Talk:Bootstrapping/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled discussion 1

Bootstrapping is commonly used to describe a programming language compiler which is "written in itself". For example, writing a C++ compiler in C++. This can be done in several ways:

1) Initially using an existing compiler for that language possibly from a 3rd party vendor. 2) Initially coding the new compiler in a different language altogether to get a working compiler then rewrite the compiler in the new language. 3) Write the compiler in the target language and "hand-compile" the code using a hexadecimal or octal editor.

I've heard this term used to describe the PC boot process quite often and wonder if this is in error. I'm really not sure. Possibly two definitions? -Robert Lee— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.144.26 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 23 July 2002 (UTC)

Bootstrapping a compiler and bootstrapping a PC are two different things. By the way, can anyone remember the PDP-8 paper tape bootstrap sequence? I used to know it off by heart, and toggle it in twice daily... The Anome—Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 4 April 2003

Untitled discussion 2

I moved "Bootstrap" to "Bootstrapping". "To bootstrap" is a verb, whereas articles should be titled according to nouns (here, "bootstrapping".) Aside from that principled reason, "bootstrap" also "just sounded weird" as a title. --Ryguasu 21:33 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

A good move, Ryguasu. It's always called "bootstrapping", and the "most common form" rule applies. Tannin—Preceding undated comment added 00:46, 5 April 2003

Bootstrap is a verb??? Weird! No, it's not always called "bootstrapping"; the word "bootstrap" is used as a noun, and obviously was originally a noun. Michael Hardy 00:24 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Little problem with the redirect of 'bootstrap' to 'bootstrapping': there's a theory in physics by Geoffrey Chew called "Bootstrap (Theory, Approach, Philosophy, etc)". It's an outdated term to my knowledge, but it deserves an entry. Naysayer 06:31 June 5, 2005 (UTC)

Untitled discussion 3

Why does it make sense to link to Baron Münchhausen from this article? The former does not discuss anything obviously related to "pulling oneself up by the bootstraps". --Ryguasu 15:42 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

I changed some in both articles. - Patrick 00:20 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Baron Münchhausen did, according to stories, pull himself out of a swamp, but by his own hairs, not by his bootstraps. There's even a German saying that goes "to pull oneself out by one's own hairs" when somebody somehow manages to get out of an apparently hopeless situaton. So, it should be "hairpulling" if the etymology is correct.--84.135.220.161 10:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Anno)

Untitled discussion 4

I briefly discussed the origin of the term bootstrapping with Doug Engelbart, and he seemed to think it originated with stories of Paul Bunyan, who could lift "himself by his bootstraps to peer over the forest" [1]. MichaelMcGuffin 19:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Untitled discussion 5

I like the external link by Vea. I googled his name to see if he had anything else and found that the link on this wiki was outdated. I posted the new link that points to the same article, but revamped in terms of layout, detail, style, etc. 69.170.108.82 03:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I like it also, so I moved the link to booting. --DavidCary 05:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason the link was moved instead of just added wherever else you thought it applied? Does it not apply to bootstrapping? 204.126.127.253 16:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

split statistical bootstrapping into its own article?

Is the section on statistical bootstrapping big enough for its own article? (Currently, all the external links in bootstrapping seem to deal with statistical bootstrapping). What do statisticians call it? Should the article be named statistical bootstrapping or bootstrapping (statistics) or bootstrapping (math) or something else entirely? --DavidCary 05:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think a separate article on bootstrapping (and other resampling methods) would be a good idea. It is, in effect, an alternative approach to the conventional approach to statistics based on probability theory.

Bootstrap as Adjective?

Not wishing to complicate matters too much here, but in my early computing days there were such things as bootstrap code and bootstrap loaders. A machine such as a Digico M16E would employ a multibootstrap process in order to load complex software (such as an amino acid sequence analyser). Inbuilt into the firmware was a short byte sequence that could be triggered by an interrupt. It would be loaded into an area of RAM and begin running in a simple loop.

