Rogue Editors Started a Competing Wikipedia That’s Only About Roads (gizmodo.com)
Rogue Editors Started a Competing Wikipedia That’s Only About Roads (gizmodo.com)
A group of Wikipedia editors wrote 15,000 articles on US roads and highways. But after a fight over the platform's rules, they went rogue.
You're viewing a single thread.
I hate how this was framed by the writer, really silly. just because you create a wiki dedicated to a particular topic doesn’t mean it’s “rogue”. That’s just the nature of it. Wikipedia is not a place to host everyone’s wiki.
I had the feeling the author is meaning rogue in a positive way here. At least the article sounds quite positive and impressed about that project.
It's just wrong. It is not a rogue site positive or negative
Wikipedia is not a place to host everyone’s wiki.
Wikipedia is a place to collect factual information. If those articles about streets and roads are factually correct and backed up with citations, they belong in Wikipedia.
No. There is a notability requirement among others: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
This is the main reason wikidata linking in osm is getting more common than wikipedia. Wikidata and osm don't have this requirement. Name Suggestion Index stopped using wikipedia tags and it only uses wikidata tags nowadays.
No. There is a notability requirement among others: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
And why would roads not be noteworthy? Wikipedia explicitly celebrated the millionth article about a random small Scottish railway station: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_release_on_English_Wikipedia_hitting_milestone_1_million_articles
I happen to know a thing or two about Wikipedia's history, including remembering when naysayers were proclaiming that a random Scottish railway station wasn't noteworthy but it turned out that traffic infrastructure used by countless of people each year is actually noteworthy even if it isn't in the news all the time.
I don't know I don't edit wikipedia regularly, I only fix small things if find something wrong or outdated. I just replied that your definition of wikipedia is not the same as wikipedians think, it wasn't specifically about this situation. I haven't said I agree with this definition neither.
I just read more about this project and notability wasn't their problem but citation and referencing third party sources and maps correctly:
Is Wikipedia limiting itself though by having a notability requirement? It isn't like a new page takes up a lot of data storage. Why not have Wikipedia be the entire compendium of human knowledge, regardless of how notable it is?
Yes, just like how an encyclopedia was edited before the internet, common people didn't had an article there, just notable ones.
The same way you don't add historical data to osm, because we decided that we don't want to collect that data here. But you can add that to openhistoricalmap. There are different projects for different things.
I presume it's because creating a Wikipedia article named "Gork", summarizing your Lemmy activity, would be stupid
Damn, what a burn.
I'd read it
Good luck creating video game characters and items pages on Wikipedia instead of using a seperate wiki.
Good luck creating video game characters and items pages on Wikipedia instead of using a seperate wiki.
Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_Strife or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crono?
Seems to be possible but those are backed up by 3rd party citations.
Nah, not like that.
Like this:
https://fallout.wiki/wiki/Sergeant_RL-3
https://minecraft.wiki/w/Amethyst_Shard
Wikipedia is indeed a place to collect factual information but their scope has limitations to it.
Like this:
You mean where the sole citations are the game itself and the official game guide? I wrote "backed up by 3rd party citations" for a reason.
@woelkchen @Woovie as they said “The New York Times isn’t going to write an article about maintenance on highways in the middle-of-nowhere Texas or Colorado”, so it looks like they add informations that are not always backed with citations
as they said “The New York Times isn’t going to write an article about maintenance on highways in the middle-of-nowhere Texas or Colorado”, so it looks like they add informations that are not always backed with citations
I can't speak for US towns in particular but where I live such information is posted on websites all the time, be it the town's official newspaper or a local news website.
When English Wikipedia celebrated the millionth article, the topic was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanhill_railway_station, "a side-platformed suburban railway station in the Jordanhill area in the West End of Glasgow, Scotland." So, that type of information is fine.
@woelkchen sure, but there are some infos that don't have enough notability to be on Wikipedia: for example if a road has a minor renovation that shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia, but it could be mentioned on this dedicated wiki