• You are not logged in.

BIG problem: Wikipedia

  • Started by NeoMenlo
  • 58 Replies:
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Köln, Germany
  • Registered: 01-Apr-2007
  • Posts: 264

colemakwikipediapx3.jpg
There you go; that's how far i am... still not finished though!

Last edited by vilem (14-Apr-2007 09:54:35)
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Köln, Germany
  • Registered: 01-Apr-2007
  • Posts: 264

https://img143.imageshack.us/img143/806 … diapx3.jpg

Last edited by vilem (14-Apr-2007 09:54:53)
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 211
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,345

I like what you're doing here, Vilem! But one thing that's missing is references. If you don't have those it'll get blown out of the water. Since it isn't finished yet I suppose you're getting to that bit, but I'm just mentioning it anyway. If you haven't already, study David "Qwertie" Piepgrass' article (linked to from the main page) and I think most of the references you need are in there.

Especially when you claim something that someone (a Dvorak enthusiast or a person who gets annoyed by this for instance) may contest, a solid reference base becomes necessary. This also shows that this layout is well researched and not just thrown together like some others, a point we're eager to make.

*** 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

yeah, the main reason why i haven't launched it yet is because i need to find all the sources! If i don't include the references, my article will be ripped to shreds in no time...

And also, as you might have noticed, I'm trying to be as subtle and polite as i can: instead of writing

== The Advantages of Colemak ==

I wrote

== The Ideas behind the Layout ==

:D

DreymaR said:

Look, NeoMenlo and Vilem: Could you guys try to refrain from spamming down the forum with chat please? Send each other emails if you want to banter; it gets so cluttered up here. Counting the keys that stay the same isn't a matter for the forums but for your eyes (or an email if you cannot count). Nor is discussing timezones in great length and an excessive post number.

Sometimes, a "chat post" in the forums is okay. But in that case, make a new topic so you don't bury something useful with it. Some readers will tire of your jolly chitchat and lose the thread. Others like me, will just get grumpy and lose their cool.  :)

lol you're right... there's not much I can say!

Last edited by vilem (14-Apr-2007 13:34:45)
Offline
  • 0
  • Shai
  • Administrator
  • Reputation: 36
  • Registered: 11-Dec-2005
  • Posts: 423
vilem said:

and by the way, when typing german, I can't really just say "the colemak", it sounds kinda wrong.

The article name should be "Colemak", there's no need for acronyms. Take a look at the Dvorak-Tastaturlayout article. They use most of the time "Dvorak", not "Das Dvorak-Tastaturlayout" and not DTL or something.

Offline
  • 0
  • Shai
  • Administrator
  • Reputation: 36
  • Registered: 11-Dec-2005
  • Posts: 423
DreymaR said:

Look, NeoMenlo and Vilem: Could you guys try to refrain from spamming down the forum with chat please? Send each other emails if you want to banter; it gets so cluttered up here. Counting the keys that stay the same isn't a matter for the forums but for your eyes (or an email if you cannot count). Nor is discussing timezones in great length and an excessive post number.

Sometimes, a "chat post" in the forums is okay. But in that case, make a new topic so you don't bury something useful with it. Some readers will tire of your jolly chitchat and lose the thread. Others like me, will just get grumpy and lose their cool.  :)

I would also appreciate it if the forum would be less chatty. It's getting very difficult to follow the thread of discussion, e.g. my response for your message above is on a new page, and it's only been about 12 hours. You should edit your messages instead of posting multiples messages. Also please try not to stray too much from the topic of the thread.

Last edited by Shai (14-Apr-2007 13:44:14)
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Köln, Germany
  • Registered: 01-Apr-2007
  • Posts: 264

Yeah, I always put like 3 posts after another...
Anyways, do you know german, shai?

Also, anyone know of a source that states that the caps lock key is of little use today? This is important.

Am I right to say, that the final version of colemak was released on the 1.1.2006? Shai, would it be possible for you to state that somewhere on the website, so i can refer to that in the article? Thanks!

Last edited by vilem (14-Apr-2007 15:57:22)
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 05-Oct-2006
  • Posts: 105

http://capsoff.org/competition:results

is this the one that you mean?

Sometimes, a "chat post" in the forums is okay. But in that case, make a new topic so you don't bury something useful with it. Some readers will tire of your jolly chitchat and lose the thread. Others like me, will just get grumpy and lose their cool.  :)

Aye Aye captain.

Last edited by NeoMenlo (14-Apr-2007 17:36:13)
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Köln, Germany
  • Registered: 01-Apr-2007
  • Posts: 264

no, i didn't mean that one, but its okay now, i found something, and it's even in german

I need someone to tell me
1) The number of keys that move between qwerty and Colemak
2) The number of keys that move between dvorak and qwerty
3) The number of keys that switch hands between dvorak and qwerty
for the wikipedia article please.

