• You are not logged in.

Colemak on Wikipedia!

  • Started by jag50
  • 25 Replies:
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 29-Jul-2007
  • Posts: 51

Hi to everyone!   Colemak has got TWO articles in the English version of Wikipedia!  One article is dedicated to Colemak and the other one is under Keyboard layouts.  This is great news!  I can't believe it!  At last!

    _____________________________
   
my test score: http://hi-games.net/profile/871

Last edited by jag50 (14-Jun-2008 22:21:28)
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Köln, Germany
  • Registered: 01-Apr-2007
  • Posts: 264

I relaunched the German article with a few revisions! Colemak therefore already exists in THREE Wikipedias! Now, we must not think that we won't need to fight for them. ;)
I am sure they will try to delete the one in the German Wikipedia soon, so any support by anyone would be really cool.

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

Very nice.

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

It is!! Come on people, comment!!

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

I am ENRAGED: The article in the german Wikipedia got deleted without any warning. No discussion. Nothing. Which dvorak-loyal was that!? Shame on you, Wikipedia. I will upload it again later and add that I request a reason for deleting it.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Houston, Texas
  • Registered: 03-Jan-2007
  • Posts: 358

Nice Wikipedia page in English but given the references I don't see it lasting very long.

Last edited by keyboard samurai (11-Sep-2007 21:35:38)
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 85
  • From: Oslo, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 4,454

Agh Vilem, I'm truly sorry to hear that. Re-uploading will probably just lead to another re-deleting, I fear. But you are in your full right to at least demand a rationale.

*** 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

mhhkaay, I uploaded the article again, let's see if it will manage to vanish in a true record time again..! ;)
This time I justified myself though...

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

hey, suprise, suprise, it's gone again! weell, try again in a year or two... *sigh*

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

Try requesting a deletion review. You could use the deletion review on the English Wikipedia as a guide for how to argue the case.

btw how many people round here are regular Wikipedians? There is a possibility that Colemak could get nominated for deletion again at any time, and in that case it would be helpful for as many people as possible to weigh in should the need arise. However, if you wish to do so, it is essential that you do so from a registered account with a decent edit history: anonymous editors and new accounts tend to be treated with suspicion as sock puppets. 50-100 edits or more should give you a respectable tally, so if you aren't already active on Wikipedia, it's best to start now rather than later. Chiming in on a few additional deletion discussions should also give you a feel for how it all works, as well as adding weight to your account. The Wikipedia deletion process is actually weighted surprisingly heavily in favour of inclusion rather than deletion, though you do need to fight for it at times. The key, however, is to be prepared.

Last edited by jammycakes (28-Jan-2008 21:46:47)
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 85
  • From: Oslo, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 4,454

Am I right that the English Wikipedia article is up right now but tagged for possible deletion again? I'm no Wikipedist myself unfortunately, but I hope someone can do something.

Seems the passage about the benefits is controversial. I suggest simply removing that. The Wikipedia article should only contain the facts, not the subjective impressions. You and I may feel that Colemak is good for the wrists but it isn't a proven fact ... yet.

The bit about the controversy with Mr. Kaplan strikes me as odd. I don't see why that should be in the Wikipedia article really. It's not customary to refer to all sorts of blogging I think?

It'd be great if "we" managed to make peace with Michael Kaplan by the way. But I don't think it's my job, nor anyone who hasn't been in contact with him yet. He's pissed off because people came around and evangelized in his blog from what I understand. Well, that's understandable - nobody likes to be bothered by peddlers. I fully understand both sides, both the urge to make him see that the Colemak is really a nice thing which helps people, and the irritation at being preached for without asking for it. It's a very common phenomenon, and we've all seen it before both from religious people and Linux users.  :)  It just got off on a wrong note and now he's gone sour it seems. Ah well, maybe there isn't much to be done except leave him alone. But I don't think his blog needs to be referred to in the Wikipedia article.

*** 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: Houston, Texas
  • Registered: 03-Jan-2007
  • Posts: 358

Michael Kaplan who?     :-) speaking as an Apple person who does not give a rat's Xss for his opinion.

I agree.  It makes no sense to refer to some old blog entry.   who cares.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 85
  • From: Oslo, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 4,454

Don't be arrogant, please. Michael Kaplan happens to be a fairly important individual in the world of computer keyboarding, and if you cannot see that from where you're standing then why not shut up about it instead of showing it to the world? You'll only seem narrow-minded for doing so.

One problem with him being so polarized now is that he may have clout in decisions that affect Microsoft's use of layouts. Right now it doesn't matter because MS wouldn't put Colemak into their OS anyway, but if it keeps gaining momentum like I hope it will then at some other junction they'll probably consider it. And if he's there at that junction and if he's still annoyed then he may put a stop to it.

It's a fairly hypothetical concoction this, I know, but I can't but think of the stories they tell about Dvorak and how the bias of an individual in the US administration (Dr. Earle P. Strong of the 1956 study) just brought some promising developments to a screeching halt. That's a very contested subject and it's not easy to see what really happened back then but it's a fairly disconcerting story nevertheless.

You do have a point though, even if I feel that you word it too sharply: If the Colemak stays with Linux distros (and it will - those things just keep gaining useful bits and hardly losing any!), then at some point I think it'll come out on the Mac too. And then MS will likely follow suit. That depends on what momentum the layout gains in general, but it may well happen.

