Chris alerted me to a wacko going around Wikipedia misinterpreting a single slide from my Uniforum benchmarking talk (PDF). This is the same wacko that wanted everyone on Perlmonks to boycott O'Reilly, apparently. When enough people in Perlmonks told him what he could do to himself, he moved over to trashing Perl (and here too after being slapped around in the Perl article) on Wikipedia. Chris keeps cleaning up the mess. I think this guy has infected a lot of other places, but Chris says he keeps cleaning it up, so I don't go looking for it.
In one slide from the talk, I say "Benchmark.pm comes with Perl..." and in the next, I say "..and it sux". I used the deliberate mispelling and a smaller font-size analogy to kwalitee to point out that I don't mean that the module is bad, but that a lot of people mis-interpret benchmarks because they trust the numbers too much and they let the computers do the thinking for them. Later I show an example from an earlier Stonehenge class where we constructed a benchmark that didn't show the Schwarzian Transform as good as it really is. Simply quoting me saying something "sux" because I said it as a throw away joke in a talk doesn't really say anything about anything, and certainly is far from quoteworthy in an encyclopedia.
I had written about bad benchmarks earlier in "Wasting time thinking about wasted time" on Perlmonks and also in the chapter-in-progress in Mastering Perl . Those explanations aren't as sexy as using "sux" though, and the reasonableness of the much longer discussions aren't as useful for misrepresentation and shock value. It's much harder to characterize me as anti-Perl when you read the whole thing, especially when I'm pointing out the flaws in things I've done myself.
So, to perfectly illustrate my point that you can't trust people with statistics, this wacko is using my comment that people mis-interpret and mis-represent benchmarks to support some vague notion that Perl is just bad. It doesn't have any relevance to anything to do with Perl as a language, really, and certainly doesn't support the anti-Perl stuff.
The curious thing, however, is that Wikipedia even tolerates this. Several other people keep reverting this guy's edits, and he keeps putting them back. The "play nice" attitude of Wikipedia ignores thousands of years of history that show we can't do that. Just because something is on the internet doesn't mean people are going to change. The LART and the clue stick were invented for a reason.
It's all part and parcel of attaching my name to something though. I get to be the target of militants and fanatics who have nothing better to do then think about something they hate.
This doesn't mean I'm going to stop doing anything. Once wacko is hardly worth losing sleep over.