This was the core bootstrap code, and it would cycle around, waiting for and loading byte or word values provided by a punched paper tape reader (placing the values into sequential memory addresses) until the last instruction over-wrote part of the core bootstrap and caused a jump into the code that had just been loaded, which was a more complex bootstrap loader, capable of handling relative rather than absolute address references. This bootstrap would then load the main program into areas of memory and then it too would be overwritten at a key point in order to jump into the "real" program just loaded.

A complicated process, and done without the benefit of tape or disk drives of any sort (or monitor, come to that - the sole display was a small LED panel that showed values in octal). PeterBrooks 00:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Untitled discussion 6

This page is missing one use of "bootstrapping" from Philosophy. Philosophers accuse others of bootstrapping, when, for example, one believes he has reason to believe a proposition p just because he does believe the proposition p. I don't know offhand a precise definition of philosophical bootstrapping (I came to this page looking for one), but it's something that ought to be added. Npdoty 23:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

disambiguation page?

This article should be a disambiguation page. Right now, it looks like a long dictionary definition. In no way does it look like a encycopedia article (i.e. there is nothing holding the sections together except that they all use the same word). 128.135.133.123 18:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Message sending to beings who do not wait for it

Is it just me, or is the tone of this section far too conversational? The content is good, but perhaps it should be refactored to sound more encyclopaedic.

---

You are right, and also the editor contributing

13:19, 10 August 2006 TheBilly (Talk | contribs)
(original research; first person perspective
(in short, this section sucks))

is right: my contributions really do hurt No original research guideline seriously: I have not found yet any source which would use exactly term “bootstrapping” for knocking alphabet or for SETI programs.

After I have reread again the Guideline more carefully, it seems also for me that it prohibits such amount of synthesis explicitly.

I found some materials on linguistics, which use term “bootstrapping” for some related topics. So I replace my contributions with linking these sources on the Article page; and I move my unencyclopedic contributions to my Wikipedia profile.

Sorry for possible annoyance and thank You for the feedback.

Physis 01:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

By one's bootstraps

The article needed to distinguish, early on, between (1) merely using the bootstraps for putting on boots and (2) lifting oneself into the air by pulling up on the straps of the boots one is wearing. The first is a comparatively easy task--I've done it, using boot-hooks that grab the bootstraps. The second is impossible except by magic.

The allusion, for nearly all the cases of this term, is to the second use of bootstraps, where magic is obviously being invoked.

For a true feat of bootstrapping magic, consider the Burroughs B5000 Algol compiler, which was written in Algol. There was no assembler. A tiny proto-compiler was constructed, by hand, in B5000 machine language. The code resulting from the initial compilation of the (Algol-source) compiler was used to compile itself. All remaining software (such as the OS and the Fortran compiler, as well as improved Algol compilers) was written in Algol.

If I had the gumption, I would make this page into a proper disambiguation. Would someone take it on? Amazing how much work gets done in spite of all us lazy contributors!

Snezzy 21:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually don't think it's referring to the second idea at all. It's an allusion to the fact that putting on large boots without using bootstraps is very difficult, but once bootstraps are added to the boots, the process becomes quite doable.

Similarly, compiling the Algol compiler without an existing Algol compiler is very difficult (read: impossible). By adding a bare bones compiler to the mix, though, the process becomes doable. - Flooey 08:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted duplicate definition

I just deleted a definition that had just been added, because a link wasn't provided. After deleting it I realised it was already listed on this page, so the editor who added hadn't even read the page he or she was editing!—greenrd 01:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've done a good cleanup on the page; hopefully my edit summary was clear enough, but if not, feel free to drop my a line on my talk page.

On important thing; I did remove the text in the beginning that seemed half dictionary definition and half encyclopedic article and unsources. I wanted to put it on the talk page, however, in case it was ever use to someone later. See below. -- Natalya 17:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

---

As an allusion to lifting oneself up by one's own bootstraps, the term bootstrapping means using a special process to perform a task that one would be unable to do in general.

The term is said to have come from a tale from the adventures of Baron Münchhausen who, according to the story, escaped from a swamp by pulling himself up by the straps of his boots (although in other versions of the story he pulled his hair). This procedure (pulling oneself up from the mud to a level where normal movement is possible) is (to a point) comparable with a computer lifting itself up from the dead metal to a level where normal operating is possible, or by analogy the other uses below.

