• You are not logged in.

BIG problem: Wikipedia

  • Started by NeoMenlo
  • 58 Replies:
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Horsham, West Sussex, UK
  • Registered: 11-Jun-2007
  • Posts: 86

No, the problem is getting an article in the first place. It has been blocked from being re-created because somebody did precisely that several times after it was deleted following an AfD discussion.

In theory, the fact that an article is biased will not in itself result in it being deleted from Wikipedia as long as it is possible to redress the balance, though in practice it sometimes does. The issue at stake here is establishing notability. In other words, providing strong evidence that Colemak is more than just Yet Another Keyboard Layout. That is why I said get some good references and sources together to submit to a deletion review.

In the end of the day it is a bit of a lottery anyway as to what stays and what goes though. I know what I think on the matter -- heck, if an idea as whacked out as Globus Cassus can survive an AfD then you'd have thought that Colemak should have a fighting chance if presented the right way.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 1
  • Registered: 19-Jun-2007
  • Posts: 17

not to mention the huge amount of stubs with like one paragraph of information.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 214
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,360

I was thinking that if you could present a "value-neutral" alternative you might have a better chance of surviving the review? Present such an alternative during the trial?

The comment on notability puzzles me. Aren't almost all articles in an encyclopedia about "just another" something? I would never dream of deleting an article on bonobos because they are "just another chimp" for instance? If a bonobo article claimed that they're better than other primates I'd want it edited though.

Notability should at any rate be connected to what claims you're making. If you claim that Colemak is the best layout you should need solid evidence with references for it. If you claim that it's a keyboard layout created with so-and-so design choices, all you should need ought to be a link to Shai's statements on that. This is a pedia, not a patent bureau, dammit! If the pedia demands strong evidence that something is more than something else for each article in there, that's absurd.

*** Learn Colemak in 2–5 steps with Tarmak! ***
*** Check out my Big Bag of Keyboard Tricks for Win/Linux/TMK... ***

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Köln, Germany
  • Registered: 01-Apr-2007
  • Posts: 264

Writing a stub is definitely the wrong way to go. If we write an article, it has to be detailed and well-researched. Wikipedia says that the more detailed the article when it is created, the less likely that it will be deleted. That is perhaps why the earlier verisions got deleted.

I do not understand the thing about the notability though. I always thought wikipedia is a place you go for research, i.e., if you want to know about something and need concise information and sources. Sometimes I don't get Wikipedia.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 214
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,360

It doesn't have to be a stub to be without unreferenced claims. It just has to be without contestable details (such as the alleged effect of Colemak on RSI - other than possibly in a mention of Shai's intents).

Wikipedia is not a place to go to for research results, if that's what you mean. Being a lexicon, it is a place to go to look up research and facts. This means that no original research can be posted at Wikipedia first, but has to be backed by strong support in the form of references/sources before making it. You cannot present your data and findings directly on Wikipedia for the first time.

It's the balance between this restriction and the need to prove your topic's "merit"/uniqueness that I don't understand.

*** Learn Colemak in 2–5 steps with Tarmak! ***
*** Check out my Big Bag of Keyboard Tricks for Win/Linux/TMK... ***

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Horsham, West Sussex, UK
  • Registered: 11-Jun-2007
  • Posts: 86

How many regular Wikipedians do we have knocking about here? You may be interested in the last user box on my user page. If you want to use it, just add {{User:Jammycakes/userbox/Colemak}} to your own user pages.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Horsham, West Sussex, UK
  • Registered: 11-Jun-2007
  • Posts: 86

OK I've started a new draft Colemak article in my Wikipedia user space. You can get away with more in your user pages (which are intended for things such as writing draft articles and the like) though they are not part of the main encyclopedia. Once we get something that makes a good case for notability we can perhaps put in our deletion review request.

The article is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jammycakes/Colemak

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Köln, Germany
  • Registered: 01-Apr-2007
  • Posts: 264

Nice and concise start.
You can be more precise about the easier-to-learn bit though! Just say that it is easier to learn than Dvorak for those who have typed with QWERTY before, which is kind of a fact. Remember: the article didn't neccessarily get deleted because it was claiming untrue things or advertising cmk, it was merely the notability. Therefore, I think we should wait at least until the end of this year and until new statistics are out until we possibly request recreation.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Horsham, West Sussex, UK
  • Registered: 11-Jun-2007
  • Posts: 86

Chip in and edit it then - anyone can, and I don't mind :)

Can I encourage everyone who has an active Wikipedia account and uses Colemak to put the userbox on their user pages? It would give some indication of support for Colemak within the Wikipedia community. However, please don't create multiple throwaway logins for the purpose. This is called "sockpuppetry" and while it can't always be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, there are telltale signs that raise warning bells. A lot of accounts whose only edit is to add a Colemak box to their user page would look rather suspicious, for example.

Offline
  • 0