Dave Needs Help To Stay On WIKI - A General Call For Help

[RickBrant]

We'll see. I expect that he will try that again and at that point I will bring it up at ANI. Right now I think the thread could use a few more WP-knowledgeable people to argue on the "keep" side. (By WP-knowledgeable, I mean people who can cite WP policy and guidelines on their side with some expertise, not just "yay rah rah rah, I love Dave and I love this page".)

I am stretching it out, just one or two replies per day, because a) I have limited time and b) rapid-fire responses tend not to be thought out so well... not mine, anyway.

[EEVblog]

What frosts me is that Electroboom has a page (under his real name, not "electroboom"), and nobody is saying a thing about that.

Because he doesn't have someone obsessed with erasing him from Wikipedia. I'm just lucky
Nice work BTW Rick on all the rebuttals.

[SeanB]

Are you sure that Wikinazi is not related to Batteriser?

[RickBrant]

Ronz was around a long time before the Batterizer review, so I doubt it.

The IP... we know nothing about, but it knows an awful lot about WP. I doubt it's a recent editor either. It recently had a different IP, again with only a few edits, and I expect it's had many more.

[RickBrant]

What frosts me is that Electroboom has a page (under his real name, not "electroboom"), and nobody is saying a thing about that.

Because he doesn't have someone obsessed with erasing him from Wikipedia. I'm just lucky
Nice work BTW Rick on all the rebuttals.

Thanks! There's more where that came from.

Doing replies about once a day allows me to keep a sense of bemused detachment.

[Mechanical Menace]

Wikipedia is a waste of time, money and bandwidth.
Truth by consensus what a bunch of crap.
It is worse than Snopes.

For the articles like this (living people) I'd generally agree. But for technical, science and some other topics I find it a useful place to start researching. But I'll admit that except for a few weeks which I ended up sending me the way of ED to join in the whining about the place I don't really come across things on there where politics and other, for want of a better word, religions start edit wars amongst the wikipaedophiles.

[AF6LJ]

Wikipedia is a waste of time, money and bandwidth.
Truth by consensus what a bunch of crap.
It is worse than Snopes.

For the articles like this (living people) I'd generally agree. But for technical, science and some other topics I find it a useful place to start researching. But I'll admit that except for a few weeks which I ended up sending me the way of ED to join in the whining about the place I don't really come across things on there where politics and other, for want of a better word, religions start edit wars amongst the wikipaedophiles.

For science and some historical events I am okay with it....
Outside of that Wikipedia is a great source of political spin and misinformation.

[RickBrant]

I'm afraid we (editorial "we"; not that anyone else here seems to be helping) are fighting a lost cause. Although Ronz is simply snarky most of the comments by the IP are on point.

[timofonic]

I really appreciate your tenacious cyberwarrior attitude, that's something too awesome.

On the other hand...

What about making an Electropedia? It would be shared between videobloggers, bloggers, DIY communities, professionals and more.

It would true a massive effort in organization, reusing copyleft compatible licensed content, but it would be a lot better centered about electronics and electric fields.

In the future, it would be translated. But these days English is the universal pidgin language, specially in science and engineering fields.

[ez24]

What about making an Electropedia? It would be shared between videobloggers, bloggers, DIY communities, professionals and more.

Seems this would be a good idea and I thought it could be done via Wiki but an Electropedia would be better but less likely to happen.

[RickBrant]

Wikipedia has these rules about "notability". An article shouldn't exist unless its topic has received "significant" coverage in two reliable "secondary" sources (i.e. someone else, not directly associated with the subject has to originate the material). These rules are enforced with particular vehmence for biographies of living persons (BLP). The only two things that qualify as really significant coverage in the article are the two interviews, and unfortunately, interviews are considered primary sources because practically everything in them comes from the subject, not the interviewer or the publisher. We would need two instances of other people writing about Dave.

The rules for articles about web content (including YouTube channels) are much the same. The only possible "save" there is that they tend to not be enforced as stringently. I'm afraid that given the vigor with which the article has been opposed so far I'm not up for that fight.

So unless someone has another idea I'm afraid I have to drop it.

[Psi]

There's been a few unrelated youtube channels that have made reference to Dave's channel. Is that not a secondary reference?

The latest one i can recall is Dave's video about removing the warrenty voice stickers. It prompted AvE to respond talking about it and showing his own method.

Hey, what about this,  Looks like Sydney morning herald decided to make an article about the batteriser and reference eevblog rebuking it. Seems secondary to me!!
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/batteriser-battery-life-extender-scam-or-saviour-20150915-gjmrql.html
EDIT: nevermind, i see Dave already mentioned it in this thread.

What we need is a EEVBlog branded multimeter being sold at various stores. Yes that sounds like i'd be good ammo for wiki article.

[RickBrant]

The Sydney Morning Herald article was already dismissed by the Wikicops as not significant enough.

[Psi]

It's just getting stupid now.

Someone on here who knows someone famous need to ask them to do a random Dave Jones name drop at a public appearance.

Bill Gates would probably do lol

[RickBrant]

It's just getting stupid now.

