16 Feb
2025
16 Feb
'25
10:49 a.m.
On Feb 16, 2025, at 1:45 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
I haven't explored that, but in the example I gave I was thinking about a publication
in a national magazine. And a lot of content is covered by citations from rather obscure
sources -- for example, I added a whole lot of material to the Linotype article based on
citations of (and illustrations copied from) a book published by the manufacturer.
You're right that "original
research" doesn't go into Wikipedia. But "major mainstream outlet" is
not required. For example, the Electrologica X1 article cites sources for its content,
most of which are rather obscure publications such as tech reports in the CWI archives.
The point is that it has to be published elsewhere.
On the other hand, site policy has a long list of what publishers they'll
accept and not accept. Amateur and hobbyist postings to blogs, for example, are
not accepted, even if it's verifiable or reproducible or otherwise high quality.
I admit to a bit of pique here: I don't even
bother updating Wikipedia articles
anymore because they'll always get reverted by someone with less of a life than
me for any number of specious reasons.
Yes, hence my gripe about my FM contribution, rejected because "it's not wide
band FM". Nor was Armstrong's original patent. I think the real objection was
"it's not American". :-(
paul