Bootstrapping as an article

• This Discussion was copied from proposed deletion of Bootstrap (word origin) in favor of Bootstrap being a full article rather than disambiguation

• Comment - I can certainly see the point of having this, it avoids repeating the same explanation on a number of articles. However it may as well be merged into the Bootstrapping page. I notice this content has been introduced there before, and removed citing Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), but this strikes me as a place we could ignore all rules. the wub "?!" 14:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment At the moment, Bootstrap redirects the the Bootstrapping disambiguation article. I would propose that Bootstrap instead be made into the primary topic, it being the obvious origin of all other uses of 'bootstrapping.' Within the Bootstrap article could be links to the sundry related derivative uses. I'm not sure if this should be done by simply adding the content of this article to the current Bootstrap page, or possibly simply moving this article to Bootstrap, moving the current Disambiguation page to Bootstrap (disambiguation) and then linking back to it. I do think the current title is inappropriate though. Ce1984 (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, more exactly rename it to Bootstrapping: let it be the default, main article for the topic, let it have the default redirects, while removing the default redirects from the recent Bootstrapping disambiguation page, and renaming that to Bootstrapping (disambiguation).

Argumentation: As far as I know, bootstrapping is a strange concept. It is neither a single concept, nor a bunch of unrelated concepts. It is a powerful common pattern, a sweeping analogy with its deserved place in the Platonic realm that manifests itself in many faces in the various sciences. Moreover, its semantic is not static: scientist use the term with new meanings as new manifestations are being explored. For example, we can talk about bootstrapping also

in biology

when we assume that first macromolecule-based living beings emerged "on top of" self-reproductuve clay christals. The biological faces can give rise also to analogies in architecture': How can we build a vault with one hand? The vault should be ready from the very beginning, because a half-complete vault collapases at once. First we build a hill out of stones, then we build a vault on top of it, putting the stones one by one onto the top of the hill, then we remove the stonehill from under the vault. Richard Dawkins uses this analogy in explaining the possible origin of recent self-replication big molecules and life.

in communication

the prisonars in Tzarist Russian prisons developed a means of communication: they "knocked" messages to each other on the wall. The old prisoners had to teach this "knocking alphabet" to their new prisoner-mates: they had to explain what the coding system was, how the patterns of knocks could be assigned to the letters of the Russian alphabet. But the knocking code had to be explained also by the knocking on the wall, because the captives had no chance to meet personally or exchange letters! How could they resolve this circulus vitiosus? First, they used a simpler variant. They coded each letter of the alphabet by that many knockings as the number of the letter in the Russian alphabet was: one knock, A, two knocks, B etc. This simple system could easily be taught by simple examples "Who are you?" etc. Later they taught to the novice a more sophisticated coding system "on top of" this simple one.

in the foundations of mathematics

if we build a system of logic, we often use set theory for "holding" collections, we often use natural numbers for indexing etc. That seems to be a circulus vitiosus: set theory and arithmetic is based on logic, logic is based on set theory and arithmetic? In fact, the problem can be resolved by a kind of bootstrapping: we build first a "dummy" version of arithmetic and set theory, integrated deeply in the very syntax of our system of logic, then we build our system of logic, afterwards we can use our system of logic to build the "unabridged" arithmetic and set theory.

The examples show that

1. the various faces of bootstrapping share a common, deep underlying pattern
2. bootstrapping concept is not a closed, static concept, but an evergreen developing one, with more and more new manifestations.

All that implies that a disambiguation page is not the good way to cover the concept of bootstrapping. The "main" bootstrapping artice must explain the origin of the word, and the common, deep underlying pattern, mention the many faces, manifestations, narrate the history, the dynamics of the concept, and enumerate the may various manifestations. Disambiguation pages should not be used for explaining a family of related concepts. Disambiguation pages are good for enumerating unrelated concepts that are casually pronounced materially with a common word.

