantic integration of diverse sorts of information (calendar, email, contacts, documents, search results, presence information, etc.) is performed on the clients

This work has resulted in the following developments:

strongly paraconsistent logic using Direct Logic, to more safely reason about pervasively inconsistent information
concurrent reasoning using ActorScript

Video recording of "Scalable Privacy-Friendly Client Cloud Computing: a gathering Perfect Disruption" Stanford Computer Systems Colloquium on October 22, 2008.
Carl Hewitt (September/October 2008). "ORGs for Scalable, Robust, Privacy-Friendly Client Cloud Computing". IEEE Internet Computing. 12 (5). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Carl Hewitt (January/February 2009). "Perfect Disruption: The Paradigm Shift from Mental Agents to ORGs". IEEE Internet Computing. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Carl Hewitt. "A historical perspective on developing foundations for privacy-friendly client cloud computing". ArXiv January 30, 2009
^ Hewitt, Carl. "Common sense for concurrency and strong paraconsistency using unstratified inference and reflection". ArXiv. December 30, 2008.

Observer article on Hewitt and his response

Administrators have repeatedly deleted the section "Observer article on Hewitt and his response" from this article thereby adding to the evidence that Misplaced Pages is indeed corrupt.171.66.34.182 (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please delete unflattering photo of Professor Hewitt

Please delete the unflattering photo of Professor Hewitt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.8.136 (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to replace it with another photo. If you send me a photo by email, together with a statement releasing it under an acceptable license (like CC-BY-SA, GFDL, public domain), I'll put it in the article. See http://www.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~jitse/ for my email address. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is so unflattering about this photograph? (Media:Carl Hewitt (40th Anniversary of the Mother of all Demos, 2).jpg) The lighting and angle of the photograph and subject are much less than perfect, but I don't see how it is "unflattering"? —Ruud 21:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really show his face full on, so it's inappropriate for a bio. It looks like you snuck up on him from behind. If you're worried about libel, you shouldn't be using such a photo. 67.169.48.55 (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Professor Hewitt was critical of Misplaced Pages before it banned him as well as afterward. In fact, his criticism was one of the reasons for the ban.

Professor Hewitt was critical of Misplaced Pages before it banned him as well as afterward. In fact, his criticism was one of the reasons for the ban.--67.180.94.82 (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is false. His multiple attempts to violate Misplaced Pages policies, inserting his POV in all subjections in which he was (even peripherally) involved, is the reason for his ban. He may have been critical of Misplaced Pages before his attempts to subvert it, but that also has nothing to do with the ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The article says that he was critical of Misplaced Pages subsequent to being banned. Also, it only seems fair to point out that according to Corruption of Misplaced Pages, Arthur Rubin has engaged in numerous Misplaced Pages conflicts with Professor Hewitt and his students, e.g. Development of Logic Programming: What went wrong, What was done about it, and What it might mean for the future.--67.169.144.135 (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

They accused Arthur of using his administrator power of censorship to try to win an academic debate.--67.180.94.82 (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a Misplaced Pages version of the classic debate: anarchy vs. academic freedom

Arthur Rubin maintains that without administrator control, Misplaced Pages will fall into anarchy. The tension is that since Arthur is an administrator, he is arguing for his own control.
Carl Hewitt and his students maintain that without academic freedom, Misplaced Pages's content will be determined by the political power of administrators. The tension is that Hewitt and his students are arguing for their newly published results that challenge the previous conventional wisdom.

--67.170.201.26 (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to defend myself here — in fact, I don't have to. Carl violated the rules of Misplaced Pages. If he had violated similar rules of journals, unrelated to the validity of the results, his papers would be rejected from those journals, and, eventually he would be banned from publication in those journals. It happens. Think of Misplaced Pages as a journal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a big mistake to think of Misplaced Pages as a scientific journal. Hewitt and his students have published numerous articles in scientific journals that have been censored from Misplaced Pages. For example, just in the last year, Hewitt has published the following among others:

Carl Hewitt (September/October 2008). "ORGs for Scalable, Robust, Privacy-Friendly Client Cloud Computing". IEEE Internet Computing. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Carl Hewitt (December 30, 2008). "Common sense for concurrency and strong paraconsistency using unstratified inference and reflection". ArXiv.
Carl Hewitt (January 30, 2009). "A historical perspective on developing foundations for privacy-friendly client cloud computing". ArXiv.
Carl Hewitt (January/February 2009). "Perfect Disruption: The Paradigm Shift from Mental Agents to ORGs". IEEE Internet Computing. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

In some sense, everyone is just doing their job:

As a Misplaced Pages administrator, Arthur Rubin censors material outside of conventional wisdom. Otherwise, Misplaced Pages would have lots of unconventional information defeating its business model.
As academics, Hewitt and his students publish original research in scientific publications. They get no credit for reiterating conventional wisdom.

