3 ms·

I'm going to guess this article was deleted because of the no original research rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wi

by rwmj 3y ago

I'm going to guess this article was deleted because of the no original research rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research). Much as I hate Wikipedia deletionism/deletionists, this is usually a good reason not to keep articles.

aftbit 3y ago
But now that he has published this as a blog post, could I rewrite it, cite his blog post and whatever sources he cited, and repost to wikipedia?
- grotorea 3y ago
  Very likely to run afoul of both notability (one source is generally not enough) and reliable source (A blog post? From who?)
- Zenst 3y ago
  Probably, even cite this post on HN as well and go for the double - reference it and guarantee be some YT vids as well that go into this era of history.
- lproven 3y ago
  I think you can see a contemporary comment to that effect on the blog post. :-) I think I wrote it in 2006 and it was deleted in 2007. The spur to write it was the release of the first Intel-based Macs, which was 2006.
- MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
  There are rumours that low-tier newspapers do this for interested parties if you give them some cash.
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    Not even low-tier in 2024. Money is scarce. I can think of some very big newspapers that will include articles for cash these days. You can find contacts to get this done for you in certain forums :)
- pdpi 3y ago
  Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources (as befits an encyclopaedia), and the blog post is a primary source for most of its content, so it would still be frowned upon.
  - andrewla 3y ago
    This would be a secondary source -- the primary source would be the manufacturers themselves. Secondary doesn't mean that there is no original research; in fact it's the opposite. Primary contains facts but no analysis or synthesis, secondary references facts established elsewhere but adds context.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lamontcg 3y ago
Yeah and it reads like a blog post and not encyclopedic. Stuff like this sentence: > Aside from its low hardware specification, perhaps the biggest perceived "design flaw" of the IBM PC was the what is nowadays called Upper Memory Area [...] IDK what the correct wikipedia response to that would be but probably citation required and NPOV. It could be made more neutral by rephrasing just to "The IBM PC architecture located I/O pages at the top of memory, limiting available RAM to 640 KiB. Alternatives such as the Victor located I/O pages at the start of memory allowing for 800-900 KiB of RAM". Let the reader come to the conclusion that they did this to try to improve the architecture, and don't assert that those architecture choices were qualitatively better, don't assert any opinions. It just sounds like the author is pleading a bit for the reader to see that other alternatives made qualitatively better choices.
brokensegue 3y ago
It was deleted for being an "Unencyclopedic essay" which seems right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Non-PC_compatible_x86_computers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...

by rwmj 3y ago

aftbit 3y ago

But now that he has published this as a blog post, could I rewrite it, cite his blog post and whatever sources he cited, and repost to wikipedia?

grotorea 3y ago
Very likely to run afoul of both notability (one source is generally not enough) and reliable source (A blog post? From who?)
Zenst 3y ago
Probably, even cite this post on HN as well and go for the double - reference it and guarantee be some YT vids as well that go into this era of history.
lproven 3y ago
I think you can see a contemporary comment to that effect on the blog post. :-) I think I wrote it in 2006 and it was deleted in 2007. The spur to write it was the release of the first Intel-based Macs, which was 2006.
MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
There are rumours that low-tier newspapers do this for interested parties if you give them some cash.
- qingcharles 3y ago
  Not even low-tier in 2024. Money is scarce. I can think of some very big newspapers that will include articles for cash these days. You can find contacts to get this done for you in certain forums :)
pdpi 3y ago
Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources (as befits an encyclopaedia), and the blog post is a primary source for most of its content, so it would still be frowned upon.
- andrewla 3y ago
  This would be a secondary source -- the primary source would be the manufacturers themselves. Secondary doesn't mean that there is no original research; in fact it's the opposite. Primary contains facts but no analysis or synthesis, secondary references facts established elsewhere but adds context.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lamontcg 3y ago

Yeah and it reads like a blog post and not encyclopedic. Stuff like this sentence: > Aside from its low hardware specification, perhaps the biggest perceived "design flaw" of the IBM PC was the what is nowadays called Upper Memory Area [...] IDK what the correct wikipedia response to that would be but probably citation required and NPOV. It could be made more neutral by rephrasing just to "The IBM PC architecture located I/O pages at the top of memory, limiting available RAM to 640 KiB. Alternatives such as the Victor located I/O pages at the start of memory allowing for 800-900 KiB of RAM". Let the reader come to the conclusion that they did this to try to improve the architecture, and don't assert that those architecture choices were qualitatively better, don't assert any opinions. It just sounds like the author is pleading a bit for the reader to see that other alternatives made qualitatively better choices.

brokensegue 3y ago

It was deleted for being an "Unencyclopedic essay" which seems right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Non-PC_compatible_x86_computers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...