Of course the disambiguation page may be still needed: there may be such meanings of word "bootstrapping" that are not covered by the above common pattern, but are an entirely casual. I am not an expert in that, but I suppose, Bootstrap Bill Turner is such a meaning of the word. This belongs surely to a disambiguation page, but many of the scientific meanings are related, covered by a shared common pattern, lead by a powerful analogy, these belong rather to an explanatory main article.

In summary: I propose

1. Renaming Bootstrap (word origin) into Bootstrapping, that will be the main article, it should have the default redirects,
2. extending the explanation of the "common pattern" in the concept family of bootsrapping
3. Keeping the etymology part and the image, they are very good in the "common" main article
4. removing the default redirect from Bootstrapping (disambiguation)
5. mentioning (and shortly explaining) Bootstrapping (computing), Bootstrapping (compilers) and Bootstrapping (linguistics) in the main article, because they are certainly covered by the "common pattern" of the concept of bootstrapping. At the same time, maybe deleting them from the disambiguation page (this can be debated).
6. Keeping those links in the disambiguation page, that are unrelated to the "common pattern" of the concept of bootstrapping
7. Each "subarticle" (e.g. Bootstrapping (computing), Bootstrapping (compilers) and Bootstrapping (linguistics), Bootstrapping (finance)) may have a link to the disambiguation page, and also a link to the main page ({{see also}} template, {{for}} template).

Analogy with shamanism: also a family of related, but very different and diverse concepts

An analogy: there is also another concept that has many special, but related faces. It is shamanism. The concept is debated: African sourceres, mediums are usually not called "shaman" (because they do not undertake a soul travel), while South-Amrican, Siberian, Bushman ad Eskimo mythological specialist are called shamans, because they share some common patterns (e.g. the soul travel).

Now the articles about shamanism are organoized in the following way:

1. There is a main article about Shamanism, it is this that has the default redirects, e.g. shaman redirects to shamanism.
2. The main article explains the "common pattern" and it links to "subarticles" like Shamanism in Siberia, Shamanism among Eskimo peoples, Shamanistic remnants in Hungarian folklore etc.
3. there is a disambiguation page for Shaman (disambiguation). It is rather a marginal page: no default redirects point to it. It enumerates such unrelated meanings like computer programs etc. named as "shaman".

I am not an expert in the following fields (far from that), but I think that bootstrapping is not the only concept that is "problematic" somehow and still has its article.

As far as I know, life has no "official" definition, we have no bulletproof method for recognizing every possible life form, still, we have a main article about life. And it has further links to the many faces to the plethora of life forms. I admit. there is also a Life (disambiguation), but it is rather marginal.

M-theory is another interesting topic. As far as I know, M-theory is not yet developed as a single theory. We do not know its "centre" yet. What we know are its "faces", special manifestations. Still, we have a main article on M-theory.

Physis (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Physis I think Physis is correct in that this is a fairly unique situation, and I think his solution is ideal. I also find it funny that the length of text in his comment is probably about double the length of the article proposed. The above is stated so eloquently that I think Physis would be the ideal candidate to write the article, and I'd say be bold, make the changes, and then we can go from there. ce1984 (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I second that. :-) Borock (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. So I converted Bootstrapping/Bootstrap from a disambiguation page to a full article. The Bootstrap (word origin) article is now redundant and may be deleted. The Bootstrap article still needs work, expanding each section with a sentence or two to summarize each referenced main page article. Greensburger (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As bootstrapping has at least one unrelated meaning (Bootstrap Bill Turner), thus a disambiguation page can be still useful. The primary topic article and the disambiguation page can be linked together with each other and with the subarticles in a sphisticated way, described in a chapter of the Manual Of Style, with templates like {{otheruses}}, {{main}}, {{for}}. Thus, we can save the administrative task of deleting Bootstrap (word origin): we simply rename it to Bootstrapping (disambiguation, and replace its (already redundant) content with listing at least the unrelated meanings (or all of them, I do not know the standard convention). I tried to illustrate that on a dry test: User:Physis/Bootstrapping interconnected with User:Physis/Bootstrapping (disambiguation). Subarticles are not integrated yet in the dry test. Physis (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank You for that You began the work with Bootstrapping, because thus You preserved the edit history this way. My original proposal would have resulted in losing the edit history. Physis (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins definitely claims the relatedness of the bootstrapping nature of genetic pathways in embryogenesis and the booting process of punched tape fed computers of the 1950s

