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

[Andres Valloud]

ResearchGate is a social network, and conferences are not a guarantee of 
anything.  Self references are not worth much for similar reasons.  See 
"predatory publishing" in Wikipedia.

I'd compare how the draft differs from Squeak's already accepted page.

On 6/11/24 6:03 PM, Joseph Turco via Cuis-dev wrote:
> Wow. Now I know why some wikipedia entries do not exist, yet we can have 
> things like bigfoot or other folklore on the site. Unbelievable.Who's up 
> for submitting Dr Geo in a scientific paper?
> 
> regards,
> 
> Joseph Turco
> 
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 5:59 PM ken.dickey--- via Cuis-dev 
> <cuis-dev at lists.cuis.st <mailto:cuis-dev at lists.cuis.st>> wrote:
> 
>     Perhaps you can help.
> 
>     I submitted a draft web page last February
> 
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cuis_Smalltalk
>     <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 <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
>     <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
>     <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
> 
>     -- 
>     Cuis-dev mailing list
>     Cuis-dev at lists.cuis.st <mailto:Cuis-dev at lists.cuis.st>
>     https://lists.cuis.st/mailman/listinfo/cuis-dev
>     <https://lists.cuis.st/mailman/listinfo/cuis-dev>
> 
>