Greg 'groggy' Lehey scripsit: Internet-only source and a primary source at that. There's nothing you can do at this point. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan(a)ccil.org There was an old man Said with a laugh, "I From Peru, whose lim'ricks all Cut them in half, the pay is Look'd like haiku. He Much better for two." --Emmet O'Brien

An email to this list from ken, or quoting his email here, probably would help, as that could be cited. Additionally this should be mentioned on the talk page — it seems rather known that the acronyms may not be all that accurate. David

Unfortunately, that's not how Wikipedia works. See, for example, this story about an author who was told he "was not a credible source" regarding the basis of his own writings -- not because there was any doubt about his identity, but because Wikipedia "require[s] secondary sources." http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia -Jason

jason-tuhs(a)shalott.net scripsit: 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. 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(a)ccil.org If I read "upcoming" in [the newspaper] once more, I will be downcoming and somebody will be outgoing.

Random832 scripsit: Well, as of now it says: The origin of the name cron is unclear;[2] it has been suggested that it comes from the Greek word for time, χρόνος chronos,[3] or that it is an acronym for "Command Run On Notice"[4] or for "Commands Run Over Night".[2][discuss] -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan(a)ccil.org Mark Twain on Cecil Rhodes: I admire him, I freely admit it, and when his time comes I shall buy a piece of the rope for a keepsake.