zlacker

People come to Wikipedia to get an answer. Many users of Wikipedia are kids, or non-native English speakers for whom contributing is a challenge. Or laymen that don't know about the subject and naturally don't feel like they could contribute anything. Or people who simply don't know how to contribute. Or people visiting via mobiles where it's really difficult to research and contribute. If you adjust for all those users that could not reasonably contribute, the percentage of contributors is much higher.

There are other factors at play at Wikipedia too. In my native language, Danish, Wikipedia is all but dead. Years ago, I tried contributing within my own field. I researched and spent hours adding relevant information to different topics, only to find out a few days after that all my contributions had been deleted by the administrators.

Here is the Danish site for one of the most beloved Danes: https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Laudrup

Here is the English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Laudrup

It's just one example, but it is true for culture, history and many other areas. If you want to know anything on Danish matters, the English Wikipedia is usually a much better option than the Danish.

>>flexie+(OP)
Deletionism is the thing that will kill Wikipedia, by deleting itself and gradually narrowing the circle of permitted contributors.

There are some situations where the non-English Wikipedias have far more information than the English ones though, because of how "notability" works.

>>flexie+(OP)
Wikipedia does a lot to prevent new users participating. The mediawiki software is very confusing and has a lot of different functionality crammed in to the same page edit tool that doesn't even make sense.

I attemped to create a page about a slightly obscure file format with all the information I had found while developing with it. I linked to all the sources I found that helped me understand it and my submission was rejected because my sources were not academic enough so I removed those sources and added the only official source in existence which is a zip file containing code examples and example files. My second edit was rejected for not sourcing all of my info.

Literally the only info available is the zip and forum posts. I mainly used the forum posts while learning and verified it against the data I was seeing in the file. How am I meant to share this info for others to benefit from? If I make it in to a blog post it's not an acceptable source but if I post it as a PDF and pretend its some wanky research paper then it probably would get accepted.

>>flexie+(OP)
I'd say that many times, that's true of Swedish topics too. I wonder how well that fits with eg Wikipedia in other languages where English may not be so fluent though, eg German?

>>flexie+(OP)
You Danes generally speak real good English right?

I think that may be a problem for Wikipedia in such countries. People can read/write English good enough that they just go directly to English.

It's pure speculation on my end though. But I'm a non-native English speaker but I never go do my native language's Wikipedia.

>>ndnxhs+t4
I would put it on Github. Check Stack Overflow and google for has questions about the format, answer there and point to your repo.

>>pjc50+m4
I agree. While I don’t know how big the problem is, my limited experience is that notability is applied unevenly, and tends to be levelled against articles that particular editors find boring/annoying, mostly as an excuse to remove them.

>>ndnxhs+t4
> I attemped to create a page about a slightly obscure file format with all the information I had found while developing with it.

One of the core principles of Wikipedia is "No original research". Your proposed article sounds like it was just that. The Wikipedia editors would rather have you share that research in a blog post or similar.

>>ndnxhs+t4
The file format you tried to write about isn't notable enough to have its own article in Wikipedia. The notability guidelines are there to prevent people from writing about things that can't be verified by reliable sources, and it's a mechanism to help ensure that articles are accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

While not every topic belongs on Wikipedia, there are a number of other places where your article would be appreciated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternative_outlets

>>ndnxhs+t4
Putting a blog post would already be a positive contribution. Then reference it a bit, for instance by answering relevant questions on stackoverflow and linking to it to give more comprehensive details.

Over time your page will naturally get referenced by Google and other search engines.

Too bad it's not accepted in Wikipedia, but as long as the information is easily findable and organized as an easy to read and comprehensive enough reference, your work will be useful to many.

>>retSav+A4
The German Wikipedia is large and sees a lot of activity. Articles about topics relating mostly to Germany, Austria or Switzerland are usually better than the English ones. Other articles are often somewhat biased towards a readership from those country, which is actually helpful if you live there.

Lower English language fluency in the general population, compared to the Netherlands or Scandinavia, supports this of course. But also the fact that German remains a scholarly language to this day (in the humanities but also in some branches of engineering).

>>retSav+A4
German wikipedia is plagued by the same

>>pjc50+m4
The number of Wikipedia articles is steadily increasing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia

Deleting articles doesn't prevent anyone from participating, since anyone can write/edit articles on any notable subject. The deletion process protects Wikipedia from search engine marketers who try to promote their clients with biased low-quality content. They can go to Quora for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reas...