First try for justifying the motivation. Thank You for the reassuring words, and I am sorry for the long absence. During that, I was trying to write a first sketch with primary topic about bootstrapping. Because of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, the main question was: is there at last one notable source, which definitely states that the several manifestations of bootstrapping are indeed deeply related (and not only superficially)? If this were not verified by notable authors, then new article would raise huge edit wars. But, for luck, I have found a deciding reference: Richard Dawkins definitely claims in his book River out of Eden, that embryogenesis is a bootstrapping process, with the same underlying pattern as the booting process of punched tape fed computers of the 1950s. Thus, the relatedness of at least two different manifestations have been justified by a notable author. According to this, I have prepared a first try, how the motivation for primary topic artcle can be justified: User:Physis/Bootstrapping. It is still in embryonic stage (at least its stage fits well with its own topic), but I hope it can help to prevent at least an edit war about the overall verifiability of the very idea. Physis (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the Dawkins reference. A short quote from his book with page numbers would show the conceptual linkage that led to the embryogenesis metaphor. Greensburger (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank You for the quick answer. I began to flesh out Dawkins' argumentation on User:Physis/Bootstrapping. I do not dare to merge it yet into the main namespace Bootstrapping article, because, I suppose, it would be attacked immediately: I must to fill in some holes yet (clarifications, details, even some references). I cannot quote verbatim from Dawkins' River out of Eden, because I have his book only in its Hungarian publication. I am justified to summarize it with my own words (the Hungarian publication counts as authentic), I can reference every detail with chapter titles and page numbers (I have indeed done so), but I cannot cite it verbatim. Besides of that, the argumentation is rather long, and not easy to understand in its full depth. It can be explained only by clarifying first some auxiliary concepts, I try to detail them, citing also other sources. Physis (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In the present article, I quoted from page 25 of the English version of Dawkin's book, which shows the computer bootstrapping metaphor in a biology/genetics context. You are encouraged to expand on it, citing those other sources. Greensburger (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank You very much for the verbatim citation. It is very well chosen, and epithomizes the very essence. I have worked also today on the my test variant bootstrapping article. The topic is ramified. Wikipedia expects strict criteria for articles, most importantly, it prohibits not only original research, but also original research by synthesis. Thus, if I want to write a primary topic article about the "general", "abstract" concept of bootstrapping, then I have to support all statements in the article with indirect references. The cited sources must explicitly and definitely support the claim. I am not justified to draw conclusions on my own. Thus, I think, it will take several weeks or months to work on this topic, before I can "publish" it. I want to prevent an edit war, and I try to prepare an article that is not prone to that. Physis (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

computing: setup bootstrapping?

What is about setup bootstrapping? Setup programs often come along with a bootstrapper (setup.exe) which installs the prerequisites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Maierhofer (talk • contribs) 17:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Really not sure about this article

The problem is, there's no encompassing concept.

You don't pull on literal bootstraps in business or law or computing, but the article encompasses all of them including literal bootstraps.

The article doesn't seem to be at all a single topic. Just sharing the same name or being derived from the name isn't enough; plenty of completely different things share a word derivation.

The point of encyclopedias is to not be tied to words. You're supposed to be able to totally translate the article into a completely foreign language, but I would imagine that a Chinese or Russian or native Australian (or a space alien!) would be pretty mystified why all these things are covered on one page if it was translated into their language.

