6 ms·

Wikipedia does a lot to prevent new users participating. The mediawiki software is very confusing and has a lot of different functionality crammed in to the sam

by ndnxhs 8y ago

Wikipedia does a lot to prevent new users participating. The mediawiki software is very confusing and has a lot of different functionality crammed in to the same page edit tool that doesn't even make sense. I attemped to create a page about a slightly obscure file format with all the information I had found while developing with it. I linked to all the sources I found that helped me understand it and my submission was rejected because my sources were not academic enough so I removed those sources and added the only official source in existence which is a zip file containing code examples and example files. My second edit was rejected for not sourcing all of my info. Literally the only info available is the zip and forum posts. I mainly used the forum posts while learning and verified it against the data I was seeing in the file. How am I meant to share this info for others to benefit from? If I make it in to a blog post it's not an acceptable source but if I post it as a PDF and pretend its some wanky research paper then it probably would get accepted.

jononor 8y ago
I would put it on Github. Check Stack Overflow and google for has questions about the format, answer there and point to your repo.
rerx 8y ago
> I attemped to create a page about a slightly obscure file format with all the information I had found while developing with it. One of the core principles of Wikipedia is "No original research". Your proposed article sounds like it was just that. The Wikipedia editors would rather have you share that research in a blog post or similar.
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  Well all the info I have about it comes from a single source published by the developers of the format but apparently just one reference isn't good enough.
  - bonoboTP 8y ago
    That source (published by the developers) is a primary source. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, are tetriary sources that are based on secondary sources and not directly on primary sources. In other words, unless there are reliable secondary sources to base the article on, it is considered original research and is not a good fit for Wikipedia. I guess part of the reason that new contributors feel bad is confusion about the goals and nature of Wikipedia itself.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      It's not just goals and nature. It's rules that can be pretty silly and unhelpful when they're taken to extremes rather than applied sensibly. In this case you have documentation that can't be referenced in a Wikipedia article. Yet, if someone wrote a blog post that liberally quoted that documentation, that would probably be an acceptable source. The basic ideas of not doing original research or relying on primary sources are fine. But writing just about any article requires synthesizing multiple sources to some degree. Rules are one thing. Saying that the documentation is not a suitable source for information about a file format is something else.
      - commoner 8y ago
        Wikipedia does consider the documentation suitable for supporting information in the article, but not suitable for establishing the topic's notability. The article needs independent sources (as in, secondary sources that are financially and editorially independent of the company who develops the .mix file type) to show that the topic warrants an article. If an article has enough sources cited to show notability, primary sources like documentation pages can be used. If notability is not shown, then the topic doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and the content of the article is moot. Without this requirement, any company would be able to publish promotional articles on all of its products, and exclusively use its own web pages as citations. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are in place to prevent spam and to ensure that topics only get articles if they can be written about in a neutral way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_usin...
- loup-vaillant 8y ago
  The original research has been done by the company inventing the file format. Reporting on it is not original research.
commoner 8y ago
The file format you tried to write about isn't notable enough to have its own article in Wikipedia. The notability guidelines are there to prevent people from writing about things that can't be verified by reliable sources, and it's a mechanism to help ensure that articles are accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability While not every topic belongs on Wikipedia, there are a number of other places where your article would be appreciated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternative_outlets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternative_outlets
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  It is a very notable file format used by many devices and lots of software can read it. The only reason its hard to reference is because the company that develops it basically just publishes a C file with how to use it and everyone uses that to write their own implementations.
  - commoner 8y ago
    Whether something is notable or not is subjective. Since many editors collaborate on Wikipedia, there's a common standard that editors use to judge whether a topic is notable. The test is called the "general notability guideline". In short, any topic needs to have at least 2 citations to different sources that meet all of the following requirements: 1. The source provides significant coverage (at least 1-2 sizable paragraphs) of the topic 2. The source is reliable 3. The source is a secondary source that is editorially and financially independent of the subject (and of the other source) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_n... A manual for the file format would not meet requirement #3, since it's a primary source that was published by the company who developed it. This rule is in place to prevent companies from publishing information about their own products, and then promoting them on Wikipedia in a biased way.
    - ndnxhs 8y ago
ogrisel 8y ago
Putting a blog post would already be a positive contribution. Then reference it a bit, for instance by answering relevant questions on stackoverflow and linking to it to give more comprehensive details. Over time your page will naturally get referenced by Google and other search engines. Too bad it's not accepted in Wikipedia, but as long as the information is easily findable and organized as an easy to read and comprehensive enough reference, your work will be useful to many.
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  The problem with a blog post is others can't improve it to add more info or fix mistakes. The wiki format is perfect for this.
  - Sean1708 8y ago
    What about a Github Gist (or similar) or an actual code repo somewhere (wouldn't necessarily have to have actual code, could just be a readme)? Also out of interest, what is the file format?
    - ndnxhs 8y ago
      File format is .fit its used in a lot of GPS devices specifically for cycling. Its not super hard to find info on but the info is scattered over random sources

by ndnxhs 8y ago

jononor 8y ago

I would put it on Github. Check Stack Overflow and google for has questions about the format, answer there and point to your repo.

