PDA

View Full Version : AW Wiki Page?



Bartholomew
12-23-2009, 03:41 PM
I've been pondering an AW wiki page; I think this community is notable enough for a wiki, but I was wondering if any of you agreed.

What sections would the article have? As of this morning, no such article existed. Has one ever existed before?

Sophia
12-23-2009, 03:45 PM
I think that's a great idea. I think it should definitely mention the Bewares and Background Check board, Uncle Jim's thread, and the information gathered about Publish America, and also include links to sites such as Preditors and Editors and Making Light. Perhaps there could also be links to the refugee site and the Twitter feed, for when AW is down.

Bartholomew
12-23-2009, 03:50 PM
One problem is that Wiki doesn't like message board posts or blogs as sources -- no exceptions. What 3rd party, published places have talked about AW? AW itself can count, to a limited degree.

Polenth
12-23-2009, 09:12 PM
I didn't think AW met the notability requirements (which are here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28web%29)). I've only seen trivial references in articles. Though maybe it was mentioned in more depth in some of the court case articles?

If it does meet the guidelines, likely sections would be a basic description, a bit about the history of the site and the impact it's had in the wider world of writing (the things mentioned in the news articles).

Bartholomew
12-25-2009, 03:06 AM
I think when I get some free time, I'll create a wiki page and enlist some help from our community and theirs to see if we meet their criteria. I think we do, but I'm frequently wrong.

MacAllister
12-25-2009, 03:11 AM
Let me gently discourage this idea -- at least for the time being -- for a variety of legal reasons I'm not entirely free to discuss.

But I love you guys for thinkin' of it. :)

Collectonian
12-25-2009, 03:20 AM
As a very frequent contributor to Wikipedia (90+k edits), let me strongly discourage such an idea. As I like it around here, I'd really hate to be the one to have get such an article deleted. The site, while great, does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines at all.

MacAllister
12-25-2009, 03:24 AM
As a very frequent contributor to Wikipedia (90+k edits), let me strongly discourage such an idea. As I like it around here, I'd really hate to be the one to have get such an article deleted. The site, while great, does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines at all.:) Well, then! Bart - you're gonna have to find other stuff to spend all that free time on.

Thanks for weighing in, Collectonian.

benbradley
12-25-2009, 05:49 AM
So I was reading down to the third post here, and I realize it's about something different than I first thought:

One problem is that Wiki doesn't like message board posts or blogs as sources -- no exceptions. What 3rd party, published places have talked about AW? AW itself can count, to a limited degree.
Oh.

You mean Wikipedia.

Just a note on word usage. Wiki is a completely different word from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a specific website, one that you were apparently referring to in your messages.

Wiki is the name of a program that allows a website/webpage to have user-editable content, or the name for such a webpage. It's used in many places in addition to Wikipedia. This is what I thought you meant by the word wiki.

Practically the first instruction in Wikipedia is "Be bold" but it's very far from the only one. I've seen one or two people who were so bold with creating and editing articles, without reading any further, that I'm surprised it took them so long to get locked out of Wikipedia.

I've done a very few minor edits in Wikipedia, but at least I know what userboxen are.

Ken
12-25-2009, 06:15 AM
... might be done indirectly. There are several members here with signifigant publication credits to their names. Obtaining their permission, you might write Wikipedia articles on them, mentioning in passing that they honed their skills and whatnot on AW. Indirect plugs of such sort would probably be much more effective, anyway, in alerting aspiring writers to the resource.

Collectonian
12-25-2009, 06:47 AM
As a note, if they are notable, their permission is not needed to write an article about them. However, all content, particularly from living people, must come from reliable sources. So unless a third-party reliable source mentions AW in relation to the person, it still would not be appropriate. :-P And as Wikipedia has some extremely strict rules regarding articles on living people (for hopefully obvious reasons), I'd also discourage creating articles for fellow forum members (or oneself) unless you can really show them to be notable.

