[user] wikipedia coverage of Gemini

[Philip Linde]

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/20201228/17578e79/attachment.sig>