Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Aussie Tech-Focused Wiki Launched

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the history-is-written-by-the-koala dept.

Wikipedia 155

daria42 writes "Wikipedia's great for some things — like looking up the in-depth history of 4chan, for example — but not great for others, such as finding out the micro-history of the technology sector in certain countries. That's why Australian technology publication Delimiter has launched a public wiki site purely focused on the Australian technology sector — its personalities, issues, companies, and events. Already the site has better coverage of some areas than Wikipedia, leading to the question of whether more such small wikis should be created for certain verticals."

cancel ×

155 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Abstract says it all (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31813448)

Wikipedia's great for some things — like looking up the in-depth history of 4chan

That is what is wrong with Wikipedia.

Re:Abstract says it all (5, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813486)

That is what is wron^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H

There, I deleted it for ya.

Re:Abstract says it all (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31813732)

[citation needed]

Re:Abstract says it all (2, Funny)

wmac (1107843) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814826)

Someone has added an x-rated photo titled "Example of pushing limits". Did you added it to the Auzi monstrous! wiki?

I managed to take a snapshot of your crime :) http://i43.tinypic.com/11mgtvr.jpg [tinypic.com]

(See the history if you cannot see it)

Re:Abstract says it all (1)

Pinkfud (781828) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814948)

When I saw it, it said "Hello Slashdot". Interesting, don't you think?

Australia? (-1, Troll)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813740)

um.... judging by the number of entries, can i conclude there is only a small tech sector down under?

Re:Australia? (2, Insightful)

black3d (1648913) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813966)

8 Pages, and 3 of them are test entries, and two are one-liners. Extremely slow news day? :\

Re:Australia? (1)

anarche (1525323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813996)

yep.

damn those ex-government monopolies holding back innovation.

although tbf, since Telstra is over 100 years, you'd expect that their page would be a bit longer.

Looks like delimiter have some work on their hands...

Re:Australia? (2, Informative)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814046)

Telstra is early '90s. Telecom was the '70s. Before that it was part of PMG. Maybe Australia Post kept the early history.

Re:Australia? (2, Interesting)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814566)

You can't really conclude that. That'd be more to do with the fact that the site is less than 12 hours 'old', so not many users have written entries for it yet (and for that matter, there aren't many users yet).

The tech sector in Australia is no smaller or bigger than in any other similar sized country AFAIK. Most of it is dominated by the usual multinational suspects (MS, IBM, Oracle, HP, Novell etc.) but there are a few Australian companies that are fairly substantial in size (although these are primarily consulting firms rather than hardware/software development companies ... most of those get to a certain size then get bought out by one of aforementioned large multinationals).

The telco/ISP area is interesting though. Companies like Internode, iiNet/Westnet, TPG etc. are Australian-grown and have become rather successful and large. Actually come to think of it, there aren't many foreign companies that have come here and done that well in that sector - Optus (Singtel) and foreign mobile operators like Vodafone and Virgin are about it.

Re:Australia? (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814920)

"You can't really conclude that. That'd be more to do with the fact that the site is less than 12 hours 'old', so not many users have written entries for it yet.."

In another 12 hours, access will be blocked by the moron govt. because somebody cited too much from a copyrighted handbook or manual.

Re:Abstract says it all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31814032)

[citation needed]

Re:Abstract says it all (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814108)

Uh no. That's what I use wikipedia for. Where else are you going to find info like that?

Advantage? (4, Insightful)

qazadex (1378043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813456)

Why not use the effort in creating articles in an entirely new wiki to instead improve or add articles for Wikipedia? Wikipedia as we know it today would be much less useful if broken up into thousands of subdomains.

Re:broken into thousands of subdomains? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31813522)

But isn't the internet really just thousands of sub domains? And it's useful right? Even the Wikipedia folks seem to think that it is okay to have many sources of "fact" see also links aka references at the end of each Wikipedia entry. Is this a Wikipedia issue or just a problem with somebody else calling their user create collection of "facts" a wiki? I like Wikipedia and appreciate when people add to it but refuse to limit myself when people choose to maintain their own website(s) even ones that happen to be structured as wikis.

Re:Advantage? (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813526)

It does seem curious. In wonder if they ran up against some faction of US-centric "notability nazis" on wikipedia(in which case starting their own wiki is probably the most logical response) or whether they made the(arguably stupid) move of looking at wikipedia, noting that it didn't have what they wanted, and then making their own.

Distinct wikis are quite sensible when dealing with matters that aren't within Wikipedia's area of interest(the dedicated Star Wars and Star Trek wikis, among others, would be a bit much shoehorned in to wikipedia proper, for instance). In this case, though, the Australian tech industry would seem to be as logical a candidate for entry into standard Wikipedia as any other country's, if perhaps understandably less heavily contributed.

Assuming that the license isn't something totally off the wall, somebody could probably do a more or less automatic mass import; but it still seems sort of pointless.

Re:Advantage? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31813564)

I checked: The licence for stuff on the delimiter wiki is Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. It could be pulled back into WP if anybody cared to do so(or, of course, any stub articles could just link to it).

Re:Advantage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31814488)

Gazadex, fuzz. When you get right down to it, what we are seeing here is basically the same thing we saw that came out of stack overflow. Jeff Atwood and co realised that sites like yahoo answers were a good idea but once you included all people into the debate about something very particular you basically get a mess of /b/arstards cloggin up the system. And that is how you got stack overflow. a very technical oriented developrt q&a forum/application.

What we have here, are people in Aussie with a very particular set of information they are after, putting this information on a world wide stage opens it up to having to deal with all sorts of crap including all the vandalism (which is probably what they want to avoid from what I can tell about their data set)

Make sense?

Re:Advantage? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31813528)

Have you ever tried to create or edit articles in Wikipedia?

I've had dentist visits which were less painful.
I've dealt with powerhungry asshole admins in fps games who were more understanding.
I've dealt with complex series of rules (i.e. United States Tax Code) which are easier to circumnavigate than Wikipedia's ego-driven drivel.

And my edits were on non-mainstream articles.

Re:Advantage? (2, Interesting)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813750)

Have you ever tried to create or edit articles in Wikipedia?

I've had dentist visits which were less painful.
I've dealt with powerhungry asshole admins in fps games who were more understanding.
I've dealt with complex series of rules (i.e. United States Tax Code) which are easier to circumnavigate than Wikipedia's ego-driven drivel.

And my edits were on non-mainstream articles.

I concur, we need a wikipedia like tool dumb down to a myspace/geocites level

Re:Advantage? (3, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813562)

because some articles will never improve on wikipedia under the current management, that's why.

Re:Advantage? (1)

Protoslo (752870) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813616)

Articles about obscure corporate figures, obscure companies, obscure Pokemon, etc. are exactly the kind of things that get deleted from Wikipedia on account of "relevance."

Re:Advantage? (1)

Protoslo (752870) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813630)

That is, on account of "notability."

Re:Advantage? (1, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813660)

Maybe they don't want a janitor deciding they don't have enough citations and deleting shit. Maybe they don't want a janitor deciding it's not important and having their articles deleted. Maybe they want a repository of useful information and not get caught in a wikipedia turf war.

Re:Advantage? (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814532)

What's wrong with janitors?

Re:Advantage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31814606)

I think he never watched Good Will Hunting...

Re:Advantage? (1)

xQx (5744) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813786)

Parent post deleted - not notable / not encyclopedic.

(That's why.)

Re:Advantage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31814424)

I'll add my voice to the many: Because they don't want to spend time and energy writing/editing articles on something about which they have an intimate knowledge only to have it deleted, or hacked to pieces, by someone with zero-knowledge and who's only qualification/authority to edit articles comes from a combination of acute egomania and their ability to game the wikipedia political system. Or perhaps what they're writing articles on doesn't meet the Wikipedia "notability" or "original research" guidelines, or rather, the aforementioned heavy-handed editors' interpretations thereof. E.g. If they're writing about a small company in Australia which is working on a very new technology product then it would probably be deleted summarily. I'm all for deleting articles written by some astro-turfing marketeer, but there comes a point when original research should be allowed.

