3 ms·

the project that i'd like to see is a beta area where the notability requirements are relaxed, with some sort of semi-automated process for promotion, with the

by nqzero 9y ago

the project that i'd like to see is a beta area where the notability requirements are relaxed, with some sort of semi-automated process for promotion, with the ultimate goal of covering a much larger corpus wikipedia is great for mainstream stuff, but even technologies with vibrant communities often lack a wikipedia page. and i'm sure the problem extends well past tech

hk__2 9y ago
> but even technologies with vibrant communities often lack a wikipedia page Do you mind mentioning some of them?
- ghaff 9y ago
  Real quick search but, for example, linkerd does not have a page and fluentd is little more than a stub. There is separately a list of Linux Foundation projects and one can argue that they don't need their own page. But it does point out that there's a lot of inconsistency about the quality and depth of articles. Lots of articles are pretty good but then I'll hit some important tech topic that has a pretty bad entry. Things like biographies are also wildly uneven depending upon how currently well-known a person is.
  - tonyztan 9y ago
    If the topic is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, anyone is free to go ahead and improve the article. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't write articles or decide what topics to include; the Wikipedia community does that, at no cost to the Wikimedia Foundation. Anyone who wants to contribute can join the community at any time. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia does not allow original research, so if a topic doesn't have much reliable third party coverage, then the article wouldn't be able to include a lot of details.
WikipediasBad 9y ago
There's a site that tries to do that exact thing called Everipedia, but they have been frequently lambasted in the press for being wrong in their articles. I assume you can't relax notability while at the same time selecting for accuracy. Still though, they are getting pretty decent traffic, and I like their site design. Valiant effort, not that great execution.
- Max_Mustermann 9y ago
  Everipedia is a blatant copy cat site run by a guy who doesn't let anyone correct the BS on the article on him on his site. See https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/74ba05/slug/dnxddsy https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/74ba05/slug/dnxd...
  - WikipediasBad 9y ago
    What do you mean? I went to that thread and came out more confused than enlightened. And ya, I know they get stuff wrong from the news, I already said that in my original post, I wasn't trying to shill for them, I made that pretty clear.

by nqzero 9y ago

hk__2 9y ago

> but even technologies with vibrant communities often lack a wikipedia page Do you mind mentioning some of them?

ghaff 9y ago
Real quick search but, for example, linkerd does not have a page and fluentd is little more than a stub. There is separately a list of Linux Foundation projects and one can argue that they don't need their own page. But it does point out that there's a lot of inconsistency about the quality and depth of articles. Lots of articles are pretty good but then I'll hit some important tech topic that has a pretty bad entry. Things like biographies are also wildly uneven depending upon how currently well-known a person is.
- tonyztan 9y ago
  If the topic is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, anyone is free to go ahead and improve the article. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't write articles or decide what topics to include; the Wikipedia community does that, at no cost to the Wikimedia Foundation. Anyone who wants to contribute can join the community at any time. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia does not allow original research, so if a topic doesn't have much reliable third party coverage, then the article wouldn't be able to include a lot of details.

WikipediasBad 9y ago

There's a site that tries to do that exact thing called Everipedia, but they have been frequently lambasted in the press for being wrong in their articles. I assume you can't relax notability while at the same time selecting for accuracy. Still though, they are getting pretty decent traffic, and I like their site design. Valiant effort, not that great execution.

Max_Mustermann 9y ago
Everipedia is a blatant copy cat site run by a guy who doesn't let anyone correct the BS on the article on him on his site. See https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/74ba05/slug/dnxddsy https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/74ba05/slug/dnxd...
- WikipediasBad 9y ago
  What do you mean? I went to that thread and came out more confused than enlightened. And ya, I know they get stuff wrong from the news, I already said that in my original post, I wasn't trying to shill for them, I made that pretty clear.