Talk:Chris Hecker

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 00:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Due to the timing of the CSD A7 deletion of this article in relation to the publication of the inflammatory remarks by this article's subject at the Game Developers Conference, I have reverted the deletion with help from Google Cache, and dispute the reason for the claimed Speedy Deletion.

I have not yet added the complete Category Links and what-not, only the base article with the external links listed at the bottom that were in the previously-cached version. Trial-by-fire learning templates and category adding and what-not, as I hadn't done them before, but wanted to get the article up-and-running first, instead of trying to submit a 'single perfect edit' to revert the deletion.

The appropriate CSD A7 warning has been added to the top of the article, in addition to the appropriate counter-tag to direct discussion to this talk page. I am also watching this page, and storing the current version locally to counter any pending delete-war.

Why the heck was this deleted? What the Google cache gives is a useful article on a relevant person, plus he is of special interest due to his current rant on Nintendo. Protect it, I could understand this, but DELETE? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.137.126.32 (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree. This speedy deletion was extremely questionable. A ten-second glance at the history page shows extensive vandalism activity immediately prior to the request. The correct action would clearly have been to protect the page, then work on the talk page to resolve the issue as to whether the page should be deleted or kept. The fact that the page was instead deleted suggests to me that more care needs to be taken on Wikipedia when evaluating requests for speedy deletion. Cmuratori 21:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this page is gonna get vandalized over the next week sor so with the Nintendo fanboys upset about his remarks at GDC. Probably needs to be protected. His controversy should probably be mentioned here since lots of people are wikiing his name after reading about his comments.

I second the call for this page to be protected, as it is very frequently vandalized. Especially since The Hecker Effect phenomena on GameFAQs and Spore Forums has lead to such a backlash of unjustifiable hatred against this man by disgruntled gamers. --Valentine82 (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The speedy deletion seems weird. That said, the lack of citation for these quotes (although I've seen the third-party citations so I don't doubt the veracity of them) doesn't lend this article to being up to standards. I'll see if I can add some. Eddie Parker 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Hecker Effect

Look, until we get some confirmation from EA (instead of hearsay), I won't allow Chris's name to be dragged through the dirt just because some people don't like Spore. Chris is a programmer, not a game designer and not management - to blame one specific programmer on a $20m project with 1000 people is ludicrous without confirmation. I don't mind mention to the controversy, but I'm just going to keep reverting anything that is hearsay or speculation. Otherwise it's just a random act of anonymous internet cruelty designed to make some aggrieved gamers feel better about themselves. - Revertmaster.

The moderation to the "The Hecker Effect" was undone because it contained unneeded profanity and resorted to personal attacks against Chris Hecker. The section on "The Hecker Effect" is there to make mention of a social phenomina that hasn't been seen before, not to launch insults against the man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucaviX (talk • contribs) 11:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem with an unregistered user on the The Hecker Effect, who constantly deletes the section and replaces it with "Hes a fucking ass with no life exect to destoy good things just by looking at them"

I'd like to call on others to help protect this section from such vandalizim, it's unacceptable on Wikipedia and has nothing to do with the Social Phenomina that the original poster of The Hecker Effect was noting. --67.58.85.51 (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed The Hecker Effect on totally unrelated forums. It got mentioned in regards to Fable 2 a few times, PM got blasted too. Personally I like Fable 2, couldn't be happier with it, but at least I learned a new slang term. --Valentine82 (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am also concerned about vandalism. Obviously "The Hecker Effect" situation is worth documenting simply because it has become another "thing" like the Nintendo incident, but it should be documented as news and not as an in-article flame against Chris. I am watching the page and trying to edit flame-like additions into something news-like as best I can.--Cmuratori (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My biggest concern personally is that vandals delete the entire page, Hecker Effect and all, and the page gets reverted to a pre-Hecker Effect and pre-Spore Cute version. I don't want the Hecker Effect to act as a flame either, and I find that it's current form seems to be pretty NPOV, but it gets vandalized by people who want to make it POV then removed entirely, which is bad for the objectivities. Anyway, I've seen "The Hecker Effect" mentioned in a lot of froum signatures, normally "The Hecker Effect - Because games are too hard for gamers" or something like that. It's a real social phenomena and it's almost as if there are people trying to undermine mention of it for some ulterior motive. --Valentine82 (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is the choice of location. If "The Hecker Effect" does, in fact, become a net term, then that's fine - but it still doesn't belong on this page! This is Chris Hecker's biography page, not Urban Dictionary. Not only did Chris Hecker not coin the term, but he actually wasn't even responsible for the so-called effect in the first place (as Spore's EP recently cleared up in the forums themselves [1]). So while I have no problem with someone creating an Urban Dictionary entry for the term, I strongly disapprove of its inclusion in Hecker's biography since it hasn't anything to do with his career or even his comments.--Cmuratori (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Hecker Effect already is a net term, and it belongs here because it pertains to Chris Hecker, who the term was even named after. Do you work for EA or something? I have no problem with the section being edited, but it's removal is just wrong. You only need look around on popular game forums like Fable II to see how wide-spread mention of the Hecker Effect has become. --Valentine82 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If you Google the Hecker Effect in this context, it's first appearance was two days ago. the *only* references to it are the Spore forums where they are finger pointing at Chris without any data, and the Fable forum, where the posts is by ONE OF THE GUYS from the Spore forum. This isn't a wide-spread thing. It's a few whiny gamers, and it's inclusion here has ONE SINGLE INTENTION and that is to slander Chris. And finally, this isn't Urban Dictionary! It doesn't belong here.

