Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*) (david_chisnall@infosec.exchange)'s status on Wednesday, 22-Jan-2025 01:14:35 JST David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)

   Any #Wikipedia editors around who can help? We are trying to get the article on #CHERI added. It's so far been rejected three times:

   First, it did not have enough independent citations. We added a lot to news articles about CHERI.

   Second, it was insufficiently detailed and lacking context. We added a timeline of development, a load of cross references, and a simple introduction.

   It was then rejected again because it lacks an explanation that a 15-year-old could understand. This is true of 90% of science-related articles on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how we fix it. An explanation at that level is something I can write (I have done for the #CHERIoT book!) but it would then make the page 3-4 times as long and not suitable for an encyclopaedia (I've previously seen pages rejected because Wikipedia is not the right place for tutorials).

   I don't understand the standards for Wikipedia and I really need some guidance for how to resolve and progress this.

   • Life is Tetris repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     asie (asie@mk.asie.pl)'s status on Wednesday, 22-Jan-2025 01:14:35 JST asie

     in reply to

     @david_chisnall@infosec.exchange We spent many years trying to correct a video game's release date, just because its author gave the wrong one in an interview done 10-20 years after the fact (which is a more reputable source than the game's own documentation, naturally).
     
     We only managed to resolve it because someone who happened to be an experienced Wikipedia editor walked into our community and proposed to clean up the article for us while dealing with the editor politics.
     
     At this point, I honestly encourage specialized communities to build their own wikis, treating Wikipedia as a kind of "jack of all trades, master of none" place.