Conflict between Arthur Rubin and Hewitt and his students comes from the fact that conventional wisdom is a moving target. Once new results have been published, conventional wisdom begins to shift.--67.170.201.70 (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The above analysis is good. However, there is more to the story. Another important publication was

Middle History of Logic Programming: Resolution, Planner, Prolog and the Japanese Fifth Generation Project

because there was an academic dispute between Robert Kowalski and Carl Hewitt about Logic Programming. Rubin pushed his own Point of View by siding with Kowalski against Hewitt and enforced it by censorship on the Logic Programming article.--67.169.144.85 (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Church enforced a ban against Galileo similar to the one that Arthur Rubin is enforcing against Hewitt.

Arthur Rubin deleted the following comment from this page:

The Church enforced a ban against Galileo similar to the one that Arthur Rubin is enforcing against Hewitt.--67.169.146.106 (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.210.87.198 (talk)

The original comment was interpolated between one of my comments and a reply, breaking threading. The response I would have given is: They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Which category Carl falls in is yet to be determined. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin deleted the following comment by a Misplaced Pages editor on the talk page of Logic Programming:

"Arthur Rubin's modus operandi is to insult Professor Hewitt while pretending that he is not."

70.231.253.115 (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Galileo did not think that censorship was a laughing matter. Perhaps you aspire to a role similar to that of Francesco Barberini?--75.211.105.32 (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As you should know if you claim to be a scientist, Galileo got in trouble for violating his agreement with the Church not to announce his results until he had convincing evidence. (His technology was not quite good enough to get convincing evidence.) Violating an agreement is no laughing matter.

Actually, the same applies here. Misplaced Pages provides that people should not edit articles about themselves unless they can do so objectively, although it's only a guideline. There was an ArbComm ruling that Carl and his students so violated the guideline that they were prohibited from adding any information about Carl or his papers to any article unless sourced to a reliable source in the field. I, among others, am enforcing that ArbComm ruling.

As you also should know, if you are at all sane, Misplaced Pages is not important in science. If Carl is a scientist, he shouldn't bother trying to publicize himself here. If he is on the fringe of computer science or an advocate rather than a scientist, then he may be "right" to attempt to edit Misplaced Pages, but we don't actually have any evidence of that. It would be something interesting to put in his article, if it could be verified from reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

De facto, Misplaced Pages is important in science because scientists refer to it all the time.171.66.105.135 (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the above editors were focusing on the censorship issue. And you are firmly in favor of censoring Galileo! Even the Church has now given this up and apologized.98.97.104.6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC).

There's no real censorship issue here, for a number of reasons. Most of them are obvious, such as that Carl and his students are only forbidden from posting here on Misplaced Pages, a notoriously unreliable source. Even so, if someone who is not his student posts information about him, it should probably be considered. However, because of the vandalism committed by him and said students, and the ArbCom ruling, it would have to be someone who is demonstrably not one of his students. This means, I'm afraid, no IP addresses, such as (the probably only one person) posting here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the Misplaced Pages Wiki: Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor67.169.8.160 (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And you believe it? After claiming this article is absurd? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Request to NOINDEX this article

I have requested that the Wikimedia Foundation NOINDEX this article in accordance with a proposal by Lise Broer at Biographies of living persons: An ingenius compromise?. --Carl Hewitt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.241.176 (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages instigated the defamatory attack by The Observer on Carl Hewitt

The article refers to the following incident described in Corruption of Misplaced Pages:

Hewiitt became involved in an academic dispute with Robert Kowalski over a Computer Science research area called “Logic Programming.” Kowalski appealed to an Administrator of Misplaced Pages to intervene in the dispute. Thus Kowalski was in effect promoting his own side of an academic dispute by participating in Hewitt's censorship by Misplaced Pages. (See “Middle History of Logic Programming” for a detailed discussion of the dispute.)

