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

[Juan Vuletich]

On 6/11/2024 6:59 PM, ken.dickey--- via Cuis-dev wrote:
> 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
>

Hi Ken,

It is interesting to note that the complaint seems to be about 
"notability", and that 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(software) says
"A computer program can usually be presumed to be notable if it meets 
any one of these criteria:
     ...
     It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high 
schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not 
apply to software merely used in instruction.
     ... ".
Then it goes on saying
"Exceptions
As with other essays (or guidelines), this essay is not intended to 
consider all circumstances. If in doubt, remember that rules are 
principles intended to guide decisions and that Wikipedia is not a 
bureaucracy. Go ahead and tag that article for deletion or present 
reasons to keep an article. "

It seems reviewers are not very good at following their own criteria... 
Not to mention understanding a little bit of the matters whose 
notability they are judging.

-- 
Juan Vuletich
cuis.st
github.com/jvuletich
researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Vuletich
independent.academia.edu/JuanVuletich
patents.justia.com/inventor/juan-manuel-vuletich
linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3
twitter.com/JuanVuletich