Odin, Wikipedia and engagement farming
A niche systems programming language called Odin has become a flashpoint after its article was deleted from English Wikipedia for failing notability and sourcing standards. Commenters debate whether Odin is actually obscure or simply under‑served by traditional media, and whether Wikipedia’s reliance on secondary sources is outdated in an era where blogs, Discords, GitHub stats and niche industry usage are the main evidence of significance. The exchange broadens into questions about inclusion vs. deletion on Wikipedia, how to handle modern technical topics that lack conventional coverage, and whether alternative AI‑driven encyclopedias will fill gaps left by stricter curation.
Odin’s Popularity and Use
- Many commenters had never heard of Odin; others into programming languages or game dev knew it well.
- Widely agreed: Odin is niche but real – used commercially (e.g., by a VFX tools company), has an active Discord (~10k), and some streamers use it.
- Debate over how “popular” it is: some call it one of the more notable modern C-like competitors; others say that’s exaggerated compared to languages like Rust, Zig, Go, etc.
- Several note that “I haven’t heard of it” doesn’t prove non-notability, given how fragmented programming niches are.
Wikipedia Notability & Process
- Multiple commenters explain: Wikipedia cares about notability and verifiability, not intrinsic merit or truth.
- Core requirement: significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources (journalism, academic work, reputable tech media).
- Company claims (“we use this language”) and project websites are primary sources and don’t establish notability.
- AfD (Articles for Deletion) is consensus-driven discussion, not a vote; older weak articles often survive simply because no one revisits them.
Fairness, Bias, and “Deletionism”
- Some see deletion as arbitrary, biased, or driven by “busybody” editors and a small clique of power users.
- Others defend strict standards as necessary in a low‑trust, spam‑heavy, AI‑generated environment.
- Frustration is common among people whose carefully written articles were deleted; they point to the asymmetry of effort between creation and deletion.
- Counterpoint: keeping non-notable, poorly sourced tool/language pages mainly benefits self-promotion and imposes maintenance burden.
Alternatives and the Future of Knowledge Sites
- Some suggest or link alternatives (AI-based encyclopedias, more-permissive wikis) and argue “low-quality but existent” beats deletion.
- Others respond that an encyclopedia with low-quality, unsourced material is of limited value; Wikipedia’s strictness is exactly what makes it trusted.
- A few speculate that LLMs and specialized community resources may increasingly serve niches like programming languages better than Wikipedia.
Politics, Personality, and Tone
- The blog’s focus on the language author’s online behavior and follows, and its political framing, is divisive.
- Some appreciate the analysis of “engagement farming” and inconsistent rhetoric; others see it as ad hominem, tribal, or irrelevant to whether Odin merits an article.
- Broader concern: critics often attack Wikipedia from outside without engaging in its community or rules, then attribute outcomes to ideological capture.