With all due respect, I think it needs to go back to being a disamb page. Disambiguation pages are not supposed to grow up into articles.- Wolfkeeper 04:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There is an encompassing concept and it is expressed in the lead: "a self-sustaining process that proceeds without external help." Greensburger (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Origin of expression

The article mentions an early 20th century United States origin for the term. However, if I am not mistaken, the catchphrase occurs in Dickens' Hard Times as a favourite refrain of a great capitalist factory owner who proud of having pulled himself out of the slums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.134.12.25 (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Dicken's Hard Times was published in 1854. Does it use the word "bootstrap"? If you can supply a page number and a quoted paragraph from Hard Times to provide context for "bootstrap", that would be a welcome addition to the Bootstrapping article. Greensburger (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Bootstrapping

• A hobby entailing creating items of technology from natural items only without the benifit of any preexisting items of technology. E.g. to build a milling machine, start with wood, bellows made from animal skin, and ore bearing rocks, and smelt your own metal to make a lathe using clay to form the moulds for the items. Make a drill press using the lathe, use drill press and lathe to build milling machine. Use milling machine to build anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.183.0.21 (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Definition

Suggest replacing "proceeds" with "starts" in the definition. Bootstraps of all kinds do indeed use outside resources, once they get going. It's the starting point of self-sufficiency that is the key insight, and also ties in all the metaphors and applications.

adding more color: Every self-sustaining reaction brings about external resources to bear. For example, a bootstrap startup (my area), requires first a founder, then 2, then an idea, then customers, then an organization. The reason the process is self-sustaining is precisely because it brings in external elements in the right sequence!

If you look at the creation myths (pulling by hair or bootstraps), it's all about realizing you already have all the available resources at hand and do not need anything external (like funding in startups) to get going. Self-starting with only existing resources on hand is the key insight. In fact, where the metaphor is weak is in addressing the ongoing process. Bootstrap entrepreneurs are constantly having to add and curate new elements to help their ventures proceed to the next level. The following bootstrap map will help illustrate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgoswami (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Bootstrapping is not about cowboy boots

Bootstrapping is primarily about the data re-sampling and randomization (statistics), but it is not about the store "Allens Boots -- Cowboy Boots in Texas" as it is right now with link covered by metaphors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewBridge11 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC) I just found the subpage "Resampling(statistics) -- I am afraid that the busy reader will jump to the end and miss the middle due to the excessive length of article. NewBridge11 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

True, bootstrapping is not about leather boots, and ball bearings are not footballs (not even in shape), but there is a clear etymology and metaphorical connection. That is how languages evolve. When a new concept is invented such as the computer bootstrap load concept in the 1950s, and they needed to give it a name, the word bootstrap had already evolved through several intermediary concepts from the leather bootstrap on cowboy boots to mean a series of self-sustaining processes that proceed without external help. The 17 subsections in the "Applications" section illustrate how compelling the general concept has been. This article is not excessively long and consists of a short paragraph for each word sense, which makes it much more easy to understand than a short disambiguation page. Greensburger (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Research section

No source cited in this section about bootstrapping as a term that describes a database search technique. I've never heard that term used in that way and haven't located a source to confirm. Any objections to deleting it? Cseanburns (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This section was added 29 February 2012 by an editor who wasn't sure what main topic to link to (those are their only two article edits). I added a link to Information retrieval as my best take on what the main topic should be. The overview section says "The process may then be iterated if the user wishes to refine the query." I agree that it may be a stretch to call iterating or refining a search query "bootstrapping". Bootstrapping implies a small nudge to jump-start a more sophisticated process. Whereas many search query "processes" are already done before they even get started—the "bootstrapping" search finds what the user was looking for and ends the process before the first iteration. I agree that this section could be deleted. - Wbm1058 (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Wbm1058. Narrowing a search is often an iterative process, but is not bootstrapping. Greensburger (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Section removed. As a search strategy, it is off topic. Cseanburns (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Source 2 and 3 on the history of the word are apparently no longer available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.1.161 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I located them and updated the links. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources for "media bootstrapping"

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/theword/2009/01/bootstraps_and.html 108.39.227.211 (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)!

Biology section

The current quote from Richard Dawkins is not explained well enough. The quote is taken out of context, and not explained at all. There are better quotes from Richard Dawkins, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and Carl Sagan, etc...
Natural selection working as the self-improving process of evolution is a the perfect example of bootstrapping. This section should do that better justice. - Venture To The Stars (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposing Edits 2

The first sentence: "bootstrapping usually refers to any process that is completed **bilaterally**". Should this not be "unilaterally"?195.184.68.33 (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)