>>flexie+(OP)
I went through an almost identical process with English Wikipedia many years ago. Added to a sorely incomplete entry with carefully written and sourced info, to find it gone a few days later. Tried a few tiny updates in case new users were restricted somehow (this was never made obvious), so simply corrected some obvious grammar and spelling mistakes. Nearly all of those were backed out too. At which point there's only one option, give up.

I've encountered torrent sites that make more effort to make newcomers feel welcome.

Never tried again, and won't, despite running across much that's inaccurate, plain wrong or has poor language over the years.

>>common+C6
It is a very notable file format used by many devices and lots of software can read it. The only reason its hard to reference is because the company that develops it basically just publishes a C file with how to use it and everyone uses that to write their own implementations.

>>ogrise+E6
The problem with a blog post is others can't improve it to add more info or fix mistakes. The wiki format is perfect for this.

>>rerx+86
Well all the info I have about it comes from a single source published by the developers of the format but apparently just one reference isn't good enough.

>>ndnxhs+G9
Whether something is notable or not is subjective. Since many editors collaborate on Wikipedia, there's a common standard that editors use to judge whether a topic is notable.

The test is called the "general notability guideline". In short, any topic needs to have at least 2 citations to different sources that meet all of the following requirements:

1. The source provides significant coverage (at least 1-2 sizable paragraphs) of the topic

2. The source is reliable

3. The source is a secondary source that is editorially and financially independent of the subject (and of the other source)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_n...

A manual for the file format would not meet requirement #3, since it's a primary source that was published by the company who developed it.

This rule is in place to prevent companies from publishing information about their own products, and then promoting them on Wikipedia in a biased way.

>>common+C6
I think the notability guidelines are wrong headed.

There doesn't seem to be rhyme or reason to whether something is deemed to be 'notable'.

Worse, you put off people like the grandparent who actually attempt to contribute.

We all want accurate and reliable sources, but why not work with people, rather than just deleting? Or why not a 2 stage process. Have a staging area for pages that aren't good enough. Then promoted to wikipedia proper when good enough?

What happens in X years time, when that file format is 'notable'? You've lost the person most inclined to write the document, and lost historical context from a living document.

The BBC had a habit in its early days of reusing 'old' film. What could have been a treasure trove is now lost. I cant help feeling wikipedia is being similarly short sighted.

/rant (not aimed at you btw)

>>ndnxhs+X9
What about a Github Gist (or similar) or an actual code repo somewhere (wouldn't necessarily have to have actual code, could just be a readme)?

Also out of interest, what is the file format?

>>benj11+tc
That staging area exists, and it's called "Articles for creation" (AfC). The website directs new editors to the staging area for their first article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creatio...

Drafts in AfC will not be deleted for being non-notable, but they will also not be indexed by search engines.

When a draft is ready to be published, a reviewer looks over it and ensures that it is properly cited, before moving it to the encyclopedia proper.

>>common+Bd
That's getting closer to what I was thinking, but that's for new editors, not new articles.

"Only experienced editors should ever create an article from scratch. Others should first create a draft page and build the article there."

And as you say they aren't indexed.

>>benj11+we
Experienced editors usually create a "userspace draft", which is in a different staging area:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Userspace_draft

Userspace drafts also won't be deleted for non-notability, and they can be published whenever the editor feels that they're ready.

Neither of the draft spaces on Wikipedia are indexed by search engines, because these staging areas generally aren't proofread by other editors.

>>common+C6
> The file format you tried to write about isn't notable enough to have its own article in Wikipedia.

Grandparent said it was rejected because of the citations, not because of any supposed lack of notability. Are you implying that reviewers refuse articles for other reasons than the ones they actually give?

(Edit: from what I gather on this thread, the citations were both secondary and substantial, so the notability criterion was probably met.)

>>loup-v+Cg
Lack of citations establishing notability means wikipedia generally assumes something isn't notable enough, and per GPs words no such sources exist. (I'm not saying this is necessary a great and problem-free system, but that's how it works as far as I understand)

>>rerx+86
The original research has been done by the company inventing the file format. Reporting on it is not original research.

>>Sean17+Cc
File format is .fit its used in a lot of GPS devices specifically for cycling. Its not super hard to find info on but the info is scattered over random sources

>>common+2b
So if the official documentation isn't enough and info on random websites isn't enough than what possible source can be used? Do we have to find a group of academics to look at the file and write a PDF saying "yep the official docs are indeed correct"?

