It is indeed something that makes sense. But I think it opens up a can of worms that is not just related to revisions.
Now that articles are not just text and images, they need a standard on what they can support. What version of Logo will they use? Do they have an emulator, or a transpiled JS VM? Who created that? Will that support mobile devices? How do you enter text on those? What are the licenses involved? OK, Logo is a given, but what else will they support? JavaScript? Processing? C++? What version of the compiler? Do they host it themselves or use a public service? It gets blurry. What about the article about an old computer, will they also embed an emulator? Those exist. And a game if it's public domain? It's a computer, after all, right? Where do you draw the line?
I agree with the sentiment, but there are big logistical and political problems related to that. Just look at how weird their audio/video support is already because they wanted to make sure they're using free players, free codecs, free assets.
I realize I'm only listing problems, but it's important to think of those. From my perspective, I think it's a lot more about WikiPedia picking their battles and focusing in textual information (with tidbits of other media) rather than "never thinking about that".
Actually letting people play with the technology is an awesome thing, but I wonder if WikiPedia is the place for that.
It is also worth mentioning that a vast majority of code snippets is not runnable. They are fragments of large programs, might require additional files (going far beyond some standard libraries that one can pull, etc.).
All in all it would help, but only with trivial snippets approaching hello-world complexity or self-contained examples better suited for tutorials rather than encyclopaedias.
Now that articles are not just text and images, they need a standard on what they can support. What version of Logo will they use? Do they have an emulator, or a transpiled JS VM? Who created that? Will that support mobile devices? How do you enter text on those? What are the licenses involved? OK, Logo is a given, but what else will they support? JavaScript? Processing? C++? What version of the compiler? Do they host it themselves or use a public service? It gets blurry. What about the article about an old computer, will they also embed an emulator? Those exist. And a game if it's public domain? It's a computer, after all, right? Where do you draw the line?
I agree with the sentiment, but there are big logistical and political problems related to that. Just look at how weird their audio/video support is already because they wanted to make sure they're using free players, free codecs, free assets.
I realize I'm only listing problems, but it's important to think of those. From my perspective, I think it's a lot more about WikiPedia picking their battles and focusing in textual information (with tidbits of other media) rather than "never thinking about that".
Actually letting people play with the technology is an awesome thing, but I wonder if WikiPedia is the place for that.
Good thing sites like https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos_games exist.