Rogue Editors Started a Competing Wikipedia That’s Only About Roads (gizmodo.com)
https://gizmodo.com/competing-wikipedia-editors-only-about-roads-aaroads-1851298769Open linkView original on discuss.tchncs.dehttps://gizmodo.com/competing-wikipedia-editors-only-about-roads-aaroads-1851298769Open linkView original on discuss.tchncs.de
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 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.
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I don't know I don't edit wikipedia regularly, I only fix small things if find something wrong or outdated.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
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.
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.
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.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
For 20 years, a loosely organized group of Wikipedia editors toiled away curating a collection of 15,000 articles on a single subject: the roads and highways of the United States.
People drive on them every day, but they don’t give them much attention,” said editor Michael Gronseth, who goes by Imzadi1979 on Wikipedia, where he dedicated his work to Michigan highways, specifically.
“The New York Times isn’t going to write an article about maintenance on highways in the middle-of-nowhere Texas or Colorado,” said Ben M., a roads editor known as BMACS001 on Wikipedia, who asked to withhold their full name.
After years of permissiveness, a growing contingent of Wikipedia editors started to argue that such a scenario counts as an interpretation of the map, and therefore, it’s illegitimate original research.
Faced with a mass deletion of their hagiographies on Dragonite and Garchomp, the Pokémon editors forked their articles over to a new website, Bulbapedia, where their work continues.
AARoads actually predates Wikipedia, tracing its origins all the way back to the prehistoric internet days of the year 2000, complete with articles, maps, forums, and a collection of over 10,000 photos of highway signs and markers.
The original article contains 1,541 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 87%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
good bot
"Rogue editors"
Phlash Phlelps could really contribute here!