5 ms·

Every year something in my brain breaks and I think "I know, I'll finally get rsync.net a wikipedia entry". This is somewhat important because the little-hitle

by rsync 10y ago

Every year something in my brain breaks and I think "I know, I'll finally get rsync.net a wikipedia entry". This is somewhat important because the little-hitler that owns (yes, owns) the "cloud storage" wikipedia page refuses all additions of cloud storage providers that "aren't notable". So therefore, rsync.net has to have a wikipedia page. This shouldn't be a problem - rsync.net has been mentioned in the press widely over the course of over 10 years - everything from articles about our warrant canary to articles about our ZFS support. In fact, other wikipedia pages mention and discuss rsync.net. You know where this is going. A perfectly well written article, well cited with 15+ citations from "respectable" journalist sources is nearly insta-deleted due to notability. Every single time. I've tried 4-5 times over the past few years. Every time it's a different little-hitler that swoops in to bravely defend wikipedia.

Cthulhu_ 10y ago
Is that something you can escalate to someone higher-up in the Wikipedia chain of command (if such a thing exists)?
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Theoretically he could exhaust the 3 revert rule with the delete-happy user (he creates it, guy deletes it 1, he puts it back 2, guy deletes it again 3), make a note on the talk page, and head to the edit war noticeboard where an admin can see it. If you don't understand any of this, you see why WP is a bureaucratic pain in the arse.
  - loeg 10y ago
    It's 3 reverts in 24h, for what it's worth. You have to have a very trigger-happy editor.
- bradleyjg 10y ago
  First you need to spend months doing minor edits around wikipeida and participating in various social functions (like talk boards) in order to develop a reputation. Otherwise nothing you do will be taken seriously. Then you need to familiarize yourself with the all the nuances of the wikipedia internal policy guidelines both as written and as practiced, because you can be sure Mr. "This is my area, no one touches it without my permission" is an expert on all that. Then and only then, will you have a shot at getting a change in that the tin pot dictator doesn't want. And you will need to be constantly vigilant that it doesn't disappear two weeks later. I've never found it worth it to go through this idiotic process.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    A very nice thing about Wikipedia is its obsessive tendency towards logging all this stuff. What's your Wikipedia username? We could look at some of the exchanges you had with more "reputable" contributors and get a sense of how valid this complaint is.
  - JimDabell 10y ago
    That's always what puts me off as well. It's turned into a bureaucratic mess – which is funny, considering that wikis were originally invented to be quick ways of collaborating with minimal effort and a low barrier to entry.
caseysoftware 10y ago
Add it to https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page They started by forking wikipedia and have expanded the notability guidelines.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- rokosbasilisk 10y ago
  wow a wiki fork is amazing. its been needed for a while too.
  - sdegutis 10y ago
    It's also extremely unlikely to ever get enough traction to steal even a tiny fraction of wikipedia's user base.
  - jerf 10y ago
    Out of curiousity, have there been any other forks that have focused on editing the content? I mean, I know there's a bajillion wikipedia mirrors that are just trying to get page views for cheap, but have there been any other forks that are actually trying to bootstrap from Wikipedia and make changes to the underlying content? As I sometimes mention, informally studying the effects of code structure on community creation is a bit of a long-running hobby of mine, and I'd be intrigued to see any other extant examples of a wikipedia fork.
- akuchling 10y ago
  The problem for forks is to get enough users to keep up with ongoing events. For example, according to Infogalactic, Leonard Cohen is still alive: https://infogalactic.com/info/Leonard_Cohen https://infogalactic.com/info/Leonard_Cohen The Chicago Cubs haven't won a World Series since 1908: https://infogalactic.com/info/Chicago_Cubs https://infogalactic.com/info/Chicago_Cubs Without enough users, a snapshot of Wikipedia will quickly decay into unreliability. Most pages don't become inaccurate that fast, but you can't know if the page you're reading is one of them or not.
lj3 10y ago
You could always submit it to Infogalactic and see what happens.
yetanotheracc 10y ago
What was the name of the article you created? The deletion log shows nothing for "rsync.net". [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=&page=rsync.net&tagfilter=&subtype= https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=...
- Declanomous 10y ago
  I didn't find any evidence of Rsync in the Cloud Storage edit history, but there is evidence that Rsync was added to the Comparison of Online Backup Services article on November 11, 2015. It was reverted less than an hour later with the comment "Thanks for the addition, but as wikipedia is not a directory, please limit the list to services with wikipedia articles." So it's at least plausible that he tried to create an article for Rsync. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_online_backup_services&type=revision&diff=690198866&oldid=690195038 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_onl... Edit: I initially thought you couldn't search for deletions older than a year. I was mistaken.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    "Deletion records go back only a year"? Could you explain what you mean by this? Here, for instance, is an AfD log I cited several years ago on HN; it works fine, as I presume do all the AfD logs for every page deleted through the normal deletion process on WP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_September_23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
    - Declanomous 10y ago
      My mistake, I tried using just a year in the search results and got older results, so I don't really know what the restrictions on the search are. I wasn't able to bring up any pages from earlier than 12 months ago without putting in a specific year. I tried using Wikipedia pages that I have bookmarked in the past but no longer exist. I understood this to mean that I couldn't access older deletions, because of the following line on the page: > Below is a list of recent deletions and restorations. edit: Either way, it appears Rsync.net would be notable, as it appears on the Warrant Canary page as having the first commercial use of a Warrant Canary. That's the only current use I can find of Rsync.net. Internet cache pages are blocked where I work, so I can't find any more information.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
They don't include your offering because it's success is not notable enough. Strangely, they do include a list of failures in another segment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_failures_in_video_gaming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_failures_in... Maybe you need to go belly up then rebound with all your customers data. You'd be a "commercial failure" plus a "significant event." That might qualify for Wikipedia. Or just keep doing business as usual. ;)
nikcub 10y ago
It's likely because of the conflict of interest rules which can go unmentioned in discussion threads Get someone else with a mild level of Wikikarma to add the same content
tptacek 10y ago
I can't find Rsync.net anywhere in the deletion logs, but one thing you might be able to remember is the username you used to add the article (or, really, to edit anything on Wikipedia). Could you give us that, and we can use it to track down the deleted article? I would not be surprised to see that you had sufficient reliable sources to sustain an Rsync.net article, so it'd be interesting to see the logic used to speedy-delete your article. One nice outcome of this would be that you'd end up with a functioning Wikipedia page. :)
mlinksva 10y ago
In the meantime, add references and statements to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27998978 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27998978 (item about rsync.net)