Although lacking expertise in this particular area of Computer Science, Charles Matthews (a very high level Misplaced Pages official) favored Kowalski’s side and using his Misplaced Pages power enforced it by censorship with the justification of “Neutral Point of View.” Furthermore, Matthews “tipped off” a reporter (who he had successfully “cultivated” to write stories favorable to Misplaced Pages) to enlist her in writing an article that libeled Hewitt. Matthews then became the principle unnamed source for the resulting Observer hatchet job appearing under the false guise of an independent “senior academic” in Hewitt's field of research casting aspersions on him. While Kowalski was upset with Hewitt because of their academic dispute, he: confided in Matthews. As a result, Matthews sent the reporter off to interview Kowalski. Consequently, the reporter has tape recordings and emails of Kowalski saying some harsh things about Hewitt. (Kowalski has subsequently made amends to Hewitt; see Corruption of Misplaced Pages)

When Matthews applied to be reappointed as an Arbitrator, Sarah McEwan (AKA SlimVirgin) raised the issue that “you discussed this story with the Misplaced Pages Public Relations committee prior to publication , and they either encouraged you or didn't stop you. The point is that it's an odd thing, in my view, for an Arbitration Committee member to do."

Carl Hewitt Middle History of Logic Programming ArXiv 0904.3036.

70.231.253.115 (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

With Carl submitting libelous reports about Misplaced Pages on his web site, he and his students are in no position to make comments about improper and/or illegal actions allegedly committed by an Arbitrartor. As it stands, I don't see anything wrong with what Matthews did, as described above, except for an implied, but unspecified "use of Misplaced Pages power". (Besides, Matthews is not "a very high level Misplaced Pages official". An arbitrator is a key position, but not an "official".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Matthews was appointed to his official position as Arbitrator by Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales, "God-King" of Misplaced Pages and member of its Board of Trustees. Also, it is important to note that Arthur Rubin has previously repeatedly insulted Professor Hewitt on the Misplaced Pages Website.68.170.176.166 (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This criticism may appear hypertechnical, an Arbitrator is not an "official", but the position of Arbitrator may be an "official position". However, since Carl is attempting to redefine "censorship" as meaning "removal of his material" (assuming it to be technically correct, without noting it may be inappropriate), it's important to note what words mean.

And Carl defamed me, whether or not I insulted him. (I think I primarily insulted his students posting from IP addresses.) The primary reason I haven't sued is that none of my colleagues, including academic colleagues, would believe him even if they were aware of the allegations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin is threatening a lawsuit. Is this allowed on Misplaced Pages? 76.254.235.105 (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, I'm stating that Carl defamed me, but I'm not planning a lawsuit, because nobody I know would believe him. I fail to see how any rational person could read my statement above as my threatening a lawsuit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, as an impartial observer of this ugly conversation, I must confess, I am getting a little annoyed with your overly offensive and utterly one-sided views on Carl. You seem to absolve yourself from all wrong-doing, and bash Carl at any turn. I do not know exactly why he was banned from Wiki, but I do understand one thing: “he who goes to the judge alone, come back happy!” Why don't you let him have his day in court? If need be I will takes up matters with Jimbo himself. Since this page is about Carl, as a living person, the rules of Biographies of living persons should be applied, and every effort must be made to uphold his just reputation by avoiding Libelous comments, and not defame him. You say you are not planning a lawsuit, because “nobody I know would believe him.” I may be considered as one who believes him, and therefore according to your logic, now that you know who I am, you would then decide to sue him?! Please tone down your rhetoric and let him have his say. Enough is enough :( -- Afshar (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Arthur has made similar remarks at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Professor Carl Hewitt 71.198.220.76 (talk)

(ec) I would prefer that the ArbCom restrictions be enforced, which might involve excising articles about topics he's involved in. For that matter, I would have preferred that he edit Misplaced Pages properly; experts should comment when there are clear mistakes in articles. Regardless, it's clear that some of his published statements about Misplaced Pages editors, including myself, are defamatory (and I pointed out one clear example above not about me). He claims, in published material, that statements made on Misplaced Pages are defamatory. Fine. Let's keep all of these comments out of Misplaced Pages, including this talk page, except insofar as they discuss improvements to articles. I don't see a proposed change to an article here. If you do, could you describe it?

I also don't see why Carl and/or his students should be allowed to violate WP:BLP and/or WP:NPA in regard active editors. There have been a number of examples, although not necessarily in this thread.

As an aside, in this article, we have comments on Carl's ban, by Carl and by a third party source, but not the primary source. As there is a dispute between secondary sources, the primary source should also be included.

(See, I can provide proposals for improving the article.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, Why do you think that Hewitt has libeled you? Also, what's all this stuff about 1st, 2nd and 3rd parties? I can't figure out who has done what to whom!76.254.235.105 (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've said what the libel against me is before: The summary of the false defamatory statements that I can remember are

He asserts that I removed his content because I don't like him (no comment) or do not believe that he knows what he's talking about. (The additional assertion that I don't know his field, although quite possibly false, falls into the category of opinion, because asynchronous computation theory is a field that I recognize as a part of fields in which I am expert, he does not recognize asynchronous computation theory as part of computation theory.)
In spite of the fact that I do not believe his notation is standard, his "theorems" accurate, nor his theories helpful, my reason for removing most of his additions is that he is the only source. His assertion that computation cannot be (determined — the word of choice keeps changing) by logic may be the consensus among his peers, but it's not the consensus among mine, so references which are clearly other than his papers are needed.

