> On Feb 16, 2025, at 1:45 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk
> <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>
>> 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 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.
> 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
