Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Someone needs to expand our WikiPedia article

<< < (2/4) > >>

tomos:
Thing is if you're involved with the organisation isn't it bad practice to edit your own articles?
-justice (March 02, 2009, 08:03 AM)
--- End quote ---

I think they dont actually mind but they are a bit obsessive about giving third party references as sources of your info (I guess it's the only way they can "believe" info - but it is a bit of a messy situation at same time).
IIRC the article abut SQLNotes got removed because of a lack there.

I'm sure Donationcoder and events like NANY here are well linked to from other sites

40hz:
Thing is if you're involved with the organisation isn't it bad practice to edit your own articles?
-justice (March 02, 2009, 08:03 AM)
--- End quote ---

I think they dont actually mind but they are a bit obsessive about giving third party references as sources of your info (I guess it's the only way they can "believe" info - but it is a bit of a messy situation at same time).
IIRC the article abut SQLNotes got removed because of a lack there.

I'm sure Donationcoder and events like NANY here are well linked to from other sites
-tomos (March 02, 2009, 09:13 AM)
--- End quote ---

Perhaps it would be better if DC set up its own wiki and let Wikipedia point to it as an external link?

That way DC would have complete control over what was on its wiki, and also sidestep some of the nonsense Wikipedia feels it needs to put people through trying to keep everyone honest.

Just a thought. :)

Paul Keith:
I sort of agree with 40hz but IMO outside of wikipedia, I rarely check another site's wiki mostly because you're never too sure how much content it has and by the time you do, you've already found that specific content you were looking for in that wiki and there's no point in browsing the other contents anymore.

I think in the long run it's better to just create a downloadable FAQ and have it linked to Wikipedia and the DC homepage. That way you at least have a formatted document rather than an unbrowsable history of random things you're not really sure you want to read.

Edit: This is also a good way of letting the actual dedicated wikipedians do all the work of working through the system. Just sprinkle the FAQ download into the Wikipedia reference and have them argue what's notable or non-notable in the discussion page and then sit back and relax in the thought of knowing that whatever content they argue on, the full details is still there for anyone to read.

mahesh2k:
Thing is if you're involved with the organisation isn't it bad practice to edit your own articles?
--- End quote ---

I agree. But i don't mind editing it anyway.

Ampa:
I am currently reading The World and Wikipedia: How We are Editing Reality and it has interested me in trying my hand at a little Wikipedia editing.

So, I have had a look at DCs wikipedia entry, and added a couple of notes to the discussion page.

Would be ideal if a few other DCers felt like collaborating and together we could start improving the page.

Update: DonationCoder's entry has been challenged and is proposed for deletion (in 7 days time!). The charge is "Web content with no indication of notability".

I'd like to think that the DC site, software and community are notable, but to be in the encyclopedia we need to demonstrate it by citing references from external sources.

Of course this is all my fault! By interacting with the existing page, it has been flagged to an admin, who has set the clock ticking! Ooops :(

Any volunteers? Head over to the discussion page and let's get going![/color]

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page