• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Help with Wikipedia article?

Hi! Can anyone help me with this Wikipedia article? The moderators keep rejecting it as "no reliable sources" WTF?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Submissions/N8VEM

Thanks! Have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch

If there is any information about the N8VEM on other sites on the internet, put them in as sources instead of just links to sites with services used while make it (they don't state it's existence).

As it is right now, it might appear as an advertisement for the sites providing the services you have linked to.
 
If there is any information about the N8VEM on other sites on the internet, put them in as sources instead of just links to sites with services used while make it (they don't state it's existence).

As it is right now, it might appear as an advertisement for the sites providing the services you have linked to.


Hi! Thanks!

Well, that's the thing... the whole N8VEM project is just something that originated in my basement. There is no "reliable source" proof of its existence other than the Google group exists and there are websites of builders documenting their progress. At what point does something become "real" enough to warrant a wikipedia page?

This is a "catch 22" situation. Ironically, other similar projects do have wikipedia pages but don't seem to have this problem. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P112

This is a perplexing situation to me and I don't understand the problem. I suppose it could be construed as advertizing the N8VEM project but how is that different than documenting it for public reference? There must be some subtlety I am not getting...

Thanks! Have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch
 
Try to not link to Newsgroups, but get sombody else to create a web site with loads of information. I think the problem lies in that Wikipedia require that sombody else have to write about it to make it rellayable. That's totally stupid, but I think that is how it works.

*Edit*
Sombody already did that... Then I don't understand either. But still, try not to link to newsgroups, and remove all links that not directly refere to the project.

Hi! Thanks!

Well, that's the thing... the whole N8VEM project is just something that originated in my basement. There is no "reliable source" proof of its existence other than the Google group exists and there are websites of builders documenting their progress. At what point does something become "real" enough to warrant a wikipedia page?

This is a "catch 22" situation. Ironically, other similar projects do have wikipedia pages but don't seem to have this problem. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P112

This is a perplexing situation to me and I don't understand the problem. I suppose it could be construed as advertizing the N8VEM project but how is that different than documenting it for public reference? There must be some subtlety I am not getting...

Thanks! Have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch
 
Last edited:
Well, that's the thing... the whole N8VEM project is just something that originated in my basement. There is no "reliable source" proof of its existence other than the Google group exists and there are websites of builders documenting their progress. At what point does something become "real" enough to warrant a wikipedia page?

Welcome to the "no original research" shithole that is wikipedia. I spent tens of hours on the CGA article just to have a lot of my stuff challenged.

Create a website for your project first, THEN worry about whether or not wikipedia has a page on it. You control your webpages; you can't control wikipedia. And it probably won't matter anyway because your page will still probably get deleted under the "vanity entry" banner (unless you can convince a friend to create the page, using your website as a reference).

Just wait until you do everything right and then find your page deleted under the "not notable" banner....
 
Welcome to the "no original research" shithole that is wikipedia. I spent tens of hours on the CGA article just to have a lot of my stuff challenged.

Create a website for your project first, THEN worry about whether or not wikipedia has a page on it. You control your webpages; you can't control wikipedia. And it probably won't matter anyway because your page will still probably get deleted under the "vanity entry" banner (unless you can convince a friend to create the page, using your website as a reference).

Just wait until you do everything right and then find your page deleted under the "not notable" banner....

Hi! I think you're right. Wikipedia seems like a waste of time.

Thanks! Have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch
 
As Steven Colbert coined it, 'Wikiality' .. which is not necessarily related to our reality.

Case in point - the PCjr article:

  • The machine pictured is a heavily modified PCjr that doesn't resemble the original product.
  • Most of the article is editorializing on why the machine was a flop. (It should be facts about the machine.)
  • Even though my PCjr web pages have pre-existed Wikipedia for years and are the definitive online reference, attempts to get Wiki to list them as an external link have been killed.

Save Wiki for things were it is good .. math and other unarguable facts. They have a very good writeup on complex numbers. :) Your troubles do not surprise me.
 
Andrew,

Having spent the last couple of years involved in an editing war, I've had to learn a little about how Wikipedia works.

The first problem is NPOV. Since you are the creator, you cannot be considered neutral, nor can any other first-hand source (other builders, etc). Personal webpages are also not considered 'Reliable Sources'. You really need to get articles published in some kinda media. Perhaps a call to the local news organizations might get something in print or on-the-air. Seems like most have tech departments these days, and a human-interest story, interview, etc might be arranged. The media doesn't have to be hard-copy either, many popular e-zines, etc, would be happy to publish your story, and their pages are not considered 'personal' pages. How about slash-dot? Have they been notified of the project? A blurb there could go a long way towards getting the attention of other media. Once you have even one article published in mainstream media, they no longer have any excuse.

BTW, seems to me that we have a couple of reporters/writers/publishers/etc on the VCF, mebbe someone like Evan could help?

--T
 
Last edited:
Another approach might be to sneak in through the backdoor by slipping in some info, links, etc into an already existing, related article, and citing some of the many articles which have been published recently in other media about the hobby:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vintage_computer

After the project has gained a foothold somewhere, it might be possible to eventually splinter off an article of it's own.

--T
 
With the greatest of respect to whoever rejected the article, these Wikipedia people need a kick up the pants!

My website was one of the 8 linked to, so I'm a bit upset that I'm "not reliable".

Second, the extensive text and photos of many real physical boards on multiple sites and in locations all over the world should be proof of a source being reliable. This isn't some UFO hoax!

Third, this is their defiinition of reliable "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

So Wikipedia are calling Andrew Lynch and all the other 50 people involved untrustworthy and not authorities in their field?

Fourth - it seems very hard to get an article published but very easy to edit already published ones. I changed a few sentences in a Wikipedia page the other day and no-one checked if I was an authority. Maybe take an existing page and completely change it. You could edit the one that talks about what a 'reliable source' is. Can't see much use for that page in its current form *grin*

Fifth - democratic it may be, but Wikipedia's feature article, the very best of the best, which I read the other day (on the Grand Canyon), had a glaring spelling error.

I guess if they want a more reliable source, give me a couple of months and I'll get the N8VEM published in Silicon Chip magazine. I've already had several of their regular writers ask me independently to do it and I've had things published before.

Andrew - did you get any feedback about who it was that rejected the article, or do they remain anonymous?
 
Last edited:
The 'History' tab at the top of the page will disclose who rejected the article.

The reason that first-hand sources are not considered 'reliable' is that they cannot be considered neutral. The information must be from a third-party source. If you can get an article published, then cite that article as a source, that should do the trick.

--T

EDIT: Now that the concept of modern-day homebrewage has been entered into a valid article, with third-party sources cited, perhaps a separate 'Homebrewing' article may be spun off from the main article. The new article could mention N8VEM and other H/B projects. From there, each project may be able spin off their own pages.

Let's give it a few days and see if my edits are reverted.

BTW, the 'Retrocomputing' article looks like it could use some more work, if anyone here is able to contribute third-party sourced material.

--T
 
Last edited:
mebbe someone like Evan could help?

There are a couple of ways I might be able to help.

I still have a blog on Computerworld.com, but I haven't updated it in a year ....

Currently I write for Wireless Week covering the cell phone industry (so, yes, I know about a lot of cool shit that's coming up and that I can't tell you about, or I'd have to kill you! :)) However, for the 12-month period until this past February, I wrote for our sister magazine, ECN. The technology editor at ECN is Jon Titus, who frequently does reviews and who, of course, is famous in our hobby as the developer of the Mark-8 minicomputer in 1974. So maybe he'd be interested. I know he cares deeply about history -- he lectured at the VCF East a few years ago and he helps people like Grant. His job at ECN is to review NEW tech; maybe he could do a sidebar or something. I will ask him when I get back to our parent company's office on Monday. I cannot speak on his behalf. If he's not able to cover it, then I'll see if the magazine's editor-in-chief would be interested in writing a blog post or something.

Shameless plugs:
My current employer: http://www.wirelessweek.com
Our sister magazine: http://www.ecnmag.com
Jon's reviews column: http://www.ecnmag.com/articles.aspx?id=188&adcode=section=kits&menuid=238
 
Last edited:
I know Wikipedia is young, but I think also many of the editors do lack maturity as well. I find that even the computer articles, and you'd think that was a pretty clear cut subject, are not only lacking in substance and authority but just plain confidence. That just comes from lack of experience and inability to judge the world around them. When they say "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." they are just talking about "chapter books". :) People with kids will know what I mean.
 
I know Wikipedia is young, but I think also many of the editors do lack maturity as well. I find that even the computer articles, and you'd think that was a pretty clear cut subject, are not only lacking in substance and authority but just plain confidence. That just comes from lack of experience and inability to judge the world around them. When they say "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." they are just talking about "chapter books". :) People with kids will know what I mean.

Here's the deal, OJ. Bizarre magazine, The Jerry Springer Show, supermarket tabloids, etc, are all considered 'Reliable Sources', for no better reason than that they have the loudspeakers. You can cite almost any published source on Wikipedia, as long as you didn't publish it yourself...or sum'n like that...I think...my head hurts...

/rant

--T
 
Last edited:
Hi All!

First, THANK YOU all very much. I deeply appreciate your help and advice. I believe the idea of injecting the home brew computing into the retrocomputing/vintage computing documentation is a good one.

At least in my mind there is strong cross over between the home brew and vintage/retrocomputing communities. At one point, the "Home Brew Computer Club" was a major formative event in the history of microcomputers and maybe electronics in general. You'll probably recognize several people in this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_Computer_Club

I think Terry's explanation has finally sunk in as to why Wikipedia keeps rejecting the article -- I am not neutral. At least I finally understand why they are doing it.

If anyone like Evan or James could get the N8VEM mentioned at some level into the independent media, I think that would solve the problem and allow the Wikipedia people to publish an article. There are several web pages already which are great resources for anyone who would like to pursue an article. I am willing to help out as best I can.

Thanks and have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch
 
I'm just afraid that the Retrocomputing article itself may not be strong enough to carry the day in it's present form. It only cites one outside source, so I was forced to cite the same source in my edit. Now, I know that quite a few articles have been published in mainstream venues over the past few years, just haven't dug through my bookmarks enough to find anything useful yet.

Anybody in the universe can contribute to a Wikipedia article, so if anyone else can add solid material, with sources cited, feel free to do so. If y'all have ideas, but are shaky about editing the article yourself, let me know, I'll help where I can.

--T
 
I think Terry's explanation has finally sunk in as to why Wikipedia keeps rejecting the article -- I am not neutral. At least I finally understand why they are doing it.

I would have pointed that out too, but I thought it was obvious. Kidding aside, here's the issue: someone could write the world's most objective critical analysis of a product or service, but, if that person has a financial interest in the product or service, then their credibility as a neutral source is automatically discounted. It doesn't matter if they are nice, well-intended, fully objective, or even self-critical. A real world example: in my work as a reporter covering a major industry, many times I ask companies if they can supply customer references to back up whatever news the company has. I then separately interview those customers to see if what's on their minds is the same or different from what the company is pitching to me. For example I'll interview an executive at company A who says his 2009 agenda is to do X, Y, and Z, but then I'll privately interview his customer who says he'd like to see the company do A, B, and C. Then I write a story saying, "Company A plans to do blah blah blah, but some of their customers say that's not what is needed." However sometimes the companies deliver alleged "customers" who turn out to be resellers or partners of the company. When that happens, it makes me wonder WHY -- is the company trying to hide that their real customers aren't happy? Are they trying to hide that there AREN'T any real customers? I use this approach not because I'm a cynic, but because I know (as does Wikipedia) that having a financial interest automatically makes a source non-neutral. There's also the issue of vetting a source. If a company A supplies me with the name of company B as its customer reference, how do I know company B's owner is not company A's brother-in-law? This is an area where I do some homework and follow my experience and intuition. Similarly, if Wiki's moderators see an article about the vintage computer kit in Wired or CNET, they can assume it's legit, because those publication's editors are not easily fooled. Conversely, if the third-party reference is a seemingly random web page, then who knows? It's risky to allow that as a legitimate source.

If anyone like Evan or James could get the N8VEM mentioned at some level into the independent media

Don't take this the wrong way (because I mean it to be explanatory, not nasty) .... but please understand that as a credible mainstream journalist, my job is not to "get the N8VEM mentioned". My job isn't to be anyone's tool and "get" people's stuff mentioned. My job is to mention whatever happens to be newsworthy -- even if the sources DON'T want it mentioned (the best stories I usually ones that I discover through good reporting, not the ones that stem from official announcements.) Even if you were my best friend in the world, I wouldn't "get" it mentioned if it weren't newsworthy. So don't go around thinking otherwise. What I can do as a favor to you is connect you and your project with the appropriate editor (Jon), i.e. basically I can make an introduction. For the sake of our mutual interest in the vintage computing hobby, I hope Jon is able to use the info. But he nor I would write about anything that didn't fit into our beats, no matter who or what it may be.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top