... is going to quickly turn into a clusterf*** if people don't step in sharp-ish and help out.
[Wikipedia correctness and authoritative edits]
interesting situation - one that wikipedia's clearly never had to deal with before.
Rather than spend a paragraph or two talking about that, I suggest that we just build more robust external sources that the Wikipedia page can make use of. Personally, I'm not a Wikipedia person, but I can possibly spend a little more time looking at the page. (My previous edits were mostly about fixing up citations, of which more are needed as the page stands.)
yeahyeah, i noticed - appreciated.
okay. well, i've had to revert *six* false and misleading statements on the page... so far. unfortunately the wikifascists [1] are beginning to step in - one of them unfortunately has Administrative rights. a "COI" notice was set up: this resulted in a rash of further misleading and factually incorrect statements being made.
if people care about this, can you please step in?
l.
[1] definition (2) of http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fascist
On Tuesday 6. September 2016 22.00.54 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
... is going to quickly turn into a clusterf*** if people don't step in sharp-ish and help out.
Well, I added a note in the talk page first of all, which more or less says that people should review edits and deploy "citation needed" rather than pick fights on the talk page. I guess it's probably unwise for you to do major edits for now because that will just upset them even more, but on the positive side, the page isn't in bad shape right now anyway.
It would be good to put a prominent glossary of terms somewhere that can then be used to enforce consistency on the Wikipedia page and throughout the other documentation. I can't find an obviously-located glossary page at the moment. And since the standard mentions "CPU Card" whereas the Wikipedia page mentions "Computer Card", people get confused without such guidance.
Anyway, I've since added a bunch of citations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EOMA-68&oldid=738088717
I hope that other editors can source their material and maybe even widen the sources to other sites than the ones I had to hand.
Paul
P.S. A stupid bot caused an edit conflict on the page, and I got the useless MediaWiki exhortation to merge my edit with the conflicting one (great when you've got two plain text widgets and nothing else to help you) and not to just overwrite the existing page text with my own. But it's actually easier to do an overwrite, save the page, and then to see the differences and fix up if necessary. Of course, the bot was just adding a date to a "citation needed" tag, that being a top priority task to ensure maximum page quality, naturally.
On Tuesday 6. September 2016 23.09.15 Paul Boddie wrote:
Anyway, I've since added a bunch of citations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EOMA-68&oldid=738088717
I hope that other editors can source their material and maybe even widen the sources to other sites than the ones I had to hand.
And the stupid bot just reverted my entire edit because "Inexperienced user citing to primary sources associated wiht [sic] the product, fails WP:RS."
And, of course, the page is now a deletion candidate. It makes me wonder how automatic ("wiht", indeed) this "bot" is.
So, I say that we don't waste any more time with these people. I've left a remark about this on the talk page, but I guess they'll just delete the page. It's really far better to provide robust, authoritative documentation elsewhere and just ignore Wikipedia for the time being.
The tactic, if Luke is bothered about misrepresentation, is to then demand page deletion if someone recreates the page and writes nonsense on it. After all, that probably works rather well for famous people, so we can afford the luxury of suspending our disbelief for a second and thinking that it might work here as well.
Paul
P.S. Generally, I've only ever edited Wikipedia to correct nonsense, add citations to various things, and generally try and uphold the historical record (where others might want to further their own agenda on a non-factual basis).
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
On Tuesday 6. September 2016 23.09.15 Paul Boddie wrote:
Anyway, I've since added a bunch of citations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EOMA-68&oldid=738088717
I hope that other editors can source their material and maybe even widen the sources to other sites than the ones I had to hand.
And the stupid bot just reverted my entire edit because "Inexperienced user citing to primary sources associated wiht [sic] the product, fails WP:RS."
faaakin 'ell...
And, of course, the page is now a deletion candidate.
oo that's actually a good idea!
It makes me wonder how automatic ("wiht", indeed) this "bot" is.
So, I say that we don't waste any more time with these people. I've left a remark about this on the talk page, but I guess they'll just delete the page. It's really far better to provide robust, authoritative documentation elsewhere and just ignore Wikipedia for the time being.
no it's at least inspired some reviews of the standard, which is great.
The tactic, if Luke is bothered about misrepresentation, is to then demand page deletion if someone recreates the page and writes nonsense on it. After all, that probably works rather well for famous people, so we can afford the luxury of suspending our disbelief for a second and thinking that it might work here as well.
in about 6-12 months time there will be people coming out with stuff so it'll be "multiple sources"
Paul
P.S. Generally, I've only ever edited Wikipedia to correct nonsense, add citations to various things, and generally try and uphold the historical record (where others might want to further their own agenda on a non-factual basis).
hilariously there's people on wikipedia who think that's what i'm doing. they have _no_ idea how software libre / open project management works...
l.
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
And, of course, the page is now a deletion candidate.
oo that's actually a good idea!
ok so i've written here in favour of that idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EOMA-68#EOMA-6...
if anybody else also supports that, please do add your voice (and independent opinion). you should know that you've all been "accused of being my lackeys" by one of the wikipedia adminstrators.
i've made it bluntly clear why i think it's a good idea that the page be deleted. i've spent a whole boat-load of time on it - most of the time was spent in the *talk* page, then on the COI page then god knows where else.
simplest thing is: assess for yourself whether the current page as being edited by wikifascists matches with the EOMA68 specification, and whether you believe that wikipedia "technical writing by consensus" stands even a snowball in hell's chance of producing anything that's remotely *accurately* informative.
now, i'm aware i could put that better, so as not to wind people up.... but i genuinely don't feel inclined to do so.
the page *before* JzG decided to go wikifascist (the one that you saw, paul) i've taken a copy of (because it was actually really good). i've placed a warning at the top of the EOMA68 standard page to warn anyone who might think that the Wikipedia page is "authoritative".
gods this is taking up far too much time.
l.