>>common+u7
There are a number of people in this thread explaining how the policy prevented them from participating, and usually caused them to quit participating entirely.

>>NeedMo+t9
Nobody with stories such as yours seem to actually give a link to the article in question.

>>ndnxhs+Dh
You can absolutely cite the official documentation, and it's considered a reliable source for your article.

However, it isn't considered an independent source, since it was written by a company with a vested interest in the topic.

To prove that the file type is notable, you'll need at least different 2 sources that meet all 3 requirements: they must provide significant coverage of the topic, be reliable, and be independent of the topic.

You don't have to use these sources to write all of the content in your article, but they do have to be cited as references to pass the notability test.

The three most common kinds of reliable sources are:

- Articles or web pages from a reputable news organization, magazine, or web publisher (with an editorial team)

- Books from a reputable publishing company

- Publications from a peer-reviewed academic journal

Offline and non-English sources are accepted.

If you can't find at least 2 sources that meet these requirements, then the topic doesn't pass the notability test and isn't suitable for Wikipedia. In this case, you're probably better off sharing your article somewhere else, such as Wikibooks, Wikiversity, or your personal blog.

https://en.wikibooks.org

https://en.wikiversity.org

>>pjc50+ai
My comment was unclear. Yes, people who are solely interested in writing about one topic are prevented from participating if that topic doesn't meet the notability criteria.

When I said that it "doesn't prevent anyone from participating", I was only considering the editors who are interested in writing about a wider variety of topics.

For better or worse, Wikipedia frowns on editors who are only interested in editing articles on one topic. There's a page for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_accou...

This is because these editors usually have a conflict of interest, and must make an extra effort to keep their writing free of bias.

Policies aimed at improving the quality of articles also tend to reduce participation. It's a trade-off, and I don't know that the optimal balance would be.

>>ndnxhs+5a
That source (published by the developers) is a primary source. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, are tetriary sources that are based on secondary sources and not directly on primary sources.

In other words, unless there are reliable secondary sources to base the article on, it is considered original research and is not a good fit for Wikipedia.

I guess part of the reason that new contributors feel bad is confusion about the goals and nature of Wikipedia itself.

>>flexie+(OP)
Just post on your own repository on github instead. It’s the new wikipedia minus worrying about deletionists and notability. Just a matter of time until non-developers become comfortable with it.

>>common+Zj
IMO this discussion about notability is making the original point upthread about hostility to newcomers.

I also find it ironic that Wikipedia notability is so tied to traditional publishing sources.

ADDED: I admit to falling pretty heavily on the inclusionist side; I'm pretty skeptical about notability at times.

>>common+Zj
So does this mean I could write a Wikipedia article about my grandmother if I can dig up articles on her from two different newspapers?

>>chongl+mp
Provided those two different newspapers wrote on her life in detail, not just a mention, yes. See the following section of the notability guidelines:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

>>chongl+mp
Yes.

Since she is your family member, you're asked to disclose that you have a conflict of interest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

But the answer is yes.

>>ghaff+Oo
It's true that the rules of Wikipedia can be intimidating to new editors.

There are two places where editors can ask for help: the Teahouse (for new editors) and the Help Desk (for anyone).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk

>>NeedMo+t9
Same experience here. Grammar corrections should only be back out if they create true problems with regards to intent. And if that’s the reason, it ought to be made clear, through discussion, what the problem is.

>>teddyh+vj
I have a story like this, but I did the work (that was backed out) over a decade ago. The domain was not especially political (something related to history of music notation). It sticks with you because when you are already an expert in an area, and spend days contributing high quality content with good references only to have it vaporized without comment/reason, it is deeply demoralizing and creates long standing resentment. I vaguely remember the subject matter, yet remember distinctly the feeling of having all that work purged. I’m sure Wikipedia politics have changed since then, but my desire to contribute has been pretty well quashed.

>>teddyh+vj
yeah all these accounts of Wikipedia being hostile to new users must be lies and exaggerations /s

>>bonobo+yo
It's not just goals and nature. It's rules that can be pretty silly and unhelpful when they're taken to extremes rather than applied sensibly. In this case you have documentation that can't be referenced in a Wikipedia article. Yet, if someone wrote a blog post that liberally quoted that documentation, that would probably be an acceptable source.

The basic ideas of not doing original research or relying on primary sources are fine. But writing just about any article requires synthesizing multiple sources to some degree. Rules are one thing. Saying that the documentation is not a suitable source for information about a file format is something else.

>>teddyh+vj
That's because we don't have the (as the OP puts it, insane) temperament to fight some battle for days on end for something we really don't care that much about. It takes effort to dig up some random edit from years ago that wasn't important enough to fight about then and certainly isn't worth the stress to fight about now. It's a lot easier to just bitch about this obviously real problem instead of having to make the same kind of effort we didn't even do the first time to somehow justify and defend our anecdote.

>>chongl+mp
Interesting... and along the same lines as the parent comment, if two independent blogs had written about the file format in detail, I wonder if that’s enough.

>>Sargos+AF
> It takes effort to dig up some random edit from years ago

Yes, but a simple link to which article it was would be enough. What also might be useful is a user name and/or a rough estimate of what the time period was, but without even an article name, there is nothing anybody can do about fixing these things.

>>IggleS+Ms
Yep. I made an attempt to get into it over a decade ago, and it didn't help that I was heavy in the Flash game/animation scene and felt that was the best way to contribute. I say it didn't help, because so few of those pass the ridiculously restrictive 'Notability Test' of Wikipedia.

The animation could have 50 million views and be known across the internet, but because no 'reputable news organization' wrote about it, i.e. no CNN or BBC article or whatever, they would routinely be brought up for deletion and quickly killed.

Which always seemed strange to me, that this new fangled technology that took advantage of the power of the Internet wouldn't find anything on the Internet itself worthy of gracing its virtual pages. Especially since, as Wikipedia itself states, "Wikipedia is not Paper", and doesn't have a physical limit to what it can talk about or include.

It always annoyed me that these things wouldn't get passed the notability filter, but the most obscure Star Trek episode would have a dedicated page with a full synopsis and details and Easter Eggs, despite the fact that there couldn't have been a news article about that specific episode anywhere out there and the author had to be drawing from the episode... I mean, primary source, itself in order to get that information, which is something that gets squashed elsewhere (No primary sources!)

The hypocrisy just got to me big time. And then when I'd fix spelling or grammar issues on other random pages and see every single one of those get reverted without comment, it was clear that doing anything on Wikipedia was just a big waste of my fucking time. While I still read it to get a really rough handle on topics sometimes, I will never 'contribute' to it again, including every time that giant "We Desperately Need Your Financial Support" message from Jimmy Wales comes up on the site once a year.

I'd love for there to be an alternative where the admins aren't such deletionist zealots, but alternatives just don't exist.

I should also state that I had such a negative experience trying to contribute to Wikipedia that it still riles me up thinking about it to this day. And there's not a whole lot out there that riles me up.

>>r0m4n0+EF
Most tech blogs have just one author, and their posts don't go through a high-quality editorial process. Wikipedia calls these blogs "self-published sources", and they usually aren't considered reliable sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-p...

>>cables+oI
Generally speaking these days, whenever I see a non-minor / specialist article in need of correction, I tend to rely on the talk section to make points that maybe an editor can apply better.

That's what I did for Wikipedia's article on software synthesizers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_synthesizer), which in 2014 was rather out of date, particularly on its "typical" examples and other elements.

The article does look a fair bit better now. It does seem to still carry a little awkwardness (eg statements like "a software instrument is akin to a soundfont" which is not really correct) and a few out-of-date moments (eg why mention Csound and Nyquist as music programming language examples but not mention more common examples these days such as Max/MSP or PureData?) and some other quibbles I have. But it is better. Maybe I'll have to make a few more talk points someday. :)

Personally, I do think Wikipedia for the casual contributor is unfortunately broken. But given the amount of trolls and agenda-oriented people out there, I actually can understand why there is a high barrier to entry. It's just a bit unfortunate because it also restricts the diversity of the contribution ecosystem. I'm not sure how to reconcile the two personally...

>>cables+oI
Wikipedia's notability rules are generally about ten/twenty years out of late, and seem to be designed on the assumption the internet doesn't exist. As you said, they often miss out notable works that aren't reviewed by what they class as 'mainstream' sources, and they also often end up failing to consider the amount of credibility someone may have in their own area of expertise.

For instance, in the gaming world, I often look at Serebii.net as a good example of where Wikipedia's credibility priorities are misplaced. To them, it being a fan site run pseudononymously makes it less credible/reputable than a publication like IGN or Vice or what not, but in the actual community/among those who know of the topic, it's actually the far more credible source. The owner has written in magazines, been quoted by popular media sources, used as a reference by those seen as more reputable, etc.

But Wikipedia doesn't think like this. To them, credibility equals being paid as part of a major publication, and it doesn't matter even if you're a distinguished professor writing on your blog or academic site otherwise. And this then hurts the niche topics you mention even more.

>>common+jn
Typo correction:

It's a trade-off, and I don't know what the optimal balance would be.

>>ghaff+5z
Wikipedia does consider the documentation suitable for supporting information in the article, but not suitable for establishing the topic's notability.

The article needs independent sources (as in, secondary sources that are financially and editorially independent of the company who develops the .mix file type) to show that the topic warrants an article.

If an article has enough sources cited to show notability, primary sources like documentation pages can be used. If notability is not shown, then the topic doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and the content of the article is moot.

Without this requirement, any company would be able to publish promotional articles on all of its products, and exclusively use its own web pages as citations. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are in place to prevent spam and to ensure that topics only get articles if they can be written about in a neutral way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_usin...

>>CM30+3j1
Subject-matter experts, such as distinguished professors, are considered reliable sources regardless of where their statements or writings are published. I'm not sure if it has always been this way, but it is currently written into Wikipedia's policy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-p...

You're right about fan sites. It's harder for people outside of the fan community to evaluate whether a fan site is reliable, and that contributes to the skepticism you see.

>>teddyh+iI
It was a lower tier event or personality of WW1 or WW2. Not a Churchill, Paton or D-Day, but something lesser without reaching insignificant. It was 10 or 15 years ago - in the days when it was still common for articles to be incomplete or missing. I couldn't estimate when that period of Wikipedia ended, but I'd guess at least 10 years+. I'd be amazed if someone hasn't managed to fill the gap since, as articles are generally much more complete. Current Wikipedia has other issues.

It was some hours I spent on a topic I knew well, and had a good selection of books on my own shelves to cite, triggered by finding an incomplete or missing article, or a glaring error. Nothing more. After the challenges contributing I lost interest and moved on. I was doing Wikipedia a favour and trying to contribute, they apparently weren't interested. I'm not going to fight for it, but as a result I'm not open for trying more, or ever again.

As for username, I have no idea whatsoever, but offhand I can only remember one of the several LJ usernames I had, some I used for months rather than just a few days. Mind I doubt I could accurately list all the topics I blogged about on LJ, either, but could cover the main interests easily. I'm not even sure a username was needed at all but it may well have been.

>>common+u7
At one point I was playing Serious Sam, an FPS. I finished the game and let the credits roll by, noticing a quirky name "Derek Smart". I searched for it on Wikipedia and arrived at the eponymous article, describing the life and creative work of a rash and stubborn but obviously ambitious and talented video game designer.

A bit later on, there was Croteam, the maker of Serious Sam, AMA on Reddit so I asked them if the reference to Derek Smart was an inside joke or what. The reply was along the lines of "he's a dear friend of ours and our inspiration". I went back to the Derek Smart Wikipedia article, pointed out the screenshot of the credits with Derek's name, the AMA reply and asked a very innocuous question: "Can we put this in the article?"

I got a reply that what I did is termed "original research" and the only acceptable way to include the reference would be if some noteworthy third party, such as Washington Times, mentions and explains the connection, meaning all the work I did up to that point was in vain. That's when I completely gave up on editing Wikipedia as it seemed to me, and still does, absolutely Sisyphean. Editors of that article then went on to argue how to phrase the incident where Derek Smart assaulted a vending machine to best fit the article.

The implication of "no original research" and "noteworthy sources of information" means a large mass of regional events and persons can't be included in the English Wikipedia unless they clear this arbitrary bar of noteworthiness that can still be gamed with ease: a) be an employee of a mainstream news source, b) publish a biased article on any given topic, c) create an anonymous Wikipedia account, d) create an article on the topic or edit an exiting one to embed the information you published and e) marvel as Wikipedia editors revert the changes under the guise of preventing vandalism.

Automated edit-correction tools are another grave issue for Wikipedia, as they instantly revert an article to its sanctioned version set by a reputable Wikipedia editor. How is Wikipedia "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" again?