Talk:WebGPU

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Computer graphics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles JavaScript Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject JavaScript, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to JavaScript, and to the development of user scripts for use on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaScriptWikipedia:WikiProject JavaScriptTemplate:WikiProject JavaScriptJavaScript articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Internet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It keeps on needing to be edited every-time that there is an amendment to the draft spec, which is many times in the span of a month. Is there any alternative milestone that we could use in place of the current one? Maybe even the first draft date that was universally accepted as the 'Working Draft'? 86.14.56.116 (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or to simply just remove the date entirely while keeping the development stage identifier i.e. "Working Draft" as latest version without the 'November-December 2022' addition. 86.14.56.116 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with a solution such as adding "As of Dec 2022" (or even Jan 2023) instead of constantly changing it for every edit to the spec which is many times a month. We can update it if or when it has a new status instead of the current Editor's Working Draft. Dasein (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apr 11, 2023, 15:09 - «‎Criticism: Totally inappropriate to try to cite discussion posts as a reliable source for criticism. Feel free to start a discussion on the discussion page.»
Apr 11, 2023, 15:05 - «WP:CONTEXTMATTERS; It's fine if someone comes and upgrades these sources; there are more to come»
Apr 10, 2023, 18:56 - «some grammar fixes, overlinking»
Apr 10, 2023, 13:28 - «Remove unreliable sources, add some tags»
Apr 10, 2023, 13:22 - «‎Critcism: none of these are WP:RS»
Apr 8, 2023, 10:42 - «‎Critcism: new»

@

WP:RSCONTEXT

. You are better off to stop following my contribs. I've seen you many times doing that already.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of

WP:RSCONTEXT

is entirely incorrect. It states "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." AKA, don't use a source that is only tangentially related to overly assert something. It does not mean that you can use forum discussions by any user criticizing something, devoid of any fact-checking, as a reliable source, and I find it difficult to understand how you could interpret it that way. Quotes from that same page that explain why your chosen sources were unacceptable:

1. "Questionable sources are those [...] with no editorial oversight" [...] Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions
2. "self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media".
3. Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met: [...] It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).

Cerebral726 (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't interpret the

WP:RSCONTEXT, it's what the provision says:

... source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

It's perfectly reliable sources for the statement about critcism of WGSL. The two sources out of 3 refer to the same place where the subject of article is being developed. There is virtually nobody who can actually criticise it. I agree that for now the source is not perfect but in future more reliable sources may emerge. Currently this is a minor problem. I propose you revert your edit and just put a tag requesting better sources so everyone can notice. Stop babbysitting my contribs. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

So you are saying that you judged the forum posts as reliable and appropriate sources, despite the 3 examples I provided from the same page clearly showing they are not (no editorial oversight of self-published internet forum posts, involving claims about third parties)? You cannot simply deem something acceptable and reliable because there is no actually reliable source to use. I will not revert my edit, as I would not be willing to put my name to adding forum posts as a

WP:RS worth putting on Wikipedia. You can seek a 3rd opinion if you would like. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]