by rsync 10y ago

Cthulhu_ 10y ago

Is that something you can escalate to someone higher-up in the Wikipedia chain of command (if such a thing exists)?

Karunamon 10y ago
Theoretically he could exhaust the 3 revert rule with the delete-happy user (he creates it, guy deletes it 1, he puts it back 2, guy deletes it again 3), make a note on the talk page, and head to the edit war noticeboard where an admin can see it. If you don't understand any of this, you see why WP is a bureaucratic pain in the arse.
- loeg 10y ago
  It's 3 reverts in 24h, for what it's worth. You have to have a very trigger-happy editor.
bradleyjg 10y ago
First you need to spend months doing minor edits around wikipeida and participating in various social functions (like talk boards) in order to develop a reputation. Otherwise nothing you do will be taken seriously. Then you need to familiarize yourself with the all the nuances of the wikipedia internal policy guidelines both as written and as practiced, because you can be sure Mr. "This is my area, no one touches it without my permission" is an expert on all that. Then and only then, will you have a shot at getting a change in that the tin pot dictator doesn't want. And you will need to be constantly vigilant that it doesn't disappear two weeks later. I've never found it worth it to go through this idiotic process.
- tptacek 10y ago
  A very nice thing about Wikipedia is its obsessive tendency towards logging all this stuff. What's your Wikipedia username? We could look at some of the exchanges you had with more "reputable" contributors and get a sense of how valid this complaint is.
- JimDabell 10y ago
  That's always what puts me off as well. It's turned into a bureaucratic mess – which is funny, considering that wikis were originally invented to be quick ways of collaborating with minimal effort and a low barrier to entry.