rerx 8y ago

> I attemped to create a page about a slightly obscure file format with all the information I had found while developing with it. One of the core principles of Wikipedia is "No original research". Your proposed article sounds like it was just that. The Wikipedia editors would rather have you share that research in a blog post or similar.

ndnxhs 8y ago
Well all the info I have about it comes from a single source published by the developers of the format but apparently just one reference isn't good enough.
- bonoboTP 8y ago
  That source (published by the developers) is a primary source. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, are tetriary sources that are based on secondary sources and not directly on primary sources. In other words, unless there are reliable secondary sources to base the article on, it is considered original research and is not a good fit for Wikipedia. I guess part of the reason that new contributors feel bad is confusion about the goals and nature of Wikipedia itself.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    It's not just goals and nature. It's rules that can be pretty silly and unhelpful when they're taken to extremes rather than applied sensibly. In this case you have documentation that can't be referenced in a Wikipedia article. Yet, if someone wrote a blog post that liberally quoted that documentation, that would probably be an acceptable source. The basic ideas of not doing original research or relying on primary sources are fine. But writing just about any article requires synthesizing multiple sources to some degree. Rules are one thing. Saying that the documentation is not a suitable source for information about a file format is something else.
    - commoner 8y ago
      Wikipedia does consider the documentation suitable for supporting information in the article, but not suitable for establishing the topic's notability. The article needs independent sources (as in, secondary sources that are financially and editorially independent of the company who develops the .mix file type) to show that the topic warrants an article. If an article has enough sources cited to show notability, primary sources like documentation pages can be used. If notability is not shown, then the topic doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and the content of the article is moot. Without this requirement, any company would be able to publish promotional articles on all of its products, and exclusively use its own web pages as citations. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are in place to prevent spam and to ensure that topics only get articles if they can be written about in a neutral way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_usin...
loup-vaillant 8y ago
The original research has been done by the company inventing the file format. Reporting on it is not original research.

commoner 8y ago

The file format you tried to write about isn't notable enough to have its own article in Wikipedia. The notability guidelines are there to prevent people from writing about things that can't be verified by reliable sources, and it's a mechanism to help ensure that articles are accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability While not every topic belongs on Wikipedia, there are a number of other places where your article would be appreciated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternative_outlets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternative_outlets

ndnxhs 8y ago
It is a very notable file format used by many devices and lots of software can read it. The only reason its hard to reference is because the company that develops it basically just publishes a C file with how to use it and everyone uses that to write their own implementations.
- commoner 8y ago
  Whether something is notable or not is subjective. Since many editors collaborate on Wikipedia, there's a common standard that editors use to judge whether a topic is notable. The test is called the "general notability guideline". In short, any topic needs to have at least 2 citations to different sources that meet all of the following requirements: 1. The source provides significant coverage (at least 1-2 sizable paragraphs) of the topic 2. The source is reliable 3. The source is a secondary source that is editorially and financially independent of the subject (and of the other source) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_n... A manual for the file format would not meet requirement #3, since it's a primary source that was published by the company who developed it. This rule is in place to prevent companies from publishing information about their own products, and then promoting them on Wikipedia in a biased way.
  - ndnxhs 8y ago

ogrisel 8y ago

Putting a blog post would already be a positive contribution. Then reference it a bit, for instance by answering relevant questions on stackoverflow and linking to it to give more comprehensive details. Over time your page will naturally get referenced by Google and other search engines. Too bad it's not accepted in Wikipedia, but as long as the information is easily findable and organized as an easy to read and comprehensive enough reference, your work will be useful to many.

ndnxhs 8y ago
The problem with a blog post is others can't improve it to add more info or fix mistakes. The wiki format is perfect for this.
- Sean1708 8y ago
  What about a Github Gist (or similar) or an actual code repo somewhere (wouldn't necessarily have to have actual code, could just be a readme)? Also out of interest, what is the file format?
  - ndnxhs 8y ago
    File format is .fit its used in a lot of GPS devices specifically for cycling. Its not super hard to find info on but the info is scattered over random sources