• You are not logged in.
  • Index
  • General
  • Colemak has been deleted from Wikipedia again!

    Colemak has been deleted from Wikipedia again!

    • Started by Jag02
    • 13 Replies:
    • Reputation: 0
    • Registered: 04-Feb-2009
    • Posts: 51

    I can't believe that they have deleted the article again!
    I think we have a better chance of making it into Wikipedia this time around.  We have a Colemak Keyboard from Hoolean.com.  We have Colemak stickers and Inscribe layouts(http://www.iliumsoft.com/site/fp/ins_layouts.php) for the pocket computer. 
    I have tried searching Wikipedia to find out why Colemak was deleted, but I have had no luck. 
    If somebody could post a link here about the Colemak deletion.

    Last edited by Jag02 (31-Jan-2010 18:37:01)
    Offline
    • 0
    • Reputation: 21
    • From: Belgium
    • Registered: 26-Feb-2008
    • Posts: 475

    And it's included in several notable operating systems, including FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Linux through X.org.

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

    The unfortunate thing about Wikipedia is that there are two kinds of people who make substantive edits to it.

    On the one hand, you have people who create stuff. They are usually casual editors, who very often don't even bother to create an account, or even if they do, they only ever make a dozen or two edits. They tend to know next to nothing about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but they often have some degree of expertise in the subject matter itself. (Incidentally, the article "Who Writes Wikipedia?" by Aaron Swartz contains some interesting research that shows that this is a surprisingly accurate picture.) And they live in the Real World.

    On the other hand, you have pepole who delete stuff. They tend to be established Wikipedians with thousands or even tens of thousands of edits and an encyclopedic knowledge of Wiki policies and guidelines, but on the whole they know nothing whatsoever about the subject matter that they're deleting. They live in some kind of Matrix-esque alternate reality entirely defined by WP:RS -- which, in practice, means that if you can't find it in a national newspaper or a scholarly journal, it doesn't exist and must therefore be a dangerous heresy to be ruthlessly suppressed. They tend to treat Wikipedia as an MMORPG which they play to win, and they usually do, unless they're up against another Wikipedia-is-an-MMORPG type who is better at it than they are. And they are giving Wikipedia a bad name, as well as alienating a lot of would-be Wikipedians.

    The fact of the matter is that there's plenty that we could say about Colemak that's easily and almost trivially verifiable in Real Life with just a spot of Googling and common sense, but because it is invisible within the WP:RS Matrix, according to the auditors of reality it doesn't exist.

    Offline
    • 0
    • Reputation: 0
    • Registered: 04-Feb-2009
    • Posts: 51

    Well, least the French have dedicated a whole page to Colemak.

    https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colemak

    Offline
    • 0
    • Reputation: 1
    • From: New York, New York
    • Registered: 22-Nov-2008
    • Posts: 128

    Exactly, one could just translate the French page and we have an English article. I don't see the point in not having an article considering that even more irrelevant articles exist, and there is a good community here. The deletionist policy of Wikipedia does not seem to making sense here, and I'm very certain that more people would adopt Colemak if it was on Wikipedia. There are many people that are still switching to Dvorak simply because they are not aware that a better alternative exists.

    Colemak typist

    Offline
    • 0
    • Reputation: 0
    • Registered: 05-Jan-2010
    • Posts: 91
    juice43 said:

    The deletionist policy of Wikipedia does not seem to making sense here

    Actually I got interested in the matter after realising Colemak has been completely wiped. So I read the previous deletion debates[1][2] and the discussion page[3] on keyboad layouts. What I found was that it makes perfect sense: for the time being, Colemak doesn't fit in Wikipedia. Of course I want it to, but as it is now, it simply doesn't. Trying to add it time and time again without substantial improvement in sources is futile. Give it a year. Or five.

    What I did also find though, was that an article on Swedish Wikipedia, which was far from perfect, had been allowed to stay. Therefore, I improved that article further (now being almost good, except that I suck at this thing with referencing). I encourage you to do so too. If it doesn't exist or has been validly deleted, add the Colemak article on Wikipedia in your own native language. If it exists, improve it!

    Don't be too obsessed with the English Wikipedia.

    Last edited by kqr (01-Feb-2010 02:57:18)
    Offline
    • 0
    • Reputation: 1
    • From: New York, New York
    • Registered: 22-Nov-2008
    • Posts: 128

    Hmm, I see what you mean kqr reading the deletion debates show very good reason for it. They're not just deleting stuff willy-nilly. Hope Colemak becomes more eminent in time. If Colemak ever surpasses Dvorak, then the time will come.

    Colemak typist

    Offline
    • 0
    • Reputation: 0
    • Registered: 28-Jan-2010
    • Posts: 4
    kqr said:
    juice43 said:

    The deletionist policy of Wikipedia does not seem to making sense here

    Actually I got interested in the matter after realising Colemak has been completely wiped. So I read the previous deletion debates[1][2] and the discussion page[3] on keyboad layouts. What I found was that it makes perfect sense: for the time being, Colemak doesn't fit in Wikipedia.

    I don't agree. It needs to be there. Especially seeing they didn't remove the Neo section (yet).

    Offline
    • 0
    • Reputation: 1
    • From: New York, New York
    • Registered: 22-Nov-2008
    • Posts: 128

    I don't want to be hostile to the Neo community, but that doesn't seem to be fair. Neither here nor there, I don't know really know about this. Just wish more people used Colemak, lol. Wikipedia would definitely help make it noticed, maybe a few studies here or there. Time will prove what is best.

    Colemak typist

    Offline
    • 0
    • Reputation: 0
    • Registered: 05-Jan-2010
    • Posts: 91
    yngwin said:

    I don't agree. It needs to be there. Especially seeing they didn't remove the Neo section (yet).

    Policy states there should be reliable sources and you know it all if you've read the debates. Where do you have the sources requested for Colemak?

    If you feel Neo's unrightfully there, start up a deletion debate or whatnot for that, but that's not in the scope of the Colemak article issue.

    Offline
    • 0
    • Reputation: 21
    • From: Belgium
    • Registered: 26-Feb-2008
    • Posts: 475

    Carpalx is a good independent research reference.  It uses objective statistical metrics and has a good case study on Colemak.

    Also inclusion in reputable operating systems is an argument that Colemak is more "notable" than other alternatives.

    Offline
    • 0
    • Reputation: 0
    • Registered: 22-Nov-2009
    • Posts: 58

    Shall we all switch to the Neo layout which is still allowed in wikipedia ;-)
    I was thinking we could do a kind of petition by all creating an account on wikipedia and join a Colemak group, so show them how many we are using Colemak.
    However, considering the number of people who have read this thread ( and that 10% of us will do it) I m not sure they will be impressed by  a petition of 15 people... maybe they are right after all.
    (Just kidding)

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

    There is a Colemak userbox that you can stick on your user page if you have a Wikipedia login. Just add {{user colemak}} to it.

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

    I've just noticed that it's back up again on the keyboard layout article. It seems that the Carpalx source that ghen found was enough to carry the day -- well done!

    Offline
    • 0
      • Index
      • General
      • Colemak has been deleted from Wikipedia again!