Maid Safe & or SAFE Net on Wikipedia

Was just looking at getting a Maid Safe / SAFE Net page created on Wikipedia.

Would it be wiser to get a Maid Safe page created or a SAFE Network page or both?

Sorry if this sounds a bit confusing.

1 Like

I would not go there, it’s a potential threat to the reputation of the network if you lose editorial control.

Something like this should be run past Maidsafe management.


Disagree strongly, what you propose is against the idea and ethos of Wikipedia. WP is not a marketing tool. Whoever likes to contribute should be encouraged to start as he or she wishes. It will be moderated anyway and change over time. Of course, rigor is important and presenting it on this platform is surely helpful to get things right. I am going to write something on WP once I find some time and MVP is out.


You can’t control it, sad to say. I wouldn’t start a Wikipedia page, but it is inevitable that someone will when SAFE gains enough attention.

1 Like

There’s history already with regard to Wikipedia and Maidsafe that you probably are not aware of, that’s why I suggest to run any such Wikipedia proposals past them first.

If you refer to the deleted article, yes I am aware of it. Actually I rather see arguments for writing your own article than against. Even if Maidsafe is only involved as proxy, it is against the rule to have information controlled/influenced by people with personal interest.

There is nothing sad about not being able to control the word. Actually, it´s quite safe-ish.

I suppose you mean “the world.” Only religious maniacs want to control “the Word.” :slight_smile:

There is a well-documented Wikipedia editorial bias, either “liberal” or just plain cuckoo. For example:

1 Like

Having “well-documented” and “conservapedia” in a paragraph always makes me chuckle.

1 Like

So you don’t think the citation is an example of well-documented?

Let´s say I find it quite biased :wink: not my standard of a proper documentation.

1 Like

The speed of your response suggests that you didn’t read it.

Any fallacy experts out there: Was @Artiscience 's response to my link a genetic fallacy or an example of poisoning the well?

True, half an hour for a list of 10 points…impossible :wink:

P.S.: I even knew this from years ago when conservapedia was a fun thing for wikipedians to go, but ya, go ahead looking for fallacies :wink:

P.P.S.: Dammit, admitted to be part of the “liberal elite”

1 Like

“liberal” was admitted, “elite” was claimed

Evading all of the “should you shouldn’t you” bickering, I believe the answer is that MAIDsafe is the name of the company. SAFEnet is the name of the product, so the appropriate name ought to be used depending on what the article is about.

Yes an article on Maidsafe should be initiated by Maidsafe. I recall, that they requested the previous entry be deleted as there were issues getting information changed to reflect changes in the protocol.

If an individual/team outside of Maidsafe creates an entry for the Safe Network, then they should take full responsibility in keeping that information up to date, accurate and be on top of the Wikipedia editing process.

I would prefer search engines to point to the current information we have built at this pre-launch stage, because as we know… once created, the Wikipedia entry will appear as the #1 search result.

Currently, we own our own information and have full control.

As has been covered above, that violates Wikipedia’s guidelines. Articles are supposed to be from an unbiased point of view. The company certainly is not be unbiased.

Bloggers will blog, Wikipedians will wikipedia. SAFE is supposed to be against censorship.

I don’t think SAFE is mature enough to be of significant interest to Wikipedia yet. Maybe soon. But that is Wikipedia’s call, not MaidSAFE’s. Wikipedia is not a sock puppet.

1 Like

Agreed and conceded.

My point is, we dont need a Wikipedia article right now. There is plenty of good information about the network available already, including a wiki and it’s controlled by us.

Exactly, control of information is pretty unsafe-ish. If a lemma fulfills the criterion of relevance there can and will be an article and there is anyone in particular who has to take responsibility for that. If you don´t like it, change it and make it better.

1 Like

If I get the ball rolling I am confident people here will contribute. I suppose the original purpose of the thread was to discuss Maid Safe V SAFE Net article as kick off, anyone have any thoughts on that?

I don´t think that MaidSafe will necessarily fulfill the criterion of relevance because it is an institution, so much rather an article on the SAFE Network, which is tech/innovation. Problem is, currently the network doens´t exist yet, so there is a very high chance that relevance is questioned (for good reasons). Also, I wonder whether what we refer to as SAFE Network will eventually be coined SAFE Network by Maidsafe (this is probably a question we can already answer now), so there is also a lemma issue.

If someone is interested in working on a Wikipedia article, I´d suggest to start here:

Mentioning the network in a few sentences should be a good start to justify an elaboration elsewhere once relevance is given. Also it usually helps to discuss with the community. As long as people don´t expect that everything they wrote remains things should be fine.