Talk:Knuth reward check

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Check numbers

Check numbers were removed on the grounds that they have no real meaning—because there are several series of checks. Checks numbers were reinstated on the grounds that they are "necessary to see which checks are missing". These grounds, however, are invalid, because there are several series of checks. You can tell almost nothing from a check number, and you can certainly not tell which checks are missing. Including the check numbers misleads for that reason: some people who do not understand the numbers will erroneously think—as has been demonstrated—that they can tell what is missing from the numbers. Ergo, the check numbers should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.197.172 (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Taken them out, along with the headers demarcating the series. When DEK got new bank accounts or new chequebooks is none of our business. It's not in any way relevant to the article. At best it's irrelevant, at worst it's a potential invasion of privacy. 86.128.221.17 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If we decide to list all known checks written by Don Knuth (I am not saying that it is a good or bad thing — it does not strike me as a particularly encyclopedic topic, but on the other hand I can understand that this topic fascinates some people) then it makes sense to include the check numbers, if only because they are a good way to differentiate checks and catch duplicates. The argument of "seeing missing checks" described above, however, looks pointless to me (Knuth certainly writes other checks than those sent to people who found errors in his books, and the list is bound to have gaps).

It seems pretty clear that Knuth does NOT use this checkbook for other purposes. He states that 2000+ reward checks were written as of Oct 2001. That is consistent with what the table shows, which is 1284+ checks in the first series, plus 767+ in the second series, totalling 2051+. I am assuming that the first check in each series starts at 100, since we see no checks with numbers <100, but plenty with numbers between 100 and 200. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by67.114.59.21 (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Sourced vs unsourced claims

As I wrote above, this list of checks compiled from scans and other reliable information may already be considered not to be encyclopedic; on the other hand, the list of unverified information in the form "Xxx claims to have checks" has clearly nothing to do here (people bragging is unlikely to be a reliable source, to say the least). Schutz 08:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: Just because a comprehensive list of reward checks is fascinating to some people is no reason to put it in an encyclopedia. Also, Image:Knuth-check2.png should prove that just because someone has a scan of check number X doesn't mean Knuth wrote check number X (digital images are easy to forge). Therefore, even the claims substantiated by scanned images could be considered "unverifiable" by anyone except Knuth himself, if you wanted to be strict about it. Finally, it's just a big can of worms. I have a Knuth check; should I add myself to this page? Or do I need to scan and post the check first? Or do I also need to distort Knuth's account information in the scanned image, for privacy? And so on and so on. Ick. Let some private citizen's Web site make a list, if they like. (But it might be encyclopedic to mention who got the first reward check, and who got them for TeX bugs before the amount was frozen.) --Quuxplusone 02:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree; that's no encyclopedic. It is original research, and it is also unreasonable for people to snobbishly expose their private possessions on Wikipedia. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for people's exhibitionism. --Rtc 12:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The list belongs in the encyclopedia, because it not only documents the types of errors encountered in a leading software project of the era, but also shows the variety of human beings involved. In a field where the work product is an immaterial stream of bits, here we have a few tangible artifacts of the humanity that produced that product. There is nothing else like this in academia, and the details are not just fascinating, but relevant to the article's subject. I suppose a list of Rembrandt works and where they've ended up is also "bragging"? These are concrete facts, and nobody is bragging by the publication of unadorned facts, nor is anyone's privacy involved. The issues of verification must be addressed, but that is no reason to clobber this information entirely out of the article. Richard J Kinch 20:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rembrandt's paintings, in contrast to checks, are relevant works that are catalogued openly in official, published lists. If you want to document the bugs of TeX etc. in an encyclopedic manner, you can use the official, published errata files as a source and write an article about them based on that. Information about actual checks are a private matter that doesn't belong into an encyclopedia. Wikipedia doesn't research lists that have not yet been published anywhere else. As long as DEK decides not to publish a list of checks himself, it doesn't belong here, and even if he would, it would be appropriate only for Wikisource, a sister project of Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's No Original Research and What Wikipedia is not policies for more information. These policies are the reason for the deletion. --rtc 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seigniorage

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if these reward checks aren't being cashed, aren't they an example of seigniorage? TerraFrost 05:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Money generally doesn't have intrinsic value, so getting less intrinsically valuable stuff for your money than you originally gave for the money seems to be seigniorage, but Knuth checks are more akin to collectibles or trophies than financial instruments. --Gwern (contribs) 18:23 19 October 2007 (GMT)