--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
On Tuesday 6. September 2016 23.09.15 Paul Boddie wrote:
Anyway, I've since added a bunch of citations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EOMA-68&oldid=738088717
I hope that other editors can source their material and maybe even widen the sources to other sites than the ones I had to hand.
And the stupid bot just reverted my entire edit because "Inexperienced user citing to primary sources associated wiht [sic] the product, fails WP:RS."
faaakin 'ell...
And, of course, the page is now a deletion candidate.
oo that's actually a good idea!
It makes me wonder how automatic ("wiht", indeed) this "bot" is.
So, I say that we don't waste any more time with these people. I've left a remark about this on the talk page, but I guess they'll just delete the page. It's really far better to provide robust, authoritative documentation elsewhere and just ignore Wikipedia for the time being.
no it's at least inspired some reviews of the standard, which is great.
The tactic, if Luke is bothered about misrepresentation, is to then demand page deletion if someone recreates the page and writes nonsense on it. After all, that probably works rather well for famous people, so we can afford the luxury of suspending our disbelief for a second and thinking that it might work here as well.
in about 6-12 months time there will be people coming out with stuff so it'll be "multiple sources"
Paul
P.S. Generally, I've only ever edited Wikipedia to correct nonsense, add citations to various things, and generally try and uphold the historical record (where others might want to further their own agenda on a non-factual basis).
hilariously there's people on wikipedia who think that's what i'm doing. they have _no_ idea how software libre / open project management works...
l.