I did count them, but I'm not sure about my figures, i think it's better to ask the experts... For instance I counted 31 keys changing between dvorak and qwerty. I'd better not put any figures in my article about which I'm not sure!

Also, has anyone got an idea for a source that might suggest that typing is potentially faster with colemak?

Okay, I searched around and found out the following
1) 17
2) 33
3) 22

Last edited by vilem (15-Apr-2007 21:34:07)
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Köln, Germany
  • Registered: 01-Apr-2007
  • Posts: 264
vilem said:

Am I right to say, that the final version of colemak was released on the 1.1.2006? Shai, would it be possible for you to state that somewhere on the website, so i can refer to that in the article? Thanks!

Please answer, I need to know this, because I don't want to write any wrong things into wikipedia! (even though it's 'only' the german one. ;D

Last edited by vilem (15-Apr-2007 22:20:57)
Offline
  • 0
  • Shai
  • Administrator
  • Reputation: 36
  • Registered: 11-Dec-2005
  • Posts: 423

Yes, it was released on 1-1-2006. It's mentioned in the first question of the FAQ.

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

Oh... Sorry I'll try to research better next time. Were there any releases previously? I mean any unfinished versions of the layout.

Offline
  • 0
  • Shai
  • Administrator
  • Reputation: 36
  • Registered: 11-Dec-2005
  • Posts: 423

Yes, there were a few, but I don't think they're relevant to the article, I prefer if they weren't mentioned.

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

Is it okay if I write "The final version was released on Jan. 1st 2006" though, or should I write "It was released on Jan. 1st 2006"?

Okay, I will keep it as the former, as I've worded it in such a way as that it doesn't neccessarily say that there have been any previous versions.

Last edited by vilem (15-Apr-2007 22:20:27)
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 05-Oct-2006
  • Posts: 105

Even worse news.

The wiki article on the Colemak keyboard just surpassed colemak.com on Google.

On the better side, here is one argument that we can use:

Shai said:

Colemak users: 350-700 (my estimate)
Downloads: 3611 (excluding bots, total since 01-Jan-2006)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto

Wiki said:

Esperanto is the most widely spoken constructed international auxiliary language. ... The word itself means 'one who hopes'. Zamenhof's goal was to create an easy and flexible language as a universal second language to foster peace and international understanding.

Although no country has adopted the language officially, it has enjoyed continuous usage by a community estimated at between 100,000 and 2 million speakers. By some estimates, there are about a thousand native speakers.

This very little known or used language has a very long article.

It has just about as many users as the Colemak Keyboard layout

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 09-May-2007
  • Posts: 17

Well, before we go all crazy trying to build a wikipedia article for colemak, perhaps we should make sure that there are references to it first.
I just added Colemak to the "Original" section of the Keyboard layouts page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_layout#Original

edit: I also urge you all to slow down a bit, and consider the policies of Wikipedia on articles.
In particular,
1. No original research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia … l_research
2. Notability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

I believe that the deletion of the article was NOT unfair at the time. I wouldn't be surprised if the actual number of full-time users of Colemak is lower than Shai's estimate of 350-700. Note that there are still fewer than 200 people bookmarking colemak.com on delicious.

Nonetheless, with Colemak making (minor) appearances on Slashdot, Metafilter, and some prominent blogs (e.g. the creator of Ruby, Matz), a case can probably be made for a page. Which would definitely help with promotion.

What could help more, however, would be more success stories!

Last edited by zubari (18-May-2007 08:08:51)
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 2
  • From: Houston, Texas
  • Registered: 03-Jan-2007
  • Posts: 358
zubari said:

I believe that the deletion of the article was NOT unfair at the time. I wouldn't be surprised if the actual number of full-time users of Colemak is lower than Shai's estimate of 350-700. Note that there are still fewer than 200 people bookmarking colemak.com on delicious.

what is "delicious" ?

Just to keep in mind, there are heavy Colemak users out there like me that don't spend time or even know what all these sites out there that purport to track things. 

but good point anyway about creating links on existing Wiki pages.  Wikipedia still gets a big fat finger from me for their editors attitude to something I find extremely useful.

clueless and loving it,
KBS

-- I don't play video games, I spend my time playing with real swords. :-)  ----

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 20-Oct-2006
  • Posts: 111

http://del.icio.us/  A social bookmarking site with a clever name.  Popular with the Web 2.0 crowd.