Re:Advantage? (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814722)

Why not use the effort in creating articles in an entirely new wiki to instead improve or add articles for Wikipedia?

Because your work is likely to be deleted. Not every little tech company meets wikipedia's notability standards.

A few years ago, I added a bunch of pages on CMSs, and especially open source enterprise CMSs, to the Dutch wikipedia. Some of those were immediately deleted because it wasn't interesting enough and few other articles linked to them, although I imagine a lot of people would be interested in that sort of info. A specialised tech wiki would definitely help out there.

Of course it'd be nice if that info was also added to wikipedia, but with the occasional delete frenzy there, it's nice to have the same info available elsewhere.

That's not a wiki, THIS is a wiki (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813460)

It's Senator Conroys all the way down...

Re:That's not a wiki, THIS is a wiki (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813572)

Hello, did I mention goat turds? Did you mention goat turds? Well, goat turds.

Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (5, Insightful)

Qubit (100461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813472)

Aussie Tech-Focused Wikipedia Launched

No, it wasn't. Some business in Australia unconnected with the Wikimedia crowd decided to put up their own wiki (running MediaWiki, like half of the other wikis out there). Good for them.

Why didn't Slashdot cover it when Penny Arcade got their own Wikipedia [wikia.com] ? Oh wait, it was because that didn't happen, the same way Australia didn't get their own Wikipedia for technology.

Anyhow, if someone's going to give the Land Down Under their own honest-to-goodness Wikipedia wiki, I think it should be about ways to get rid of invasive species. Any Aussies here? You've got what: rabbits, poisonous toads, some kind of insect, and.... what else?

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31813498)

big fucking spiders, and much worse, little ones. I got bitten in the garden by an ant a month ago, and FAINTED, because I didn't see what bit me. I thought I was going to die because we wouldn't never know which anti-venom to apply.

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (4, Funny)

PigIronBob (885337) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814182)

...spiders, and much worse...

we managed to get rid of one of the biggest parasitic specimens of them all and dump him on to the unsuspecting population of the US: Rupert Murdoch

you naturalised him, you keep him!

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31813544)

Come to Australia!... [youtube.com]

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (1)

NewsWatcher (450241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813574)

Any Aussies here? You've got what: rabbits, poisonous toads, some kind of insect, and.... what else?
Much of Australia's wildlife has been decimated by introduced species. You left out foxes, cats, carp and I think the insect you refer to is the European wasp, or maybe it is fire ants, both of which are wild.

Probably the worst invasive species is Homo sapiens, which brought in all the other species (that includes our indigenous people, who introduced the dingo a few thousand years ago, decimating wildlife on the mainland, and rats).

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813900)

yep, it started 40,000 years ago when aboriginals arrived and started burning the land - they wiped out all the super mammals and countless plant species that couldn't take the regular burnings.

the next most destructive animal to arrive would have to be the cane toad. it out competes native frogs, anything that eats it dies and we still don't have anyway of stopping it.

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (1)

aiht (1017790) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813976)

Because Australian native life isn't at all used to being burned. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (1)

jaminJay (1198469) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814926)

Fair call, but what about the other x-thousand species?

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (2, Informative)

Sabriel (134364) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814938)

Er, what? Eucalypts prove the poster's point. They're so well-suited to surviving Australian bushfires they dominated the continent. If you're going to link wikipedia, I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus [wikipedia.org] which goes into considerably more detail. For a relevant excerpt, "With the arrival of the first humans about 50 thousand years ago, fires became much more frequent and the fire-loving eucalypts soon came to account for roughly 70% of Australian forest."

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (-1, Offtopic)

zhgtkwyy (1781410) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813608)

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31813624)

THIS. [treehugger.com]

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (1)

fabs64 (657132) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813722)

Restricting the conversation to seriously destructive imports I'd say the next ones would be cats, foxes and european carp.

Particularly cats, disgusting destructive pest animals those things are.