Unsigned user. The fact that there's currently only one google result is irrelevant to how wide spread it's use has become on forums and threads. I suspect that there will be more hits as time goes on, as the term has increased in usage and been applied in several interesting ways on GameFAQs, and Lionhead and EA forums. Your argument that the only reason for it's inclusion is to slander Chris Hecker is unfounded, and you provide no argument to support that claim. Lastly, it doesn't matter if this is an Urban Dictionary or not, the fact is that the term is named after Chris Hecker for reasons (most likely unfounded reasons mind you) makes this a valid place for the section. Unless you can compile a reasoned argument as to why the section should be removed, and not just throw out a bunch of claims, the section will continue to be restored by myself and others each time it is deleted. When there is a viable consensus among signed users on the discussion page that it should be removed, or when the segment has failed to have contributions to it for two weeks, I will cease any objection to it's removal. However I and other regulars (given how many have reverted to preserve the section) clearly think that the section belongs, and find it adequately in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --Valentine82 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

People can not just make something up, whether it be in their own mind or in the collective minds of a game forum, and expect to be instantly notable. Wikipedia has very high standards for inclusion. In particular, reliable sources are needed to show that a concept is notable. No matter how many threads on how many different forums you can come up with, unless its picked up in mainstream media, it is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. These maybe helpful reading: WP:N, WP:RS. Further, no case for slander need be made as the message at the very top of this page indicates: Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on the issue of notability. Your articulation of this argument combined with your other arguments make an overwhelmingly good case for the sections removal. All it took was for someone to articulate a good reason for the sections removal (instead of someone attempting to get their way by simply bullying and strong arming) for the section to be removed without contest. On a separate note I'm unsure if mainstream media should be a consideration for the mention of a social phenomena, as many popular bands and genres of music have never been mentioned by mainstream media, yet clearly warrant the mention they get on Wikipedia. Then again, I may simply be misunderstanding what you're attempting to convey on that point. --Valentine82 (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

First off, Valentine, you keep talking about Hecker effect as if it's something phenomena with no backup. It's just a snigglet you are making up. A social phenomena isn't something said by two people in two forums. I'll keep reverting that all day long without sources.

The Hecker Effect is not a mere snigglet said by two people on a forum, it's a wide spread term that's made it's way into several gamer signatures and is instantly identifiable on Spore forums, pretty much everyone on the Spore forums knows what it means the instant they see it.

That said, if you would like to contribute links to the section or have a discussion about what should be in the section, I'm happy to take part in it. --Valentine82 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The section itself is slanderous. If this is around in a month, and not in use by four people on a game forum, then it might make sense. Right now, it's ONLY purpose is to slam Hecker with no evidence. I will continue reverting it.

Unsigned user. You have failed to make a case for your argument that the section itself is slanderous. Other regulars and I clearly do not agree with your assessment that the only purpose of the section is to slam Chris Hecker without evidence. Your unilateral decision making goes against Wikipedia's Terms of Use, and you have already received an automatic revert war notification for your activity. If you wish to edit the section to be more neutral we welcome you to do so, and in fact encourage you to do so, however repeated deletions of the section are not being tolerated by numerous Wikipedia users, and you can not justifiably strong arm us to get your way on this issue. If you feel that the section is biased please present a reasoned argument that we can consider, or revise it to be non-biased. --Valentine82 (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole Spore science and Spore cute story line is all being backed up by the same self-serving forum posts. Again, without confirmation that Chris had anything to do with that, I'll just keep reverting.