caseysoftware 10y ago

Add it to https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page They started by forking wikipedia and have expanded the notability guidelines.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rokosbasilisk 10y ago
wow a wiki fork is amazing. its been needed for a while too.
- sdegutis 10y ago
  It's also extremely unlikely to ever get enough traction to steal even a tiny fraction of wikipedia's user base.
- jerf 10y ago
  Out of curiousity, have there been any other forks that have focused on editing the content? I mean, I know there's a bajillion wikipedia mirrors that are just trying to get page views for cheap, but have there been any other forks that are actually trying to bootstrap from Wikipedia and make changes to the underlying content? As I sometimes mention, informally studying the effects of code structure on community creation is a bit of a long-running hobby of mine, and I'd be intrigued to see any other extant examples of a wikipedia fork.
akuchling 10y ago
The problem for forks is to get enough users to keep up with ongoing events. For example, according to Infogalactic, Leonard Cohen is still alive: https://infogalactic.com/info/Leonard_Cohen https://infogalactic.com/info/Leonard_Cohen The Chicago Cubs haven't won a World Series since 1908: https://infogalactic.com/info/Chicago_Cubs https://infogalactic.com/info/Chicago_Cubs Without enough users, a snapshot of Wikipedia will quickly decay into unreliability. Most pages don't become inaccurate that fast, but you can't know if the page you're reading is one of them or not.

lj3 10y ago

You could always submit it to Infogalactic and see what happens.

yetanotheracc 10y ago

What was the name of the article you created? The deletion log shows nothing for "rsync.net". [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=&page=rsync.net&tagfilter=&subtype= https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=...

Declanomous 10y ago
I didn't find any evidence of Rsync in the Cloud Storage edit history, but there is evidence that Rsync was added to the Comparison of Online Backup Services article on November 11, 2015. It was reverted less than an hour later with the comment "Thanks for the addition, but as wikipedia is not a directory, please limit the list to services with wikipedia articles." So it's at least plausible that he tried to create an article for Rsync. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_online_backup_services&type=revision&diff=690198866&oldid=690195038 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_onl... Edit: I initially thought you couldn't search for deletions older than a year. I was mistaken.
- tptacek 10y ago
  "Deletion records go back only a year"? Could you explain what you mean by this? Here, for instance, is an AfD log I cited several years ago on HN; it works fine, as I presume do all the AfD logs for every page deleted through the normal deletion process on WP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_September_23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
  - Declanomous 10y ago
    My mistake, I tried using just a year in the search results and got older results, so I don't really know what the restrictions on the search are. I wasn't able to bring up any pages from earlier than 12 months ago without putting in a specific year. I tried using Wikipedia pages that I have bookmarked in the past but no longer exist. I understood this to mean that I couldn't access older deletions, because of the following line on the page: > Below is a list of recent deletions and restorations. edit: Either way, it appears Rsync.net would be notable, as it appears on the Warrant Canary page as having the first commercial use of a Warrant Canary. That's the only current use I can find of Rsync.net. Internet cache pages are blocked where I work, so I can't find any more information.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

They don't include your offering because it's success is not notable enough. Strangely, they do include a list of failures in another segment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_failures_in_video_gaming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_failures_in... Maybe you need to go belly up then rebound with all your customers data. You'd be a "commercial failure" plus a "significant event." That might qualify for Wikipedia. Or just keep doing business as usual. ;)

nikcub 10y ago

It's likely because of the conflict of interest rules which can go unmentioned in discussion threads Get someone else with a mild level of Wikikarma to add the same content

tptacek 10y ago

I can't find Rsync.net anywhere in the deletion logs, but one thing you might be able to remember is the username you used to add the article (or, really, to edit anything on Wikipedia). Could you give us that, and we can use it to track down the deleted article? I would not be surprised to see that you had sufficient reliable sources to sustain an Rsync.net article, so it'd be interesting to see the logic used to speedy-delete your article. One nice outcome of this would be that you'd end up with a functioning Wikipedia page. :)

mlinksva 10y ago

In the meantime, add references and statements to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27998978 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27998978 (item about rsync.net)