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (1)

Scoldog (875927) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813738)

We've got a lot of feral animals. Cats, rats, camels, pigs, goats, foxes, horses not to mention the ones that NewsWatcher spoke off.

You'd think our native animals would be tough enough to take this lot down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNEeq5qGh8I

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (5, Funny)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813908)

I think it should be about ways to get rid of invasive species. Any Aussies here? You've got what: rabbits, poisonous toads, some kind of insect, and.... what else?

New Zealanders. ;)

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31814482)

True, which is the only reason any work gets done in Australia ;-)

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (3, Funny)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814564)

True, which is the only reason any work gets done in Australia

I can only assume you're talking about the work required to staff the dole office for all the attending Kiwis? ;)

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (1)

conufsed (650798) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813930)

Annoying Americans

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814062)

They're the ones that can't read the 'No Swimming' signs. Problem solved, croc fed.

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (2, Funny)

tumutbound (549414) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814340)

"Annoying americans" isn't that tautology?

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (1)

anarche (1525323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814008)

seems everyone forgot the buffalo, the cane beetle (that the toad was supposed to wipe out)

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814044)

"I think it should be about ways to get rid of invasive species. Any Aussies here? You've got what: rabbits, poisonous toads, some kind of insect, and.... what else?"

Rats, mice, goats, deer, pigs, hare, water buffalo, camels, horses, donkeys, cats, dogs, foxes, argentine ants, elm bettle, cane bettle (despite the toads that were introduced to eat them), fruit fly, European wasp, carp, trout, starlings, sparrows, Indian miners, blackbirds, song thrush, and a heap of plant species.

Re:Put the word "Wikipedia" in quotes like me... (1)

mo0s3 (1563877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814368)

I think you mean Indian mynahs. My uncle is an Indian miner out in WA, I don't think he's any more destructive than the others. But then again maybe I'm biased.

Of course! (4, Insightful)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813476)

a dedicated wiki will always have better chances of attracting people with knowledge on a certain very specific subject, so yeah, it's a good idea. however, i'd like to see all such sites heavily integrated with and indexed by wikipedia itself, so that finding the information is easier.

Re:Of course! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31813590)

Yeah, I've maintain a 20,000 article wiki about a specific topic and every time I've made even minor changes to the topic's article on wikipedia they get reverted/changed to inaccurate statements and so then I end up spending half a day looking up arcane wikipedia rules to justify my edits (which eventually stand up) but only after all the hassle of fighting with the reverters/deletionists.

After a while I just said screw it and don't bother anymore.

If I can find the time (3, Interesting)

ynotds (318243) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814070)

I'm much more inclined towards dumping my archives and knowledge of the Australian computer industry, especially from the 1980s when I was in the loop with many key players, into something like this than trying to make more than the most minor edits to Wikipedia itself.

For some time I've been saying it would be best if Wikipedia could connect relatively seamlessly with specialised wikis where each local or narrow community could manage their own authentication process.

If I could find some way of better covering living expenses short of selling my soul to assist somebody else's agenda, I could easily spend a hopefully longish retirement working mostly on similar projects. The only problem is that I'm sitting on at least half a dozen other areas where I have more again that should be made available and I doubt Aubrey de Grey is going to keep me alive long enough to get them all done.

Re:If I can find the time (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814246)

For some time I've been saying it would be best if Wikipedia could connect relatively seamlessly with specialised wikis where each local or narrow community could manage their own authentication process.

This sort of happens. Different areas have different groups of active editors who tend to be the main participants in discussions, and different norms end up prevailing. Some of them are even codified, so e.g. academics [wikipedia.org] and fiction [wikipedia.org] have their own separate notability policies. It happens even more as areas get more specialized--- if some article appears to be on a technical subject in chemistry, there will be fairly large deference to opinions of Wikipedians who happen to be chemists.

seems hard overall (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813502)

If these people really are notable, even in a niche, and there are decent references to cite for their articles, Wikipedia will eventually create articles for them.

