Awesome! I tried to do this awhile back and the article was rejected because not enough news sources had written about it.
That was my first thought, but it looks like there’s at least 5 non-lemmy sources. I don’t know what the minimum is though.
Minimum is 3 “notable” mentions of the subject in different sources. For new editors, the standard is ~5 good sources for the submission to be accepted. “Established” editors don’t need peer review to publish an article, hence me being able to publish it.
I am not surprised that they implemented that. Back when I was more involved, they would frequently get articles from people publishing their obscure business. There were frequent speedy deletion discussions that pretty much just involved telling someone that their advertisement did not qualify as a Wikipedia article.
Prepare it to be filled with shit on its developers being communists.
This is great! Love having something I can send people when trying to introduce them other than me trying to explain it.
This is great! Thanks for creating this page.
I noticed on the Fediverse page that other projects like pleroma, honk, and zap don’t even have articles. That’s pretty disappointing since pleroma has been around nearly as long as mastodon and the other two have been around a while too (though not nearly as long). I tried writing a pleroma article years ago, but there weren’t enough references and frustratingly, I don’t think much has changed since then.
Pleroma def doesn’t seem to have much publicity. I’d recommend adding these to the wikipedia requested articles page with what sources you do find so others can build on it later :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences/Computer_science,_computing,_and_Internet#Software
I’m glad there’s at least one article that talks about Pleroma https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.12709.pdf
The other thing to do if you really wanna promote the project is message places like The Register, Android Police, Arstechnica when there are new announcements. Or just ping some journalists you follow. They’re always looking for the next tip :)
Seems like you probably already know this but posting for the benefit of others!
Thanks. I added Pleroma to that page with a bunch of reference I found.
Good tip about the journalists. Now that they’re all on the fediverse, maybe it’ll be easier to get them to understand the fediverse is more than just mastodon.
Cool! Surprised they approved it this time.
edit: might want to also update this disambiguation page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemmy_(disambiguation)
Awesome! Now we need more languages! Do you know if it is required to have sources about lemmy in any specific language in order to make an article or it is enough to have English ones?
Each language Wikipedia may have its own rules, but generally sources are accepted in all languages. It’s not universally required, though.
FYI, I posted about it on the wikipedia subreddit. Maybe will gain a few new users! https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/100z59y/lemmy_software_a_federated_reddit_alternative/
I just realized that only Lemmy wiki article before the english one was in basque.
Now let us observe how much more activity will there be around this article now.
I’m happy to see that the draft for the Lemmy article that I started came in useful.
I was under impression that the process on Wikipedia is that draft gets improved until it gets accepted. But ok, going directly for an article seems to work as well.
Since draft is no longer useful, it should probably be deleted, right? Any idea how to request it’s deletion? I checked around some templates. There is a not-yet-accepted template for proposed draft deletion and a rejected template for proposed draft deletion. So I have no idea what the actual current process for proposing draft deletion is.
It looks like you’re just supposed to redirect the draft page. See here, #17
Ah, I see you already set that up. Thank you 👍