I have no problem with that section being removed or revised significantly. It does seem to be more of a topic for the Spore Game page, and it may be inaccurate in pointing the finger at Chris Hecker. --Valentine82 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Programmer?

I was just reading the bio on chrishecker.com and I don't see any proof that he actually writes code. I don't think he actually creates games, looks more like he's in management. 198.6.46.11 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

He is definitely a programmer. He wrote WinG, a long-running programming column for Game Developer Magazine, the renderer for Encarta World Atlas, GLSetup, and the creature tesselation, painting, and animation systems for Spore (and is the primary author on the SIGGRAPH paper published regarding said animation system).--Cmuratori (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User Cmuratori is correct, the mention that Chris Hecker is a programmer is more than justified, and his status as a programmer is independently well established. His history as a programmer speaks for itself. --Valentine82 (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough...don't suppose you could source it? Also, neither of you has a user page. 198.6.46.11 (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can source any of that if you'd like... for what parts did you want sources? I have recently added sourcing to the article itself for the SIGGRAPH paper, an interview corroborating his creation of WinG, and two interviews about his work on Spore. I am still looking for a good source for credits for the original 3D Encarta World Atlas on which he did the renderer, since there isn't a credits database for those sorts of things like there are for games (as far as I know).--Cmuratori (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Reversions of content below "The Wii Remark" absent of discussion

Enough is enough. From now on, anyone who reverts the page to remove the sections "The Wii Remark" "The Hecker Effect" and "Spore - Cute" will be reported as vandals if they do so without making a reasonable case for their activities here on the discussion page. Doing so again is a good way to get your IP address blocked from this page. --Valentine82 (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User 216.254.19.237 you have been given ample warning about your reversion vandalism. If you want to contribute then we are glad to have you do so, but please refrain from removing entire sections without discussion as this violates the terms of use and what you are currently doing may be labeled as a revert war or an edit war. I have no desire to write up a complaint to Wikipedia administrators and would be more than happy to see you edit the sections you keep removing to make them better suited for the page. Still, please stop unilaterally removing sections. --Valentine82 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User 216.254.19.237, I and others agree with your argument that Spore-Cute should likely be removed, as it belongs on the Spore game page and may amount to unsubstantiated finger pointing over how unhappy gamers feel that Spore turned out. Given this fact, I went ahead and removed that section, as your arguments were reasonable and compelling.

Your arguments for why The Hecker Effect section should be removed mostly fail because the term was named after Chris Hecker (making it relevant to his page) and because the term originated due to the (possibly unfounded) perception that he was responsible for the removal of content from Spore. Your claim that the section is a back door way to insult Hecker is also unfounded, and your claim that there are only two forums that mention it is untrue, those topic links were simply possible sources of the term, which is wide spread among various forums. --Valentine82 (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hecker is a living person. If someone inaccurately names something after him, and we document this mis-naming, it harms him. There is no point in documenting an obscure term that is named after someone if we don't know if it's acurate. It hurts them.Jeff99999 (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I reject your claim that mentioning something wrongly named after an individual is harmful, and counter it with the suggestion that it has every place on a web-biography. I agree with your point about it being too obscure to make it worthy of documenting however, and thus concede that the segment is worthy of removal. I would suggest that it should be irrelevant whether or not mention of a social phenomena reflects negatively on an individual however, and that you may be letting personal feelings cloud your sense of objectivity. If the term is adequately wide spread and that can be shown in more than a few topic post, a section should be added in the future, but I contend that it should be added with a clear mention that the term may be wrongly named or wrongly applied, which is something I simply did not consider before reading your comment. --Valentine82 (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

However your expressed concern over the lack of articles confirming it's wide spread use is valid. I move that the section be temporarily allowed to remain until other users have a chance to contribute to it. If further links are not provided within 10 days further verifying it's wide spread use I will not objection to it's removal, and I do not plan to contribute any more than house keeping to the section myself. My objection is to your unilateral decision making, the point remains that you have decided to delete entire sections, some of which (especially in the case of the Wii Remark section) clearly belong on the page, and you have done so without consulting the rest of us or taking into account Wikipedia's Terms of Use. I call for you to cease what I perceive to be an edit war, at least so long as it is absent of a general consensus over the removal of the sections in question. --Valentine82 (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You don't leave in slanderous material in the hope that is some day becomes common enough for you to place it here. I've already request formal mediation, and in the meantime, I'll keep reverting.