There are ways to keep a specialist encyclopedia ahead of Wikipedia's coverage of that specialty, but they usually involve having a lot of expert authors, and/or decades of previous work that's hard to replicate. For example, Wikipedia's coverage of classical Greek and Rome isn't as good as one of the massive multi-volume encyclopedia sets on the same subject, like the German-language Pauly-Wissowa. Are Australian tech personalities really a similar case?

Another way, of course, is to genuinely cover articles Wikipedia doesn't want. Maybe if they get into a lot of detail, a separate article for every product any company has ever produced, that will be possible. But is that enough of a niche?

Re:seems hard overall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31813802)

Have you ever tried to correct/create a wikipedia article? I have found it to be terribly difficult (partially due to non-reputable sourcing, partially due to anal moderators), as AC noted above. For same same reasons, I find it hard to believe that wikipedia will simply adopt these entries because they don't meet the standards.

Amazing! (4, Funny)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813508)

Wow, you mean there's a wiki *besides* wikipedia, out there on the web? One that deals with a specialized topic in more detail than would be appropriate for wikipedia? That's amazing, a definite first, thanks a lot timothy!

Re:Amazing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815020)

Wow... you almost broke my sarcasm detector there!

hmm (4, Funny)

danny_lehman (1691870) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813512)

I caught myself reading the articles in an Australian accent..

Re:hmm (3, Insightful)

DavidRawling (864446) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813582)

No you didn't. Or to be more precise, it's what you thought was an Australian accent, but which is in fact as far from a normal Aussie accent as true English is to a US citizen ;-). Let's face it, most imposters can't even pronounce "G'day" (No, it's not "Gooday") properly. Can you mate?

Re:hmm (1)

largesnike (762544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813610)

It's so true. Most actors that I hear trying to bung on an Australian accent, end up sounding really bizarre: like Clare's mum in Lost.

Re:hmm (2, Funny)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814068)

They're usually somewhere between a South African and a New Zealander, so going by the map...

Re:hmm (1)

Philip_the_physicist (1536015) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814538)

It doesn't help that hardly anyone speaks with the accent they're aiming for anyway. The only people I know who speak live that are from up in the far north. Personally, my favourite Australian accent is the one used in old ABC documentaries (like A Big Country), which would be relatively easy for English actors to imitate, and my least favourite is the Melburnian accent, with its ghastly short vowels (a dislike which has nothing to do with state predjudice), although AIUI some northeastern US accents are somewhat similar, so it might not be too hard for US actors to get right. The Adelaide accent would be really easy for foreigners to get right, but it would be fairly pointless because most non-Australians would think you were using an English accent with only the heaps good local slang to give it away.

Re:hmm (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814102)

Dialect, not accent.

Re:hmm (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814300)

We have our own army and navy, so language, not dialect.

Re:hmm (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814324)

Throw another small person on Barbie.

my face when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31813532)

>implying that's an in-depth history of 4chan

Re:my face when... (1)

trapnest (1608791) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813780)

I know, right?

leading to ... (1)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813536)

"the question of whether more such small Wikis should be created" And the answer would be 'yes'.

WTF are you on about? (5, Insightful)

the_raptor (652941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813546)

Wikipedia doesn't want full depth coverage of specific areas. Once they wanted to contain the "sum of human knowledge" (including catch rates for pokemon) but these days they want to be an online encyclopaedia based on reputable sources. They encourage you to go off and make your own wiki if you want to have deep coverage of a particular area.

For example the article on 4chan contains superficial background information. There is another entire wiki dedicated to the full history of 4chan and the memes it generates. The wikipedia article focuses on Project Chanology and /b/ because that is probably what got 4chan the most press coverage (which is what wikipedia admins like to base articles on, but hardly covers all knowledge of a subject).

Wikipedia wants you to write encyclopedia articles. They don't just want an infodump of "non-encyclopaedic" information. If you do the latter they will tell you to take you "non-notable fancruft" to another wiki.

Notability (1, Troll)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813692)

The problem is, if something is not notable in the USA, then it is not notable for Wikipedia at all.

Re:Notability (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813848)

That's not really true. I've personally written articles on obscure German politicians, for example, and gotten no pushback at all. If you write a decent stub, and include a few citations to reputable sources, nobody will even blink at it. The citations don't even have to be in English--- a cite to some mainstream German newspapers, or to the Neue Deutsche Biographie, is plenty.

Re:Notability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31814142)

I think you may have discovered the secret to hassle-free Wikipedia editing. Just write about something sufficiently obscure yet still "notable".

Re:Notability (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814802)

The problem is, if something is not notable in the USA, then it is not notable for Wikipedia at all.

Bullshit. [wikipedia.org]

Re:WTF are you on about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31814272)

Why is it that the catch rate article is always the one people pick on when they want an example of an obscure Bulbapedia article anyway?

Wikia? (1)

Cidolfas (1358603) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813556)

Isn't that was wikia does? It lets people set up specific wikis on specific subjects that cover things in more depth than would be allowed by wikipedia due to article notability standards?

That's kind of a duh statement.

No, and yes (3, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813580)

Probably would have been roughly as effective to publish an article in a major mag or popular blog saying "Hey, we need more coverage in wikipedia, please contribute."

Why is this worse? Because the small wikis don't have the infrastructure. Financial, technical, and human resources- the volunteers who have spent years figuring out the best available way to do stuff, Etc. etc.

On the plus side, something relatively obscure gets shuffled off into its own wiki. I only wish the same could be said of all the extensive articles on various fictional universes...

Not notable (4, Insightful)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813586)

There's also the fact that wikipedia removes anything "not notable." What is "not notable" is usually whatever a bunch of wikipedia bureaucrats decide. Wikipedia, being run by your traditional fatnerd, is more likely to label this sort of stuff as "not notable" as opposed to something they would find notable (like the made-up histories of individual Final Fantasy characters or the stats of pokemon characters).

What is Wikipedia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31813588)

As far as I know, the overall objective of the Wikipedia project was to produce an online encyclopedia -- in its wildest dreams, something like the Encyclopedia Britannica online. If that, or something like that, is the goal, then it is hardly reasonable to complain that it does not cover the latest developments in some specific area. An encyclopedia is meant to be a summary of generally accepted knowledge, as far as I can make out. (There also seems to be a little bit of confusion between Wiki sites, and the Wikipedia.)

Already the site has better coverage of some areas than Wikipedia, leading to the question of whether more such small Wikis should be created for certain verticals."

Well, of course those smaller (in scope) sites should be created. Again, it is necessary to understand that an encyclopedia, online or otherwise, is meant to be a starting point for inquiries, not the be-all and end-all of knowledge for all time.

Well, of course... (4, Insightful)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813636)

Already the site has better coverage of some areas than Wikipedia, leading to the question of whether more such small Wikis should be created for certain verticals.

Wikipedia aims to be a general encyclopedia, larger and more thorough than any print encyclopedia to be sure, but it's still a general reference. Of course more specific references should be created. It's not like this is a new idea: search Amazon for books titled Encyclopedia of... and you'll find thousands, many (though probably not most) of which are serious scholarly works.

Excepting mathematics and the sciences, which are arguably applicable to the whole of human experience in one way or another, practically every other area of human knowledge has a highly specialized audience to one degree or another. Every last possible detail about pre-1947 aircraft engines, for example, might be of great interest to aerospace historians and engineers, but it's probably not of much interest to anyone else. Or an encyclopedic reference to every last town in Ohio might be hugely interesting to Ohioans and genealogists, and at least occasionally significant to broader research, but again, of limited interest to the general public. Unless Wikipedia (and its donors) are prepared to maintain a comprehensive reference to the entire body of human knowledge, specialist references are unavoidable.

Finally, the quality of the articles in those specialist references might be higher than in Wikipedia. Every field has sloppy researchers and trolls, of course, but a relatively specialized field probably has a smaller proportion of both than would be attracted to a general reference, within certain limits, e.g., one could reasonably expect a wiki devoted to quaternions to have better writers and fewer trolls than AbortionPedia.

Asian Movie Dweeb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31813746)

I already use http://asianmediawiki.com for anything related to asian movies and dramas. Way better than wikipedia or imdb for that matter in that realm.

