3 ms·

I think they have a point in that case. You didn't have any interest in contributing until you had a startup you needed to promote. Also, unless your startup is

by koube 10y ago

I think they have a point in that case. You didn't have any interest in contributing until you had a startup you needed to promote. Also, unless your startup is notable it's not supposed to have an article. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list... If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Whether_to_create_standalone_pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Whether_t...

smcmurtry 10y ago
I actually had been contributing small edits for grammar anonymously for a while, and was interested in getting more involved in Wikipedia. My intention wasn't to promote my employer, I just thought it met the notability requirements.
delhanty 10y ago
I agree with the above. However, from my experience in CAD, Wikipedia's notability and importance ratings are strongly skewed towards open-source and against commercial systems. High-importance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FreeCAD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FreeCAD Low-importance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SolidWorks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SolidWorks No disrespect meant to the FreeCAD folks, but that is definitely back-to-front! The article on Solidworks lists 165,000 companies using the product as of 2013. How is that low-importance? The skew tends to be even worse against enterprise class systems.
- razwall 10y ago
  Those importance ratings are utterly unimportant. In the vast majority of cases, they are just the opinion of a single editor who looked at the article for 10 seconds, and they only affect how the article is listed in some automated report that nobody ever looks at.
fenomas 10y ago
> You didn't have any interest in contributing until you had a startup you needed to promote. That's one explanation of the facts but it's not the only one. Any new user is likely to start out by contributing on topics close to them - places they've worked, technologies they've worked with, etc. If employees aren't allowed to make articles on their employers then that's that. But treating a new account differently than an old one is just assuming bad faith.
crdb 10y ago
Additionally, "referenced some news articles" is not sufficient for notability because most startup coverage is PR [1]. Unfortunately, when you get genuine independent journalism, it is also not positive coverage (e.g. Theranos, Magic Leap). [1] http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html

by koube 10y ago

smcmurtry 10y ago

I actually had been contributing small edits for grammar anonymously for a while, and was interested in getting more involved in Wikipedia. My intention wasn't to promote my employer, I just thought it met the notability requirements.

delhanty 10y ago

I agree with the above. However, from my experience in CAD, Wikipedia's notability and importance ratings are strongly skewed towards open-source and against commercial systems. High-importance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FreeCAD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FreeCAD Low-importance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SolidWorks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SolidWorks No disrespect meant to the FreeCAD folks, but that is definitely back-to-front! The article on Solidworks lists 165,000 companies using the product as of 2013. How is that low-importance? The skew tends to be even worse against enterprise class systems.

razwall 10y ago
Those importance ratings are utterly unimportant. In the vast majority of cases, they are just the opinion of a single editor who looked at the article for 10 seconds, and they only affect how the article is listed in some automated report that nobody ever looks at.

fenomas 10y ago

> You didn't have any interest in contributing until you had a startup you needed to promote. That's one explanation of the facts but it's not the only one. Any new user is likely to start out by contributing on topics close to them - places they've worked, technologies they've worked with, etc. If employees aren't allowed to make articles on their employers then that's that. But treating a new account differently than an old one is just assuming bad faith.

crdb 10y ago

Additionally, "referenced some news articles" is not sufficient for notability because most startup coverage is PR [1]. Unfortunately, when you get genuine independent journalism, it is also not positive coverage (e.g. Theranos, Magic Leap). [1] http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html