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
ok so i've written here in favour of that idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EOMA-68#EOMA-6...
Is the page at http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA-68 authoritative?
If so, perhaps this page should be renamed to be "EOMA68" and references to "EOMA-68" edited to "EOMA68" as well? I'm going by the name of the standard on this page which says "EOMA68: name of the standard (not EOMA-68).". http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA-68/FAQ has references to the hyphenated name too.
If not, where is the authoritative written description of EOMA68?
Thanks.
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:49 AM, J.B. Nicholson jbn@forestfield.org wrote:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
ok so i've written here in favour of that idea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EOMA-68#EOMA-6...
Is the page at http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA-68 authoritative?
yes.
If so, perhaps this page should be renamed to be "EOMA68" and references to "EOMA-68" edited to "EOMA68" as well? I'm going by the name of the standard on this page which says "EOMA68: name of the standard (not EOMA-68).". http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA-68/FAQ has references to the hyphenated name too.
i knowwwww, i'm going through them. feel free to help if you like.
l.
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
i knowwwww, i'm going through them. feel free to help if you like.
I just moved a bunch of pages as I went around correcting "EOMA-68" to "EOMA68" (except in one instance which mentioned the misspelling on http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA68 ).
So now http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA68 exists and all of its subpages are moved (at least all the ones the wiki notified me of). Redirects should help anyone with (what are now) bad bookmarks and I believe none of the subpages are lost.
The slides in http://elinux.org/images/9/9e/Eoma68.pdf mention "EOMA-68" but that is not as easily resolved until I try some PDF editing software.
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:12 AM, J.B. Nicholson jbn@forestfield.org wrote:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
i knowwwww, i'm going through them. feel free to help if you like.
I just moved a bunch of pages as I went around correcting "EOMA-68" to "EOMA68" (except in one instance which mentioned the misspelling on http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA68 ).
So now http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA68 exists and all of its subpages are moved (at least all the ones the wiki notified me of). Redirects should help anyone with (what are now) bad bookmarks and I believe none of the subpages are lost.
awesome. thanks jb.
i can't work out how to do page-moves... did you manage the PassThrough one as well? --- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:12 AM, J.B. Nicholson jbn@forestfield.org wrote:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
i knowwwww, i'm going through them. feel free to help if you like.
I just moved a bunch of pages as I went around correcting "EOMA-68" to "EOMA68" (except in one instance which mentioned the misspelling on http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA68 ).
So now http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA68 exists and all of its subpages are moved (at least all the ones the wiki notified me of). Redirects should help anyone with (what are now) bad bookmarks and I believe none of the subpages are lost.
awesome. thanks jb.
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
i can't work out how to do page-moves... did you manage the PassThrough one as well?
If you're referring to http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA68/Passthrough then yes that was handled too.
If that's not the URL you're referring to please let me know what the URL is and I'll look into it.
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:35 AM, J.B. Nicholson jbn@forestfield.org wrote:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
i can't work out how to do page-moves... did you manage the PassThrough one as well?
If you're referring to http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture/EOMA68/Passthrough then yes that was handled too.
briiiliant that was the one, i just didn't receive an email about it - thanks JB.
l.
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
On Tuesday 6. September 2016 22.00.54 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
... is going to quickly turn into a clusterf*** if people don't step in sharp-ish and help out.
Well, I added a note in the talk page first of all, which more or less says that people should review edits and deploy "citation needed" rather than pick fights on the talk page. I guess it's probably unwise for you to do major edits for now because that will just upset them even more, but on the positive side, the page isn't in bad shape right now anyway.
only because i reverted a bunch of factually inaccurate stuff!!
It would be good to put a prominent glossary of terms somewhere that can then be used to enforce consistency on the Wikipedia page and throughout the other documentation. I can't find an obviously-located glossary page at the moment. And since the standard mentions "CPU Card" whereas the Wikipedia page mentions "Computer Card", people get confused without such guidance.
yeahyeah no this is great stuff - i need to add alex's clarification about naming as well
Anyway, I've since added a bunch of citations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EOMA-68&oldid=738088717
I hope that other editors can source their material and maybe even widen the sources to other sites than the ones I had to hand.
yeahyeah.
Paul
P.S. A stupid bot caused an edit conflict on the page, and I got the useless MediaWiki exhortation to merge my edit with the conflicting one (great when you've got two plain text widgets and nothing else to help you) and not to just overwrite the existing page text with my own. But it's actually easier to do an overwrite, save the page, and then to see the differences and fix up if necessary. Of course, the bot was just adding a date to a "citation needed" tag, that being a top priority task to ensure maximum page quality, naturally.
that's happened a lot... i do edits on sections, one at a time, now, because of that, so as not to lose too much / get into too much hassle.
l.
arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
-
J.B. Nicholson -
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton -
Paul Boddie