My fetishes (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31813776)

I find wikiporono.org [wikiporno.org] more helpful than wikipedias porn portal.

I want a sum-of-all-knowledge-opedia. (5, Insightful)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813818)

I want a wiki that contains a coredump of all human knowledge, notable or not. I'd get stuck in even worse wikiloops.

You know about some obscure film that was a knockoff of batman produced by 2 Chileans and a Russian in Azerbaijan in 1974?
BRING IT ON. I want to know the life story of the three producer/director/actors as well. What the name of their third cat was. What brand of cigarettes they smoked. Everything is notable.

Re:I want a sum-of-all-knowledge-opedia. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31814278)

Then don't call it an "encyclopaedia", which by now means something along the lines of Britannica.

Re:I want a sum-of-all-knowledge-opedia. (3, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814358)

I want a wiki that contains a coredump of all human knowledge, notable or not. I'd get stuck in even worse wikiloops.

Then just start it. I'll happily contribute the article "List of positive integer numbers which have exactly two digits when written in standard decimal notation without leading zeros." Yes, I know those numbers! :-)

Re:I want a sum-of-all-knowledge-opedia. (2, Informative)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814994)

Talking of Australia, Batman and Wikipedia...

Did you know Melbourne, Australia (or technically the town that became Melbourne) was founded by John Batman [wikipedia.org] and he named the land Batmania. I shit you not.

Another god damn PR bullshit (2, Interesting)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31813820)

Despite all the whining about slashdot "editors", I'd rather have them pick stories, rather than these PR marketing bullshit submitted.

I really hate to use such language, but "slashdot" has a brand value. Don't destory it.

Newsworthy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31814006)

This isn't even newsworthy in Australia, so how the heck is this newsworthy on Slashdot?

Re:Newsworthy? (2, Informative)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814296)

I think it's an ad for blinds, at least that's what Verticals are here.

Already Exists in some ways (3, Informative)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814016)

A "wiki for Australian technology" already exists in a way, though mostly focused on the internet: it's the Whirlpool.net Wiki [whirlpool.net.au] . Brilliant resource.

Already done (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31814038)

Surely Whirlpool's wiki is an 'Aussie tech-focused wikipedia', and it's already got thousands of mature articles, e.g.

A series of articles on working in IT industry in Australia:
http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=it_telco

A comprehensive guide to PC parts, prices and specs:
http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=rmp_sg_whirlpoolpcs

Wikipedia would have much better coverage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31814198)

Wikipedia would have this, and lots of other content, if there wasn't those guys who are known as The Deletionists who pretty much delete every article which isn't controversial mess. Non-controversial topics don't have many people keeping a close eye on them, and when they get flagged for deletion, nobody really notices that before too late.

"Australian technology, what's that? Never heard, DELETE!"

Re:Wikipedia would have much better coverage (2, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814254)

Wikipedia would have this, and lots of other content, if there wasn't those guys who are known as The Deletionists who pretty much delete every article which isn't controversial mess. Non-controversial topics don't have many people keeping a close eye on them, and when they get flagged for deletion, nobody really notices that before too late.

"Australian technology, what's that? Never heard, DELETE!"

I just found that there's a Wikipedia entry deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] despite the fact that this clearly isn't what you would normally consider encyclopedic material. I wonder why the deletionists didn't delete it.

Two sources of information is better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31814258)

Why not just update Wikipedia.org with this information? Whats the point, other than media whoring, of starting another project with exactly the same goal focused over a smaller area? Oh yeah... the media whoring and publicity...

Where have you been for the last six years? (1)

greenreaper (205818) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814376)

I was editing on the Creatures Wiki [creatureswiki.net] in late 2004, and launched WikiFur [wikifur.com] in July 2005 - in part, because Wikipedia didn't want detailed articles on that particular topic. You're a little late to the party, but welcome. :-)

Re:Where have you been for the last six years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31814940)

Even more amazingly, some people were creating and editing wikis before Wikipedia was invented!

And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31814846)

DILLIGAF?

AC

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>