Just searched Google and clicked news.
The google fu is strong with this one.
No more article in Wiki? Deleted? That’s no great. I mean, nowdays no wiki article == no fact
Yes, we are like war unicorns. We exist, but nobody knows it
as I read the file of the deletion the issue was about it being made as an advertisement and not as an educational article. why dont we make here or on github a open discussion where everyone reads the wiki manifesto if one wants to add something in the wiki that will be beneficial for the safe network?
so lets control what goes up in safe network wiki as we control what goes into this forum and code of the network
The real problem is that Wikipedia has arbitrary rules about what is relevant and what is not, and unfortuntately the gatekeeping process has become very centralised. I put up an post on MaidSafe which lasted about a week before being taken down for being too similar to a previous failed attempt, even though it was totally different. I complained of course but got nowhere. Same happened with the followup, although that was rejected for different reasons.
Maybe we can try s side channel approach?
Are there things (Maidsafe Limited/Foundation, Universities, public or academic projects) or people associated with the project (David, Uni researchers, Michael Jackson, David Johnston?) who have their own pages, or who we could create pages for? Those could reference the company / project etc
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that, although such an approach wouldn’t hurt. I followed the discussions between the editors following my complaint and many of them said it seemed bona fide and had genuine references (there are plenty of stories about Maidsafe in the tech press and even nationals like the Guardian), but there was one editor who seemed to be very powerful who was adamant it should be taken down, and he or she held sway.
I think it’s an anti-crypto thing. They are over cautious about being gamed by scammers.
Wiki is amazing trust source for SEO. Every SEO guy will tell you to get links from there. They have to have so much SEO junk attempts and very little time to check real content. So their policy is likely to deny everything new, untill there is strong evidence it is organic. I don’t know what is current state, but I tricked wiki few years ago. First I skipped english version, and started with editing existing non english wiki pages with simple modifications that looked like organic content related to my project. Some languages were easy goal, without any problems from editors. Some were impossible to edit. But I did so many changes in so many languages over time in so many articles than in the end wiki itself was linking to my project, which looked pretty organic. I never finished this trick and never managed to have full English wiki page for it, but I had such page in few non english languages. It helped SEO a lot. The another trick is to pay wiki admins a bribe. You can find some on pages like fiverr.com. It is cheap and effective way. That is how SEO works. Once I got Page rank 7 backlink just for donating $5 to a guy who developed popular software. He listed donor names and if it was company, it was with backlink:)
well we dont have something that can prove to anyone that what we have is decentralized internet yet…
There’s no way Wikipedia would accept an article on MaidSafe the company any time soon. MaidSafe the company is less notable than SAFE Network, the product. MaidSafe would be accepted only if it was somehow much more notable than the SAFE Network.
I think a well written, well referenced article on the SAFE Network would be accepted though. I read the previous article and while it was maybe an ok start, that’s not enough. An article about some physics concept that wasn’t very well written would likely be accepted, but not for something related to cryptocurrencies.
To be accepted we would need a well written article which answers the questions: what is the SAFE Network and why is it notable. Those two questions needs good answers for an article to be accepted.
And in addition to being well-written I would say it would need to resist marketing/bias, and include factual information from a neural observer’s viewpoint, not from the viewpoint of someone already heavily invested in the project in some way or another.
IIRC the article I wrote was headlined SAFE Network rather than MaidSafe, and the follow up article definitely was. Both were factual and free of marketing hype and both were taken down.
Was it the one was up late last year? I believe that was take down for being posted or edited from an ip address used by spammers or paid editors,possibly because of using the same VPN.
Do you have a copy? I would like to read it.
I liked the primer by the way as a great overview and starting point. No hype and factual. I am trying to say, that I expect from Wikipedia articles that are like textbook-like material if you will.
And this still may not be sufficient. I don’t know the requirements but I can imagine what Wikipedia must be dealing with every day, trying to keep marketing noise off their platform and don’t think they have the resources to consider each case thoroughly.
Does Wikipedia take into account the identity and business or social affiliation of contributors?
Here’s a link. I didn’t recall correctly - it was titled “MaidSafe” not “SAFE Network” https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZHUiN7ZENj9Y4PyBRFo3HvQXhHlsuoXC2Uk
I see the problem here, it says in the title maidsafe and inside it talks about safe network thats a no no,
safe network should be in its own wikipedia page…
Great article. I would suggest removing quotes of David. (Again, not sure if the issue is only the content.)
Edit: And quotes in general from the media. Anything that feels what a marketer would do.
The safenetwork wiki site I host is be available to host and refine this article until it gets accepted. We could create a separate page for this, something like wikipedia-draft. Or it could be locked down, or I would be happy to link to it.
This one I haven’t seen before. Seem like there’s been several articles on both MaidSafe and SAFE Network.
Switch it to SAFE Network and have a less technical introduction and I think it should work.
Now the description is “The SAFE Network is an encrypted overlay network that replaces the top four OSI layers”. That doesn’t really say anything to 99% of Wikipedia readers. It could be there in some detailed description, but shouldn’t be the main description. Maybe instead the intro from the SAFE Network Primer could be used, with some slight changes. The background section in the SAFE Network primer also looks like something that could be useful in a Wikipedia article with some slight changes.
The article should also mention inspiration for Silicon Valley and that it’s in Wreckit Ralph, with references. This could maybe be under a section “The SAFE Network in popular culture”, many Wikipedia articles have that. That would help establish that it’s notable.
Metioning SAFE and Solid/RDF/Semantic Web with link to Tim Berne Lee’s Tweet the Medium blogpost on the topic and future scots article would also be useful, both to explain more the vision of SAFE and further establishing notability.