[TUHS] etymology of cron

[cowan@mercury.ccil.org (John Cowan)]

jason-tuhs at shalott.net scripsit:

> See, for example, this story about an author who was told he "was
> not a credible source" regarding the basis of his own writings --

Indeed.  John "Lisp" McCarthy definitely couldn't remember the order
and timing of his work on Lisp without reference to his documents.
Or rather he did remember, but his memories were wrong.  Primary sources
have to be used with care and caution, and while they are not outright
forbidden on Wikipedia, they are not trivial to use.

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.

> http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia

    The poet may of course have some critical ability of his own, and
    so be able to talk about his own work. But the Dante who writes a
    commentary on the first canto of the Paradiso is merely one more
    of Dante's critics. What he says has a peculiar interest, but
    not a peculiar authority. It is generally accepted that a critic
    is a better judge of the value of a poem than its creator, but
    there is still a lingering notion that it is somehow ridiculous
    to regard the critic as the final judge of its meaning, even
    though in practice it is clear that he must be. The reason
    for this is an inability to distinguish literature from the
    descriptive or assertive writing which derives from the active
    will and the conscious mind, and which is primarily concerned to
    "say" something.

        --Northrop Frye, _Anatomy of Criticism_
-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
If I read "upcoming" in [the newspaper] once more, I will be downcoming
and somebody will be outgoing.