From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: random832@fastmail.com (Random832) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:05:57 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] etymology of cron In-Reply-To: <20151223025921.GB9303@mercury.ccil.org> References: <201512230027.tBN0RK7A009917@tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU> <20151223004044.GG14449@eureka.lemis.com> <20151223011154.GA9303@mercury.ccil.org> <20151223015908.GH14449@eureka.lemis.com> <20151223021408.GI14449@eureka.lemis.com> <20151223025921.GB9303@mercury.ccil.org> Message-ID: <1450843557.2182645.474607945.01DCBBC4@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 21:59, John Cowan wrote: > Wikipedia is by nature a *summary of the published literature*. If you > want to get some folklore, like what "cron" stands for, into Wikipedia, > then publish a folklore article in a journal, book, or similar reputable > publication. Random uncontrolled mailing lists simply do not count. The problem is this backronym is the sort of nonsense that attaches to _all_ computer commands that are not an English word (and a fair few that are), and that should heavily weigh against the use of people's willingness to uncritically repeat them in print as a "reliable source". It may be reasonable, in Wikipedia's role as a "summary of the published literature", to say something like "some people have suggested" that it may be an acronym, and to list the sources there, but certainly _not_ to assert that it was actually intended as one without a source actually traceable to someone in a position to know.