Unsigned User. The case was never made that the term was slanderous, nor was anyone suggesting it be left in hope that it becomes common enough to place here. I welcome the formal mediation, and having already read the mediator's argument, I concede that the section warrants deletion. The only reason it got this far is because you did not adequately present a reasoned argument for the sections removal, and conducted unilateral actions without justifying your assertions for why your actions were warranted. I hope that you will be able to contribute to Wikipedia in the future without such problems. --Valentine82 (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No one has provided sources that show The Heckler Effect is notable outside of two forums. Until it is mentioned is reliable third party sources it can not be allowed to remain in a biographical article of a living person. In fact, one of the references that has been added shows the first use of the term was on Tuesday, in a forum thread where several people threatened physical harm to the subject of this article. A Google search of "hecker effect" spore only brings up a gamespot/faq thread (which has an interesting commentary related to edits of this article). It is clear that this is not notable, and not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, biographical or not. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You present a reasonable case for the sections removal, so I no longer object to it and will cease any attempts to undo future reverts that remove that specific section. My primary concern was not with the sections removal, but with the unilateral decision making of unsinged user 216.254.19.237, and his lack of reasonable argument for why it should be removed. --Valentine82 (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the section is controversial and hours old - why not wait until we see if this actually does become wide-spread. In any case, why wouldn't it be it's own page instead of on Chris Heckers, since the reason it's named after him, may not even be accurate?Jeff99999 (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Valentine82 (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that it is unreliable after looking at it closer. Just remember that revert or undo wars are not used to dispute content. Use this talk page. Sionus [talk] 00:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed :) --Valentine82 (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's just that this is a living person. We should err on the side of removing potentially harmful information first, and then discuss. Thank you for reading. Jeff99999 (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Emotional considerations should not be a concern when discerning whether or not a section belongs. Objectivities and reasoned arguments take precedent over sentiments. That does not mean articles should be unfair however, and if a term (Like The Hecker Effect) can be shown to be wide spread and is clearly named after Chris Hecker, it should be presented along with language clearly expressing that the term may have come about as a mismummer or due to wrongful accusations. --Valentine82 (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

But this is not done for other biographical articles, so why would Hecker's be different? For example, search for "the Palin effect" and you will get over 250,000 hits [2] (as opposed to less than 250, three orders of magnitude less, for "the Hecker effect" [3]). Yet Sarah Palin's Wikipedia entry has no mention of this term. The standard practice on Wikipedia is to have concepts have their own page which then point towards the namesake, not the other way around.--Cmuratori (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the Palin Effect should be mentioned on Wikipedia with a small clippet on her wikipedia biography about it, and a separate page containing more in depth information. After all, if the Palin Effect is being mentioned fairly often and is a social phenomena, it does deserve mention on any encyclopedic page containing biographical information about Sarah Palin. I find it interesting that if a term named after someone is positive no one ever seems to object to it, but if it's in any way negative people feel the need to play censor and prevent it's mention over sentimental concerns. I don't see why information should be omitted from any page for sentimental reasons, if the term was named after her and it's a notable phenomena mention of it would appear justified. All that said, there are good rational arguments for why The Hecker Effect should stay removed, they just weren't delivered until user THEN WHO WAS PHONE? step in. --Valentine82 (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think it's a matter of the biographical perspective. Because the concept being put forth by the "Hecker effect" actually has nothing to do with Hecker, by default it should not be included in his biography. As time progresses, perhaps Hecker will make a statement about it, or there will be more news about how it affected his role at EA or his life. At that point, I could certainly see an argument being made for its inclusion, because now it is actually something about his life, rather than something unrelated that people externally tried to associate with his name. So, much like "the Palin effect", it seems like it should be documented separately until it is clear that the person themselves has considered it, made reference to it, had it affect them, etc., so it is truly part of their biographical record. Does that make more sense?--Cmuratori (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

But if The Hecker Effect is named after Hecker, is inspired by Hecker's alleged actions, and is applied retroactively to an entire industry of gaming, doesn't it seem fitting for it to be mentioned in any objective biography about Hecker? It seems it should at least be referenced if it does become as big as "The Palin Effect" especially since it won't just go away the week after November 4'th--67.58.85.51 (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Since 67.58.85.51 is the same IP as just vandalized the main article (with the changelog comment of, "Hecker Sucks, he's entirely uninteresting and doesn't even deserve a page! If he gets a page so should every laywer who's ever won a case!", no less), I'm going to assume that you're not seriously interested in having a discussion here.--Cmuratori (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Factual dispute tag?