I know it. You should see the last deletion discussion:

- The chapter in the book doesn't count because anybody can publish a book.
(That's true, but this book was from a long-established publisher in the computer tech field. I have several of their programming books on my shelf now.)
- Ok, but this book of interviews of social-media-using-tech-people seems far from that area. It does not seem that they have any demonstrated competence in publishing this sort of book.
(But their 'people in tech" series [I think it is called] already has a lot of other books in it. This suggests an editorial process to develop and publish such books. It's not new to them.)
- But this is the author's first book. We can't rely on it.

GAWD! It must get tiring for them, carrying those goalposts around like that.

It's going to go to "articles for deletion" where there will be an extended discussion. The "rules uber alles" people will cite the rules I've stated. I can't win at trying to convince that the article content meets the rules.

But in the AFD discussion, with more people involved, I'm going to appeal to a provision at the top of that page: it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I am going to argue that the preponderance of mentions we have is enough to establish notability even though the strict terms of the guideline are not met. And if that fails that'll be the end of it. I don't have much hope, since WP is full of SJ-types (Meyers-Briggs term) for whom the rules are somewhere higher up than god.

But, if it's deleted I'm going to request a copy so I can continue to improve it. I actually have a draft of the article converted to be about EEVblog. Although the notability rules for "web content" are really much the same as the ones for people they are enforced much less rigidly.

David needs to ask someone at the SMH to do a full-length article on him and on EEVblog. NOT an interview, since "interviews are primary sources." But per the strict rules, we'd still need another one. Maybe David has other contacts in the industry press (online or otherwise) who could be persuaded to write something similar.

[ez24]

I actually have a draft of the article converted to be about EEVblog. Although the notability rules for "web content" are really much the same as the ones for people they are enforced much less rigidly.

   personally I think an article about EEVblog would be more useful.  We could include links to the forum and Youtube (indexed of course) and include a bio

[RickBrant]

I don't think links to specific videos are going to fly anyplace on WP. They are very stringent about external links.

[EEVblog]

David needs to ask someone at the SMH to do a full-length article on him and on EEVblog. NOT an interview, since "interviews are primary sources." But per the strict rules, we'd still need another one. Maybe David has other contacts in the industry press (online or otherwise) who could be persuaded to write something similar.

I wouldn't want to do that just the stay on WP, that's pretty tacky.

So why will it get deleted this time when it didn't get deleted last time?, and there is now one extra newspaper article to reference.

[RickBrant]

The newspaper article is being called a pretty lightweight reference.

What would be a "slam-dunk" would be two different articles about you and/or eevblog, NOT interviews, but of similar length to the interview in Circuit Cellar.

Interviews are deemed "primary sources".

As for why this time and not last time, the enemies are much more on the warpath this time. I have some talking points ready but I'm afraid they mostly depend on the "occasional exceptions may apply" in the header of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) .

[Psi]

Is this relevant? 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140226/18352626367/australian-man-cant-get-parts-because-his-super-generic-name-is-us-terrorist-watchlist.shtml

[EEVblog]

So unless someone has another idea I'm afraid I have to drop it.

Thanks for your efforts.
Still have no idea who put the page there in the first place!

[EEVblog]

Is this relevant? 
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140226/18352626367/australian-man-cant-get-parts-because-his-super-generic-name-is-us-terrorist-watchlist.shtml

That ones got lots of coverage actually.
It even made the crackpot (but very popular) Alex Jones channel:
http://www.infowars.com/secret-u-s-government-watchlist-forces-company-to-place-hold-on-orders/

[ivan747]

It's just getting stupid now.

Someone on here who knows someone famous need to ask them to do a random Dave Jones name drop at a public appearance.

Bill Gates would probably do lol

Not a bad idea

[RickBrant]

It's gone to Articles For Deletion, or rather a Review of the previous AFD.

I STRONGLY suggest that "fans of Dave" NOT post there with "I like it"-type posts.

If you want to help, please review WP policies if you're not already familiar with them. Arguments against deletion must be made within the confines of WP's rules. If you want to "study up," put these things into the in-WP search (without the parenthesized descriptions):  WP:BLP (biographies of living persons), WP:N (notability) and particularly WP:PEOPLE (notability of people), WP:RS (reliable sources), WP:OR (no original research), WP:NOT (what Wikipedia is not).

To keep this page the subject must be shown to be "notable" by WP standards. WP:PEOPLE says: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Footnote 3 in WP:OR says that interviews are considered primary sources. So the two major "sources", the interviews in CC and the book, don't count. Most of the sources in the article have been decreed by the deletion promoters to be either primary or non-significant.

We can chafe at these rules (and the people who enforce them) all we like but without them, WP would have a far worse reputation than it has now. We must stay on the "lawful good" side.

Moreover, a preponderance of non-policy-based "I like it" posts are likely to be not well received. We hope that the admin who closes the discussion would ignore such, but in practice a bunch of Fans Of Dave who show up on WP just to say "I like it! Don't delete it!" are likely to give a negative impresion.

[timofonic]

Insane burocracy is killing Wikipedia, seriously...

Sorry, my mind goes to another dimension trying to read complicated rules. I really hate all that legalese stuff, it's too boring and nonsense to me.

Fuck them, it's not worth it.

I have a sone tiny ideas that might be useful to improve eevblog, I'll post it a bit later. One of them is related with wiki.