I can't seem to find any other examples in the papers currently on knol or on Hewitt's site, but it's a moving target. Your assertion in one of the papers that I'm supporting "conventional wisdom", and Hewitt has gone beyond that, is probably not true, but is not exactly defamatory. As a Misplaced Pages editor, I'm supposed to report on what is reported in reliable sources, and I do not have enough evidence that Hewitt is reliable per se.

As for "1st, 2nd, and 3rd parties", we have the third party statement that Hewitt is banned from editing "his" articles on Misplaced Pages, and Hewitt's related statement that the Misplaced Pages model is flawed, but not the "official" statement of the ban (from a Misplaced Pages diff). As the third party statement differs from Hewitt's (and from the "official" statement), the "official" statement should also be included for context.

Some of his references to Misplaced Pages are to a completely different article or diff than the one indicated in the title. I'm willing to help him with that, if he's interested. Diffs from 2002 to 2009 are unlikely to be helpful; he should use either the immediate diff (old=prev?) or the static copy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems strange that Misplaced Pages should be stuck with Arthur Rubin's idiosyncratic opinions that Hewitt's theorems are inaccurate and his theories unhelpful in the face of numerous publications in the scientific literature to the contrary whereas Rubin has published nothing. Isn't this contrary to some Misplaced Pages principles?70.231.253.115 (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

His primary theorem (at least, according to him) in regard the Actor model is clearly unimportatnt; any computation is a time-abstraction of a timed computation. Anyone who believe that logic exists, whether or not it can model computation, should be able to see that that is either a tautology or a definition, and none of the references in the article mentioning that theorem have any text to the contrary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to The Timed Diagrams Model that greatly simplified the construction of denotational semantics of the Actor model resulting in the Computational Representation Theorem. And it's not that logic cannot model computation, it just can't in general implement concurrent computation. The Computational Representation Theorem has important corollaries, e.g. the impossibility of Zeno machines.71.198.220.76 (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was a form of the Concurrency Representation Theorem in another article; the article you pointed to now explains that it's non-trivial in the presence of an infinite number of actions. It's clearly trivial if the number of actions is bounded, and probably trivial of the number of actions is finite. And I shouldn't have said it without rechecking whether it had been fixed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked the statement of the Concurrency Representation Theorem in the original publication . And it's the same as the Computational Representation Theorem. The only change was that the name of the theorem was upgraded to better reflect its applicability. As far as I can tell, your concerns about the number of actions being bounded or finite has never been any part of the published literature on the Actor model.70.231.253.115 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be doing the best you can to convince me that there's no "there" there. All I can say is that the Misplaced Pages article made the theorem appear trivial, but the current Misplaced Pages article Denotational_semantics_of_the_Actor_model makes it non-trivial, because of the references to ω-complete models. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, You might consider withdrawing from the field to preserve the few shreds of reputation that you have left. Obviously, you are dealing with experts in an area where you lack expertise.76.254.235.105 (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, how can "Every computation is a time-abstraction of a timed computation path" be other than a definition or a parallel construction to the Chruch-Turing thesis, except in the context of an unbounded number of steps in the paths. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that you meant to say that "Every computation is a time-abstraction of a timed computation." In the Actor model, a computation can have an infinite number of activation paths each one of which has an infinite number of steps.70.231.253.115 (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

According to "Norms and Commitment for ORGs (Organizations of Restricted Generality): Paraconsistency and Participatory Behavioral Model Checking, the Computational Representation Theorem has as its consequence a modern version of Church-Turing thesis as follows:

Enumeration Theorem: If the primitive Actors of a closed Actor System are effective, then its possible outputs are recursively enumerable.

Arthur, I can't find any place that Hewitt says that you removed his content because you don't like him. What he did mostly in Corruption of Misplaced Pages is quote people who have said some rather harsh things about you.

Fundamentally, there seem to be two intertwined stories:

A Misplaced Pages editing dispute between Hewitt and a couple of physicists escalated to Misplaced Pages attacking Hewitt in the newspaper and Hewitt publishing Corruption of Misplaced Pages.
A Misplaced Pages encounter between Kowalski and Hewitt about an academic dispute that escalated into a newspaper story that quoted Kowalski, articles in professional newsletters by Kowalski and a supporter, and Hewitt's scientific article Middle History of Logic Programming.