Why is there a factual dispute tag at the top of the article now? Is there actually a fact in the article as currently written that someone is disputing? If so, what is it, and who is disputing it? If no one elaborates I am removing the tag.--Cmuratori (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. It seemed to have been slapped on as an afterthought, or possibly in anticipation of further edit warring. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that it should be remove, there doesn't appear to be any factually inaccurate information currently in the article. --Valentine82 (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the decision that the tag warrents removal is unanimous and there is no agrument for why it should remain, I'm going ahead with it's removal. If an argument is presented in the future for why it should remain, I'll re-add it pending full discussion on why it should remain. --Valentine82 (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability/citation tags should be removed

I believe this page now cites more than enough high-quality references to be considered both notable and adequately cited by Wikipedia's guidelines. If there are no disagreements with this over the next day or so I am going to remove the tag. (Also, as a sidenote, I apologize for the citation edits by me that weren't listed as me, but rather as 64.81.164.128 - that was me, but I had forgotten to log in and didn't realize it until after making a bunch of edits) --Cmuratori (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable for what? The closest claims I can find are that he founded Indie Game Jam and that one time he said something dumb at GDC (which exists mostly for a place for non-PR people to say stupid things in public and keep PR people employed). He doesn't pass the creative professional test, he doesn't pass the entertainer test, he doesn't pass the professor test; he just seems to be a game developer who works outside the game development mainstream and happens to have said something really dumb once (and gets blamed for Spore sucking, when nobody's watching the article). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the notability page, you are already presumed notable if you have significant secondary sources about you, which Chris obviously does (a number are cited in the article, but there are literally thousands more from reputable sources as a trivial Google search confirms). Wikipedia says: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Check.

Furthermore, under additional support for notability, "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." Check. The IGDA awards (of which Chris Hecker won the Community Contribution award) are the most recognized awards for game developers that currently exist. And furthermore, the fact that he won this award supports "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.", as does his inclusion on the GDC advisory board and editing staff of Game Developer Magazine. "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Check - the annual SIGGRAPH conference proceedings is the most highly regarded graphics publication journal that currently exists, and Chris's procedural animation for SPORE was accepted there[4]. "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Check - he was a primary developer on Spore[5].

Keep in mind that there is no "creative professional test", as you suggest. Those are a set of criteria which, if ANY are true, means you are DEFINITELY notable, and Chris has more than a few. But even if you didn't pass any, the Wikipedia notability page explicitly states that failure to meet such an "additional" guideline does not indicate that a person is not notable.--Cmuratori (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This article, currently, is built on tenuously sourced claims of importance, and doesn't really cohere into a topic. It feels more like a dossier than an article, which always bothers me to see in a biography of a living person.

Let's look at some examples.

• If the IGDA awards are "the most recognized awards for game developers that currently exist," why are the only sources a press release and Gamespot's summary of a press release? (Anything written by "staff" that didn't get a proper headline link is a press release recap at Gamespot.)
• The idea behind the editor/widely cited label is that someone is a leader in their field; note the distinction between an editor and an editor in chief. He's a contributing editor to two different magazines and a member of the GDC advisory board, both of which are groups of two dozen plus people. This isn't a leadership role, it's a contributory role.
• You can't link to his personal website to establish that a technique he developed is significant. Was it actually presented at SIGGRAPH? What sets it apart from the many different presentations made there every year? I note that Hecker wasn't a featured speaker; I had to dig deep to find any mention of his course or presentations at SIGGRAPH.

The only notable facts I can find about Hecker are the GDC gaffe and people excoriating him for ruining Spore, ranging from here to here to here. The rest is mostly stuff that doesn't pass WP:PROF, so I doubt it'll pass here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, here are 10 pages on Wikipedia itself that reference Hecker directly, including pages on such fundamental physics concepts as the coefficient of restitution and Rodrigues' formula: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. More importantly, Google actually considers him a more authoritative reference on rigid body dynamics than Wikipedia itself, as he is the number one hit for "rigid body dynamics" [16], which seems notable in and of itself given that that is a large field with a long scientific history.

Again, the focus on notability is on the amount and quality of secondary sources, and I think it's abundantly clear that Hecker has been included in a vast number of secondary sources across the board, including print publications such as The New York Times [17] and Wired [18][19] [20] [21]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmuratori (talk • contribs) 05:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So, after doing more research, it is abundantly clear that your objections to notability are unfounded. First, it turns out Hecker's SIGGRAPH paper was not only a featured paper, but was in fact the only paper about which SIGGRAPH issued a separated press release for the 2008 conference [22]. By contrast, they issued no press releases for any papers at all in 2007 [23]. That speaks volumes to how important the conference organizers obviously thought it was, and so I have included that in the article.

As for your assertion about the GDC, all I can say is that if you want to make that assertion in an effort to denote this page, then you will first need to go and take up that discussion on the GDC page [24]. Clearly, Wikipedia does not currently feel the GDC to be inconsequential, and until it does, then clearly being on the advisory board of the largest game development conference (as the page says) is important.

And as for the IGDA award conferring notability, out of 9 recipients, 8 have Wikipedia pages, none of which are marked as questionably notable.--Cmuratori (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the citation tag, as there are now a number of high-quality citations, certainly far more per fact than most Wiki pages I have seen that do not bear the tag. I am waiting on the removal of the notability tag until Black and I finish discussing it (or others step in with comments).--Cmuratori (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the notability tag. Based on the above discussion, I think there is ample evidence pointing to the fact that Hecker is at least as notable, if not more notable, than a large number of other game developer biographies on Wikipedia which do not bear the tag. I would request ample evidence to the contrary before the tag should be reinstated.--Cmuratori (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't declare the discussion over because I want to spend my weekend with my wife.

Understand the difference between articles about Hecker and articles in which Hecker was sought for comment. The former is associated with a notable person, the latter is associated with an expert. In this case, the only time we have stories about Hecker (instead of stories where Hecker offered comment) are this and the handful of stories about him supposedly screwing up Spore. The rest of this article is built on a tenuous web of press releases, personal sites, and Hecker offering comment on other subjects.

I don't think GDC isn't notable. I don't think merely being associated with a notable organization isn't necessarily proof that you yourself merit your own article. The other recipients of the particular GDC Awards are dissimilar; they include heads of the GDC board, company presidents and CEOs, published musicians, and whatever you want to call John Carmack.

This person often offers expert commentary. This doesn't mean he is himself notable, and even if he is, this article does not currently give due weight to what has actually been written about Hecker. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to the Wikipedia Notability guidelines for creative professionals, Hecker passes both the 1st and 3rd conditions easily and the 2nd and 4th conditions most likely. This one doesn't seem like much of a question. Behind probably only John Carmack and Mike Abrash, Chris Hecker is the best known game programmer in the industry (which is the first condition). The 3rd condition is satified by Spore, but also the articles in Wired, NYTimes, the books Renegades of the Empire, and Opening the Xbox - as well as the Indie Game Jam! The 2nd condition could be considered satified by his articles on software rendering who's techniques are _still_ being used in software renderers like Larrabee and Pixomatic. The 4th condition could be considered satisfied by his Siggraph papers, and the Indie Game Jam. Hecker only needs _one_ of these conditions to be satisfied, and he has two completely, and the other two probably. Honestly, as a game developer, this debate is kind of silly - Hecker is one of the most (and in the running for _the most_) notable game developers in the entire industry. Any game developer would tell you that. DingerDanger (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If these sources could be cited in the article, that'd be a big help. Right now, the article does an awful job of showing that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Black, to which sources, specifically, are you referring? If you like, I will take some time to do the research and editing to integrate them in to the article once I know which ones you think are important for inclusion.--Cmuratori (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(in the meantime, I have expanded the article a bit into a more proper article, and included some more discussion about Hecker's effect on the industry with respects to notability, so hopefully this will help as well.)--Cmuratori (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chris Hecker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202172644/http://seattle.siggraph.org/seacg.html to http://seattle.siggraph.org/seacg.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915102611/http://experimental-gameplay.org:80/info.html to http://www.experimental-gameplay.org/info.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919041719/http://experimental-gameplay.org:80/2002/index.html to http://experimental-gameplay.org/2002/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125184711/http://experimental-gameplay.org:80/2003/index.html to http://experimental-gameplay.org/2003/index.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gamespot.com/news/6146126.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090117234541/http://experimental-gameplay.org:80/goodstuff.html to http://experimental-gameplay.org/goodstuff.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability

Why the subject is notable wasn't very clear 10 years ago (see discussion above), and is even less clear today. Writing one influencial graphics paper is great, but probably not enough to establish academic notability. (see the 'average professor test') It looks like Hecker became more known at the time for taking part in some kind of long-forgotten controversy.