If it makes anyone feel better, I did spot a few links to AW articles being used as references on some articles about people (such as interviews) and on writing in general. They likely wouldn't hold up to an article quality review, but for now, they are there. :-)

benbradley
12-25-2009, 06:59 AM
... might be done indirectly. There are several members here with signifigant publication credits to their names. Obtaining their permission, you might write Wikipedia articles on them,
If they're sufficiently public or "notable" figures, you don't need their permission to write an article on them, thought perhaps I shouldn't even say that...

mentioning in passing that they honed their skills and whatnot on AW.
This goes right against the spirit of Wikipedia. It's a bit like spam.

Indirect plugs of such sort would probably be much more effective, anyway, in alerting aspiring writers to the resource.
There's not quite a million things wrong with that, but I can think of a few immediately that haven't already been mentioned. The main thing here is "Indirect plugs" or "plugs" of any kind are a definite no-no on Wikipedia.

Here's a related page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

benbradley
12-25-2009, 07:06 AM
As a note, if they are notable, their permission is not needed to write an article about them. However, all content, particularly from living people, must come from reliable sources. So unless a third-party reliable source mentions AW in relation to the person, it still would not be appropriate. :-P And as Wikipedia has some extremely strict rules regarding articles on living people (for hopefully obvious reasons), I'd also discourage creating articles for fellow forum members (or oneself) unless you can really show them to be notable.
And even so, if you're significantly involved with something or someone, it's a bit of a conflict of interest to write or edit an article on them. Especially an article about yourself, ISTR the most you're allowed to do is post a comment on the Talk page identifying yourself and requesting any factual errors be fixed.

I've heard of several news stories (and ISTR there's a site dedicated to news like this): IP addresses have been banned from Wikipedia because they were editing articles mentioning, for a generic name, XYZ company, and the IP addresses were at XYZ company...

MacAllister
12-25-2009, 07:07 AM
Yeah. That would go right against the spirit of AW, too, Ken. What Ben said.

Thanks for the thought - but good lord, no.

Ken
12-25-2009, 07:07 AM
... from Ben's link above:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

Seems like a sensible policy. Thanks for filling me in on it and providing it for others to adhere to. I use Wikipedia myself on occasion. Good resource. And here I am suggesting a way to mess it up :-( ... Didn't think things through is my (rather lame) excuse.

Collectonian
12-25-2009, 09:25 AM
And even so, if you're significantly involved with something or someone, it's a bit of a conflict of interest to write or edit an article on them. Especially an article about yourself, ISTR the most you're allowed to do is post a comment on the Talk page identifying yourself and requesting any factual errors be fixed.

I've heard of several news stories (and ISTR there's a site dedicated to news like this): IP addresses have been banned from Wikipedia because they were editing articles mentioning, for a generic name, XYZ company, and the IP addresses were at XYZ company...

Yep, the COI policy is also strongly enforced. Random side note, I got to interact with the creator of Meerkat Manor through Wikipedia because she wanted some corrections made to the article :-P

And yes, several whole IP ranges have been blocked because of issues with COI edits...best not to do it :)

LOG
12-25-2009, 11:10 AM
AW deserves a brief synopsis.
If the Freeborn movie and The Pack can get a wiki page, then so should this place.

Bartholomew
12-25-2009, 06:30 PM
AW deserves a brief synopsis.


While I agree, the more I look at Wikipedia's guidelines, the less it looks possible. And if Mac says she'd rather I not, I'd rather not.

I'd still like to know why wikipedia has such a strong aversion to discussion internet sites. It strikes me as bizzarre, and a tad hypocritical.

aruna
12-25-2009, 07:09 PM
I'm a wikipedia editor, and have created a couple of articles. Possibly, if Mac and Uncle Jim approve, I could add a sentence and an external link on Uncle Jim's wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Macdonald), mentioning AW. Not as a plug, but as just another example of Uncle Jim's work.

Medievalist
12-25-2009, 08:33 PM
Mac has asked us not to mention AW on Wikipedia. She's given good reasons:


Let me gently discourage this idea -- at least for the time being -- for a variety of legal reasons I'm not entirely free to discuss.

But I love you guys for thinkin' of it. :)

So let's not, please.

BigWords
12-25-2009, 09:17 PM
I'm not that bothered about The Other Wiki ignoring AW (for the most part), but we can still get something on (the much cooler) TV Tropes about Absolute Write. :)



Only on Mac's say-so, of course...

Collectonian
12-26-2009, 12:56 AM
I'd still like to know why wikipedia has such a strong aversion to discussion internet sites. It strikes me as bizzarre, and a tad hypocritical.

Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Topics with article should have real-world notability, as evidenced by significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources. Simply existing doesn't make something notable, nor does its having a happy user base. If media outlets and the like wrote about Absolute Write, it would be notable. Wikipedia doesn't have an aversion to discussion sites, its simply a fact that most are not notable. Why hypocritical? Wikipedia isn't a discussion site, nor does it count itself as a reliable source. :-P

benbradley
12-26-2009, 02:25 AM
Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Topics with article should have real-world notability, as evidenced by significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources. Simply existing doesn't make something notable, nor does its having a happy user base. If media outlets and the like wrote about Absolute Write, it would be notable. Wikipedia doesn't have an aversion to discussion sites, its simply a fact that most are not notable. Why hypocritical? Wikipedia isn't a discussion site, nor does it count itself as a reliable source. :-P
There's also a distinction between having an ARTICLE about a discussion site and USING DISCUSSION SITE POSTS as SOURCES. The last would only happen in the very rare case where a post itself becomes newsworthy MySpace teen suicide, but I don't want to even think about going there.

Without even looking I'm sure there are entries on Fark and Slashdot, because these are so much larger and/or older and more established, or in some ways a lot more visible than AW. They've surely been referenced in mainstream media sources. Then of course there's Usenet, which isn't a discussion site, but rather a discussion MEDIUM.

Bartholomew
12-26-2009, 08:14 AM
Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Topics with article should have real-world notability, as evidenced by significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources. Simply existing doesn't make something notable, nor does its having a happy user base. If media outlets and the like wrote about Absolute Write, it would be notable. Wikipedia doesn't have an aversion to discussion sites, its simply a fact that most are not notable. Why hypocritical? Wikipedia isn't a discussion site, nor does it count itself as a reliable source. :-P

The mere existence of Wikipedia, despite what it may claim, begs for recognition. The grand idea of the project is, paraphrasing, to capture in one place the sum human knowledge.

And I think I'll stop there, because I've accidentally proved your point.

At some point, however, they will be forced to reckon with blogs as sources - it's already coming to a point where some editorial blogs fact check better than news papers.

Bartholomew
12-26-2009, 08:16 AM
Since there's a very legitimate reason not to have a wiki about AW outside of Wikipedia defining us as sub-noteworthy, I propose that we lock this thread and get the idea out of people's heads, at least until the reasons Mac spoke of clear up.

##

Since Wikipedia is a place for knowledge, however, I'm sure we could create or enhance some articles based on the concepts we expouse here about writing.

Polenth
12-26-2009, 09:18 AM
At some point, however, they will be forced to reckon with blogs as sources - it's already coming to a point where some editorial blogs fact check better than news papers.

They accept blogs and websites as sources when they meet the requirements for being a reliable source.

What they don't do is accept personal blogs as reliable sources, anymore than they would if you self-published a newspaper out of your shed.

Collectonian
12-26-2009, 10:25 AM
Since Wikipedia is a place for knowledge, however, I'm sure we could create or enhance some articles based on the concepts we expouse here about writing.

That would be a great idea...alas, the literary areas, such as the general articles basic writing concepts, like antagonist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antagonist), protagonist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagonist), tone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_%28literature%29), and dénouement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9nouement), etc tend to be in pretty poor shape because they are frequently neglected as most editors are more interested in pop culture stuff and the like, and few are interested in those important core areas. Company articles are also often hit with the same problem. Check out Suzanne Brockmann's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Brockmann) article, for example (which I just did some seriously rough clean up of).

maxmordon
12-28-2009, 11:26 AM
TVtropes does mention Absolute Write Water Cooler twice, though: First time the case of a guy who had a buddhist sign that someone mistook as a swastika and caused fuzz about it and the other as one of those forums you can spend hours hypnotised with it.