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

I am really obsessed with the idea of having a colemak article in the wikipedias. I really think that colemak would gain popularity if loads of people get to know about it and wikipedia is exactly the right place something like that. Of course an article in the russian wikipedia, for instance, is not as useful as one in a language which uses roman letters and has a letter frequency comparable to English, but it will still get people to be aware of colemak and it could persuade the guys at the English wikipedia to allow the creation of the article. I've noticed that there are quite a few people with japanese abilities around. Would someone care to make an article in the japanese wikipedia if I give you an English translation of my article as a guideline? *silence....* anyone??!

In the meanwhile, I think we should add a very short and concise section about colemak to the wikipedia keyboard layout article.

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

Having spent some time on Wikipedia and gotten to know what makes it tick, here are some comments:

The article was nominated as an AfD (Article for Deletion) in November last year. AfD discussions usually last for a week or so, and anyone can participate in them, including unregistered users. They are advertised at the top of the article along with an invitation for all interested parties to have their say. At the end of the discussion, a decision is made by the closing administrator based on everyone's comments. It can sometimes be a bit of a lottery, especially when the consensus is not clear. However, in this case there was a clear consensus that Colemak is not notable enough for Wikipedia. The original author of the article was even one of the ones who recommended deletion.

It appears that the article was subsequently re-created and then deleted a further four times. It was protected from re-creation because it had been re-created several times, presumably without any evidence being presented that its notability had increased since the AfD discussion. This tends to be frowned upon by the Wikipedia community.

So what to do about it?

The best way to proceed is via a deletion review request. You can submit one by following the instructions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review though you will need to demonstrate that Colemak is more than just Yet Another Keyboard Layout. Get together some reliable sources that establish notability: are there any notable users, for instance? Any mentions in the mainstream press? Any peer reviewed papers? How notable was the Caps Off award? Blogs alone don't tend to hold a great deal of weight, unless they are particularly high profile (think Joel on Software, Robert Scoble, etc). Remember that the overwhelming majority of Wikpedians use QWERTY and are not impressed by statistics alone.

A deletion review works much like an AfD discussion except in reverse. It gets discussed for a few days then a consensus is reached. Resist the temptation to all pile in at once and try and shout down the deletionists: a large number of new accounts and anonymous editors piling in on a discussion tends to raise suspicions of either (a) off-wiki canvassing, or (b) sockpuppetry (multiple accounts created by the same person to try and stack the deck in debates such as these). These tactics are generally frowned on and can backfire in a big way if someone picks up on them.

vilem said:

I really think that colemak would gain popularity if loads of people get to know about it and wikipedia is exactly the right place something like that.

The problem there is that Wikipedia has a policy against being used for advocacy, advertising and so on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#SOAP

Last edited by jammycakes (17-Jun-2007 02:53:46)
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Köln, Germany
  • Registered: 01-Apr-2007
  • Posts: 264
jammycakes said:
vilem said:

I really think that colemak would gain popularity if loads of people get to know about it and wikipedia is exactly the right place something like that.

The problem there is that Wikipedia has a policy against being used for advocacy, advertising and so on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#SOAP

Of course I know about that. What I mean is that people will get to know about it from Wikipedia. I'm not saying we should advertise it!

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

Which is called "advocacy". Which is what WP:NOT#SOAP doesn't like, unfortunately.

It seems that the two best sources for Colemak notability are the Caps Off competition and David Piepgrass's paper, but somehow I don't think that's going to cut much ice in a deletion review. Chances are someone will say "Who is David Piepgrass, and has his paper been peer reviewed?"

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

I think you still don't get me, sorry! What I mean is that the mere fact that the article exists already attracts attention to cmk. If the article gives balanced info, and thus says that it is better, people will get interested in cmk. After all, we are saying the truth.

Last edited by vilem (17-Jun-2007 22:19:19)
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Horsham, West Sussex, UK
  • Registered: 11-Jun-2007
  • Posts: 86

That is true, but it is still advocacy in the eyes of the Wikipedia community. That is why they insist on a certain level of notability -- and verifiability -- before articles can pass AfD. The important thing to do is to get those references together to submit to a deletion review.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 211
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,345

One may just have to build this up extremely carefully. Starting out with the fact that Colemak exists, a bare bone mention with a link to this site and the merest skeleton of a dry description. That should be low-key enough not to count as advocacy I hope? So no statistics nor mention of RSI or anything, as those can easily be perceived as evangelizing. Just the fact that it's an alternative layout made by Shai in 2006 in an attempt to make a new layout with similar merits to Dvorak while moving less keys and keeping many shortcut keys in place, and maybe that it has a bit of a following but not the stable position of Dvorak? Not mentioning any of the things we're dying to say yet, such as the many installs and blah blah.

If such a "dry" article could be made to pass the needle's eye for a while, then at least we'd have a presence and it could then later be built on.

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

Offline
  • 0