[user] wikipedia coverage of Gemini

Hello,

following a reference to the problems of finding out about Gemini on 
Wikipedia, I've overhauled the page about "Gemini space", which had 
replaced "Gemini (protocol)" and which made it difficult to find at all. 
There are now two articles, one focused solely on the protocol (and thus 
more eligible to be in included in generic lists of protocols and so-on).

Previous contributors to this mailing list highlighted the problem that 
Wikipedia's policies militate against Gemini as it isn't trivially 
discoverable via the sources that Wikipedia privileges. We'll see if this 
persists as an issue; the mitigation would be to do some marketing, but 
that's probably not something we want just yet.

Mk

-- 
Martin Keegan, @mk270, https://mk.ucant.org/

> Previous contributors to this mailing list highlighted the problem
> that Wikipedia's policies militate against Gemini as it isn't
> trivially discoverable via the sources that Wikipedia privileges.

"militate" is a strong word... Wikipedia can't let everything in, so
it restricts articles to topics for which there exist sources that
cover it in relative detail, are independent and 'generally reliable'.
<1> To be honest, I'm not sure the two articles would currently
survive a deletion discussion: the sources they cite are stuff like
announcements by gemini-related projects - not independent - and blog
posts - not considered 'generally reliable'.

So really, the existence of a Gemini article is not guaranteed until
it is covered by a publication, preferably multiple publications,
that meet(s) that standard. 'General reliability' mostly has to do
with having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".<2>

Obviously, we think Wikipedia should have an article on Gemini, but
equally obviously, we are biased. Unfortunately for us, the Wikipedia
bureaucracy can be quite unforgiving :).

> We'll see if this persists as an issue; the mitigation would be to
> do some marketing, but that's probably not something we want just
> yet.

My instinctive response is to end that sentence with "ever" instead. I
associate the term marketing with empty publicity for commercial
products. Gemini will naturally become gradually more relevant as
people keep putting effort into it, and consequently more well-known.

<1> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
<2> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

> Previous contributors to this mailing list highlighted the problem
> that Wikipedia's policies militate against Gemini as it isn't
> trivially discoverable via the sources that Wikipedia privileges.

"militate" is a strong word... Wikipedia can't let everything in, so
it restricts articles to topics for which there exist sources that
cover it in relative detail, are independent and 'generally reliable'.
<1> To be honest, I'm not sure the two articles would currently
survive a deletion discussion: the sources they cite are stuff like
announcements by gemini-related projects - not independent - and blog
posts - not considered 'generally reliable'.

So really, the existence of a Gemini article is not guaranteed until
it is covered by a publication, preferably multiple publications,
that meet(s) that standard. 'General reliability' mostly has to do
with having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".<2>

Obviously, we think Wikipedia should have an article on Gemini, but
equally obviously, we are biased. Unfortunately for us, the Wikipedia
bureaucracy can be quite unforgiving :).

> We'll see if this persists as an issue; the mitigation would be to
> do some marketing, but that's probably not something we want just
> yet.

My instinctive response is to end that sentence with "ever" instead. I
associate the term marketing with empty publicity for commercial
products. Gemini will naturally become gradually more relevant as
people keep putting effort into it, and consequently more well-known.

<1> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
<2> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 16:11:00 +0000 (GMT)
Martin Keegan <martin at no.ucant.org> wrote:

> 
> Hello,
> 
> following a reference to the problems of finding out about Gemini on 
> Wikipedia, I've overhauled the page about "Gemini space", which had 
> replaced "Gemini (protocol)" and which made it difficult to find at all. 
> There are now two articles, one focused solely on the protocol (and thus 
> more eligible to be in included in generic lists of protocols and so-on).

This seems like a good change in principle. The articles still contain
large chunks of uncited claims, or claims that  and IME could be swept
up any minute now for that reason.

> Previous contributors to this mailing list highlighted the problem that 
> Wikipedia's policies militate against Gemini as it isn't trivially 
> discoverable via the sources that Wikipedia privileges. We'll see if this 
> persists as an issue; the mitigation would be to do some marketing, but 
> that's probably not something we want just yet.

It's not so much an issue in my opinion. Wikipedia has a bar of entry
in terms of notability for a reason, and it should function more as an
encyclopedia (where the content reflects popular opinion on facts) than
an everything-site that people can use to promote their projects.

If we can manipulate the process of creating a popular opinion on facts
in a benign way (by "marketing") then maybe we should go ahead, but I
think this also happens naturally as subjects gain notability: whatever
we do, Wikipedia notability should be a side effect, not an end.

Tangential funny Wikipedia story:
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-a-raccoon-became-an-aardvark

-- 
Philip
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20201228/1757
8e79/attachment.sig>

> On Dec 28, 2020, at 13:44, Philip Linde <linde.philip at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Tangential funny Wikipedia story:
> https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-a-raccoon-became-an-aardvark

?also known as the Brazilian aardvark? 

Thanks for the link :)