No one seems pleased about how this turned out.70.231.253.115 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he quoted himself, or someone we (Misplaced Pages) believe to acting on his behalf, talking about me. However, that's not really important. What seems important is that we get the correct information in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP

I'm not sure what the dispute here is exactly, but BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles, and some of the comments above violate it. Arthur, I feel you shouldn't be editing this page or this article, as you seem to have become personally involved. That goes for anyone else who has been intensely involved in it. The situation has already led to one inappropriate newspaper story. We should leave the editing of the article to uninvolved editors. SlimVirgin 00:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the criticism of Misplaced Pages section, because it was sourced to a book Charles Matthews was involved in, and the only other reliable source that I'm aware of is an Observer article Charles was also involved in. In addition, Charles was involved in the ArbCom case against Hewitt. This is a prime example of circular sourcing, which is not allowed per WP:V. Please note that I've removed that section as an administrator enforcing BLP, and I intend to continue taking admin action regarding this article if it's required, though I very much hope it won't be. This focus on Hewitt has gone on for far too long, and has reflected badly on everyone, including the project, so please let's tone it right down. SlimVirgin 00:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed Ruud Koot and Arthur Rubin to ask them to fill me in on the background to this dispute. I've done this by email because there are BLP issues. Anyone else who can help explain what's going on here, please email me at slimvirgin at gmail dot com. I'd like to understand the dispute so I can work out how best to bring an end to it once and for all. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 01:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of this section because you were not specific enough about what aspects of WP:BLP are violated by its existence. The sources, as far as I can see, were valid, and I don't agree that the involvement of someone involved in the ArbCom case constitutes circular sourcing. Deleting the section is not "toning down" anything; it is likely to be perceived as censorship, and only likely to inflame the situation further. --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There was circular sourcing. However, at first, it was hidden from the public. Charles Matthews (the Misplaced Pages arbiter involved in the ArbCom case) was the unnamed source in the Observer article that libeled Hewitt. Also Matthews put the author of the article in touch with Kowalski.76.254.235.105 (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the section again. The sources are not suitable for such contentious material. Misplaced Pages cannot be used as a source, and the Charles Matthews book cannot be used because his involvement in the ArbCom case makes his writing a decidedly non-neutral source. SV has removed the section as a BLP enforcement action, so you should be very careful about having a consensus to include the material before replacing it. Kevin (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Only the first (book) source is potentially biased or unsuitable, and that one can be sourced to the actual ArbCom ruling. Carl's comments about Misplaced Pages means the section may be relevant, and the actual ArbCom ruling is a reliable source for the initial statement. There is reasonable contraversy about whether the second paragraph is justified by the source, but there is absolutely no question that the source is reliable.

I do not see a credible claim of a BLP violation, but I won't revert, as my neutrality has been questioned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The story is quite amazing (see The article violates NPOV). It’s analogous to the collision between Galileo and the Catholic Church. I wonder if Misplaced Pages will ever make a quasi-apology (like the Catholic Church eventually did for Galileo).71.198.220.76 (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I always thought Carl had delusions of granduer, comparing himself to the Catholic Church. He certainly has more standing in the academic world than Misplaced Pages. 15:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Can these silly references to Galileo please stop now? Comparisons of oneself to Galileo are popular among crackpots. If Carl Hewitt made such a comparison himself that would earn him 35 points on John Baez's crackpot index. ("A -5 point starting credit" plus "40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo") Now I realise that the IP is just someone else trying to support Hewitt, but this is not a good way to go about it. This is a way to hurt his reputation. Hans Adler 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ayers, Phoebe; Matthews, Charles; Yates, Ben (2008). "The Misplaced Pages Model Debated". How Misplaced Pages Works: And How You Can Be a Part of It. No Starch Press. ISBN 159327176X.
Carl Hewitt What is Commitment? Physical, Organizational, and Social COIN@AAMAS. 2006.
Corruption of Misplaced Pages Google Knol.

Page protection

I've semi-protected this page because of the recent edits, in accordance with the ArbCom ruling: "Given the scale of apparent evasions of the ruling during 2007, by the use of large numbers of IP numbers from the West Coast of the USA, semi-protection of affected articles may be applied for periods of up to one month, and to their Talk pages in cases of overbearing comments."

Would the person or persons posting as anons please just stop? There's been enough disruption over the last couple of years to last a lifetime. SlimVirgin 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Would any of the regular editors here strongly object if I were to archive this entire page? Then the article and talk page could start afresh, with hopefully no more talk about who has been attacking whom. SlimVirgin 17:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I take it the silence means no objection, so I'm going to archive now. SlimVirgin 23:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories: