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.