Meta Question

Foolaholic's avatar

Why isn't there a Wikipedia article on Fluther?

Asked by Foolaholic (5789 points ) October 22nd, 2010

Aren’t we important enough?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

26 Answers

Jeruba's avatar

One was drafted quite some time ago. I don’t know what happened to it. [Edit: Here’s that thread.] But Wikipedia does seem to discourage articles that appear to be mainly for self-promotion.

I just tried out the new search tool with the terms “wikipedia” and “fluther” and got several relevant hits. You might want to give that a try. (Yay for new search tool!)

Foolaholic's avatar

@Jeruba

Thanks. It certainly is a wonderful new search tool.

ETpro's avatar

@Foolaholic Great question. Seems to me there should be one. They cover numerous other Web phenomena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Answers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SodaHead.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answerbag

@Jeruba Would there be any point in contributing one. I don’t know how clickish Wikipedia is. No point trying if it’s all going to be swimming up Niagara Falls, but an article could certainly be written in a way that’s descriptive without being spammy.

Jeruba's avatar

@ETpro, I’d suggest checking with PnL to see what happened when she tried. I don’t know that it’s a matter of cliquishness, but they do have some sort of criteria that their editors enforce.

marinelife's avatar

Last I heard it was in the hands of eponymous hipster.

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

You should also check with augustian who is the Fluther Community Manager and is on top of things such as this.

Sarcasm's avatar

I believe @Ivan and/or @J0E tried a few months ago, built it up pretty nicely, and then the Wikipedia mods smashed the sandcastle saying Fluther didn’t have big enough influence.

anartist's avatar

why don’t you write one? If enough different authors contribute [I am an editor on Wikipedia for articles that have interested me—CSS Alabama, New Hampshire politics of the 1950s, underground cartoonists of the 1970s, whatever] I will chime in if I know an article is there, or maybe even start one . . .

If a wikipedia article does not have team input or create an “impersonal” tone it will eventually be discarded or buried. It is a team effort. We all need to do it. when an article is started an informal background page SHOULD also BE started between the would-be editors. This matters almost as much as the article.

Read the Wikipedia editing rules after you sign up.

ETpro's avatar

@anartist Very good input. I would be happy to contribute to a team effort. Who else is willing to pitch in. @Jeruba is a professional editor, so we should be able to craft something that meets their quality standards.

anartist's avatar

@ETpro I will just let me know. PM if necessary.

anartist's avatar

read this wikipedia conditions for articles about websites

anartist's avatar

I have seen photos from mass media coverage of fluther. name articles. cite sources. thar is part of what makes fluther qualify for wikipedia. here are two i found but i know there are better ones.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20013062-248.html

http://www.bnet.com/blog/technology-business/fluther-to-maholo-stop-copying-us/931

ETpro's avatar

@Jeruba How clodish of me. Please forgive my persumption that you might have the time or inclination to be involved. I just realized now (a little slow on the uptake tonight) that I had more-or-less volutneered you without checking whether you could be a part of the effort or not.

@anartist Thanks. I will look into the best venue for a collaborative Web writing effotr and let you and all interested know where we can work on it.

anartist's avatar

I just logged on to create an article but stopped to gather a list of high-powered objective media references to qualify. Have PM’d Andrew, Ben, Tim, and Augustlan

ETpro's avatar

Great. We’re off to the races I hope!

shilolo's avatar

Talk to Joe. There was an article, BUT, a clique of wikipedia mods (that I believe were members of Answerbag for various reasons) squashed it. Here is the whole discussion regarding deletion of the previous effort.

andrew's avatar

Fwiw we’ve had a businessweek article about us, so we should have enough notoriety for wiki.

Jeruba's avatar

That’s all right, @ETpro. You could say I implicitly volunteered by virtue of the comments I made on that original thread that I linked above.

I do know we have many good and capable writers here, so there’s no reason why we couldn’t craft something worthy of fluther.

COBx666's avatar

why ask wiki about fluther if you can ask fluther?

augustlan's avatar

I’ll try to round up some good media links for use in the article. I recommend creating a googledoc to use for collaborative writing.

ETpro's avatar

@augustlan Thanks. That will be of great help. It appears that those Wikipedia editors who voted to delete the article did so largely because it mostly referenced Fluther itself and did not provide independent corroboration for statements of fact.

@timtrueman Great link. THanks.

augustlan's avatar
ETpro's avatar

@augustlan Outstanding. We can certainly defuse any argument as to lack of independent referneces. Thanks.

shilolo's avatar

@ETpro The problem is that many (but not all) of those are blog, and blogs don’t count as notable. I would focus on the more legitimate articles.

ETpro's avatar

@shilolo Roger that.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther