[Cuis-dev] Cuis Smalltalk Draft Wikipedia Page finally reviewed -- and REJECTED

[ken.dickey at whidbey.com]

Perhaps you can help.

I submitted a draft web page last February

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cuis_Smalltalk

The TalkBack Discussion is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#June_11

vvv===vvv===vvv
     66.165.31.64 (talk · contribs) (TB)
         Draft:Cuis Smalltalk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | 
logs)

KenD>>I have no real idea why this page was rejected or what corrections 
might be made to be acceptable. It is a bit like submitting a draft of a 
book and having it rejected because "there is a missing comma 
somewhere". This page was submitted in February, and as an old retired 
guy who does not write web pages or Wikipedia entries for a living, I 
have tried to follow your formats to the best of my poor abilities. Can 
you give me some help here? I can not see why Cuis is the only major 
dialect of Smalltalk with no Wikipedia web page.
Perhaps note/mark places for improvement? I really have no idea what, 
specifically, is bring objected to. 66.165.31.64 (talk) 19:18, 11 June 
2024 (UTC)

     We don't cite GitHub (no editorial oversight) or ResearchGate (no 
editorial oversight). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:22, 11 
June 2024 (UTC)

KenD>>  Excuse me! Just because masters theses or conference talks (e.g. 
https://smalltalks2023.fast.org.ar/talks) are not "editorialized" does 
not make reliable, verifiable information "go away". You can easily 
download, say, https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis7-0 and verify all 
aspects and claims. Don't you believe software is real if it is open 
source and available from GitHub? You seem to be eliding much of the 
world here via editorial solipsism. Have you looked at the references 
and seen any invalid information? Surely you must accept some aspects of 
the world which exists outside of an encyclopedia. Some information is 
self validating by its existence. KennethDickey (talk) 19:52, 11 June 
2024 (UTC)

     @KennethDickey, what is being said here we don't provide proper 
editorial oversight or in depth fact checking on the content either. 
This is why the article needs be based on what others not connected to 
the subject have said about it in what we consider reliable sources. 
This means the sources used must show us there is impact on the greater 
world though the independent and significant coverage in these reliable 
sources. Github, Researchgate or theses do not achieve any of these 
criteria. You can use connected source for simple uncontestable facts, 
but again they will not help to demonstrate how they impact the greater 
world. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

     @KennethDickey: The problem here is that we are looking for evidence 
a subject is notable by Wikipedia's terms, not that a draft's subject 
exists. Existence has never been a criterion for inclusion. There is 
also the matter that the bulk of your sources are to GitHub, which does 
not exercise editorial oversight in the journalism sense (i.e. 
corrections, retractions, fact-checks). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads 
critiques 20:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
^^^===^^^===^^^

So it appears, to paraphrase, we may exist but unless written up in a 
journal/juried-proceedings we don't matter enough for a web page.

It appears to me that FAST talks and SIGPLAN papers are not in 
consideration.

I am once again frustrated/irritated by the procrustean Wikipedia 
process.

Any ideas?

-KenD