Last edited by DreymaR (30-Jan-2008 09:13:35)

*** 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
DreymaR said:

Am I right that the English Wikipedia article is up right now but tagged for possible deletion again? I'm no Wikipedist myself unfortunately, but I hope someone can do something.

The Wikipedia entry hasn't been nominated for deletion, but it had been flagged with the {{notability}} template, which generally means someone isn't convinced about its notability. However, it seems that someone else has made a pretty strong argument in its favour on the article's talk page.

Deletion versus inclusion is one of the great controversies of Wikipedia, and in borderline cases such as Colemak it tends to boil down to (a) which side weighs in most convincingly, and (b) the proclivities of the closing admin. Some of them don't seem to read deletion debates very thoroughly -- if they're long, closely fought ones and there are sufficient convincing looking keep nominations from established users with at least some edit history, chances are high that their eyes might glaze over and they might just call "no consensus," which defaults to keep. I think Colemak would stand a fighting chance if it came to it -- there is some coverage in secondary sources, and while it isn't a great deal, it is a peg to hang your coat on, as it were. After all, that's what they look for first and foremost -- in theory at least.

btw if you use Google Reader you can use it to keep abreast of changes to the Colemak wikipedia entry: if you click on the history tab at the top, you'll get a couple of links down the left hand side (under "toolbox" at the bottom) for RSS and Atom feeds.

Last edited by jammycakes (30-Jan-2008 14:46:28)
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Houston, Texas
  • Registered: 03-Jan-2007
  • Posts: 358
DreymaR said:

Don't be arrogant, please. Michael Kaplan happens to be a fairly important individual in the world of computer keyboarding, and if you cannot see that from where you're standing then why not shut up about it instead of showing it to the world? You'll only seem narrow-minded for doing so.

Well I was saying that a bit tongue in cheek.  Though I don't know see how it gets me labeled narrow-minded and told to shut up that I don't know about an employee at a company whose operating system I haven't seriously used for anything since the 90's.   I suspect many finding the Wiki won't know who he is either.  It seems pointless to refer to it.  Colemak is more likely to be adopted by the Linux distributions and OSX before MS gives it any thought whatsoever.

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

I think you're right there in a way. Colemak is very much in the spirit of open source, so I think Microsoft would look on anything open-source-y with a good deal of suspicion, especially the folks working in their more traditional lines of business such as operating systems.

That part of the article does give an indication of the reactions of the two sides to Colemak though. It also (to my mind at least) portrays the Microsoft camp as old fuddy duddies who are reactionary and stick-in-the-mud, with the Linux guys as trend-setting early adopters who are more than willing to give these things a go.

Hmmm, the same thing could be said about deletionists versus inclusionists...

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Bristol, UK
  • Registered: 08-May-2007
  • Posts: 12

It's been nominated for deletion again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia … omination)

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Bristol, UK
  • Registered: 08-May-2007
  • Posts: 12

Just found that the writer looking for Colemak converts did indeed write an article about the Caps Lock key that included several paras on Colemak: http://www.kotatv.com/Global/Story.asp?S=7888093.

This appears to be a reliable, independent secondary source so should prove useful in the deletion debate - in case someone else here finds time to do this before i get around to it (i'm a bit busy at the mo), note it's probably best to edit the article itself to include the reference then explain what you've done on the deletion debate page.

Last edited by onestop (12-May-2008 21:45:15)
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 11-May-2008
  • Posts: 16

Why is it marked for deletion anyway?

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Houston, Texas
  • Registered: 03-Jan-2007
  • Posts: 358

Simply because according to wikipedia editors topics like Britney Spears and Farts are far more significant than something that might actually better the reader's life. 

Colemak is in the et al. of "Qwerty, Dvorak, et al." on Wikipedia.   

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."  - Arthur Schopenhauer

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 11-May-2008
  • Posts: 16

hmm, seems very unfair...

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 85
  • From: Oslo, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 4,454

No, it isn't quite that simple. The main issue, as I understand it, is that Wikipedia has a commitment to presenting only "established" knowledge. Obviously, that's not easy to do and not easy to demark; a philosopher could argue that it's indeed quite impossible! At the same time, it's understandable for an encyclopedia to concentrate on "established" knowledge. It's too easy to become a soapbox corner otherwise.

So an important question regarding the Colemak article is: What can you say about the Colemak that is "established knowledge" and not just conjecture from fans? That's what much of this debate/debacle is about, as I understand it.

Of course, critics of the Wikipedia system will point out that there is a "knight caste" that have a lot to say in these matters so is the Wikipedia really run by the people or by these relatively few intense individuals in practice? I don't think it's as bad as all that, but I've heard the argument and sometimes it appears to bear weight.

*** 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

Deletion debates on Wikipedia can be a bit of a lottery in cases like this, but it all boils down to the question of "reliable secondary sources." There are only a tiny handful of them for Colemak, but they aren't non-existent, and it's pretty much a case of hammering that point home, and arguing against points made in favour of deletion as best you can.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • From: Bristol, UK
  • Registered: 08-May-2007
  • Posts: 12

It's been deleted again.

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

Sadly, we exist at the junction of Notability and Original Research, which is kind of a 'rock and a hard place' on Wikipedia.  We're never going to get out of one without running into the other, so until more than one real-made-of-paper magazine or newspaper has a story about Colemak, we're not going to be able to exist on Wikipedia.

But in the end, it's not that big a thing.  Sure, it would be nice to warrant a mention, but Colemak is notable in my life and that's good enough for now.

Offline
  • 0