Hacker News Reader

The file format you tried to write about isn't notable enough to have its own article in Wikipedia. The notability guidelines are there to prevent people from writing about things that can't be verified by reliable sources, and it's a mechanism to help ensure that articles are accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

While not every topic belongs on Wikipedia, there are a number of other places where your article would be appreciated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternative_outlets

It is a very notable file format used by many devices and lots of software can read it. The only reason its hard to reference is because the company that develops it basically just publishes a C file with how to use it and everyone uses that to write their own implementations.

Whether something is notable or not is subjective. Since many editors collaborate on Wikipedia, there's a common standard that editors use to judge whether a topic is notable.

The test is called the "general notability guideline". In short, any topic needs to have at least 2 citations to different sources that meet all of the following requirements:

1. The source provides significant coverage (at least 1-2 sizable paragraphs) of the topic

2. The source is reliable

3. The source is a secondary source that is editorially and financially independent of the subject (and of the other source)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_n...

A manual for the file format would not meet requirement #3, since it's a primary source that was published by the company who developed it.

This rule is in place to prevent companies from publishing information about their own products, and then promoting them on Wikipedia in a biased way.

So if the official documentation isn't enough and info on random websites isn't enough than what possible source can be used? Do we have to find a group of academics to look at the file and write a PDF saying "yep the official docs are indeed correct"?

You can absolutely cite the official documentation, and it's considered a reliable source for your article.

However, it isn't considered an independent source, since it was written by a company with a vested interest in the topic.

To prove that the file type is notable, you'll need at least different 2 sources that meet all 3 requirements: they must provide significant coverage of the topic, be reliable, and be independent of the topic.

You don't have to use these sources to write all of the content in your article, but they do have to be cited as references to pass the notability test.

The three most common kinds of reliable sources are:

- Articles or web pages from a reputable news organization, magazine, or web publisher (with an editorial team)

- Books from a reputable publishing company

- Publications from a peer-reviewed academic journal

Offline and non-English sources are accepted.

If you can't find at least 2 sources that meet these requirements, then the topic doesn't pass the notability test and isn't suitable for Wikipedia. In this case, you're probably better off sharing your article somewhere else, such as Wikibooks, Wikiversity, or your personal blog.

https://en.wikibooks.org

https://en.wikiversity.org

IMO this discussion about notability is making the original point upthread about hostility to newcomers.

I also find it ironic that Wikipedia notability is so tied to traditional publishing sources.

ADDED: I admit to falling pretty heavily on the inclusionist side; I'm pretty skeptical about notability at times.

It's true that the rules of Wikipedia can be intimidating to new editors.

There are two places where editors can ask for help: the Teahouse (for new editors) and the Help Desk (for anyone).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk

So does this mean I could write a Wikipedia article about my grandmother if I can dig up articles on her from two different newspapers?

Provided those two different newspapers wrote on her life in detail, not just a mention, yes. See the following section of the notability guidelines:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Yes.

Since she is your family member, you're asked to disclose that you have a conflict of interest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

But the answer is yes.

Interesting... and along the same lines as the parent comment, if two independent blogs had written about the file format in detail, I wonder if that’s enough.

Most tech blogs have just one author, and their posts don't go through a high-quality editorial process. Wikipedia calls these blogs "self-published sources", and they usually aren't considered reliable sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-p...

I think the notability guidelines are wrong headed.

There doesn't seem to be rhyme or reason to whether something is deemed to be 'notable'.

Worse, you put off people like the grandparent who actually attempt to contribute.

We all want accurate and reliable sources, but why not work with people, rather than just deleting? Or why not a 2 stage process. Have a staging area for pages that aren't good enough. Then promoted to wikipedia proper when good enough?

What happens in X years time, when that file format is 'notable'? You've lost the person most inclined to write the document, and lost historical context from a living document.

The BBC had a habit in its early days of reusing 'old' film. What could have been a treasure trove is now lost. I cant help feeling wikipedia is being similarly short sighted.

/rant (not aimed at you btw)

That staging area exists, and it's called "Articles for creation" (AfC). The website directs new editors to the staging area for their first article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creatio...

Drafts in AfC will not be deleted for being non-notable, but they will also not be indexed by search engines.

When a draft is ready to be published, a reviewer looks over it and ensures that it is properly cited, before moving it to the encyclopedia proper.

That's getting closer to what I was thinking, but that's for new editors, not new articles.

"Only experienced editors should ever create an article from scratch. Others should first create a draft page and build the article there."

And as you say they aren't indexed.

Experienced editors usually create a "userspace draft", which is in a different staging area:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Userspace_draft

Userspace drafts also won't be deleted for non-notability, and they can be published whenever the editor feels that they're ready.

Neither of the draft spaces on Wikipedia are indexed by search engines, because these staging areas generally aren't proofread by other editors.

> The file format you tried to write about isn't notable enough to have its own article in Wikipedia.

Grandparent said it was rejected because of the citations, not because of any supposed lack of notability. Are you implying that reviewers refuse articles for other reasons than the ones they actually give?

(Edit: from what I gather on this thread, the citations were both secondary and substantial, so the notability criterion was probably met.)

Lack of citations establishing notability means wikipedia generally assumes something isn't notable enough, and per GPs words no such sources exist. (I'm not saying this is necessary a great and problem-free system, but that's how it works as far as I understand)

Putting a blog post would already be a positive contribution. Then reference it a bit, for instance by answering relevant questions on stackoverflow and linking to it to give more comprehensive details.

Over time your page will naturally get referenced by Google and other search engines.

Too bad it's not accepted in Wikipedia, but as long as the information is easily findable and organized as an easy to read and comprehensive enough reference, your work will be useful to many.

The problem with a blog post is others can't improve it to add more info or fix mistakes. The wiki format is perfect for this.

What about a Github Gist (or similar) or an actual code repo somewhere (wouldn't necessarily have to have actual code, could just be a readme)?

Also out of interest, what is the file format?

File format is .fit its used in a lot of GPS devices specifically for cycling. Its not super hard to find info on but the info is scattered over random sources

> I attemped to create a page about a slightly obscure file format with all the information I had found while developing with it.

One of the core principles of Wikipedia is "No original research". Your proposed article sounds like it was just that. The Wikipedia editors would rather have you share that research in a blog post or similar.

Well all the info I have about it comes from a single source published by the developers of the format but apparently just one reference isn't good enough.

That source (published by the developers) is a primary source. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, are tetriary sources that are based on secondary sources and not directly on primary sources.

In other words, unless there are reliable secondary sources to base the article on, it is considered original research and is not a good fit for Wikipedia.

I guess part of the reason that new contributors feel bad is confusion about the goals and nature of Wikipedia itself.

It's not just goals and nature. It's rules that can be pretty silly and unhelpful when they're taken to extremes rather than applied sensibly. In this case you have documentation that can't be referenced in a Wikipedia article. Yet, if someone wrote a blog post that liberally quoted that documentation, that would probably be an acceptable source.

The basic ideas of not doing original research or relying on primary sources are fine. But writing just about any article requires synthesizing multiple sources to some degree. Rules are one thing. Saying that the documentation is not a suitable source for information about a file format is something else.

Wikipedia does consider the documentation suitable for supporting information in the article, but not suitable for establishing the topic's notability.

The article needs independent sources (as in, secondary sources that are financially and editorially independent of the company who develops the .mix file type) to show that the topic warrants an article.

If an article has enough sources cited to show notability, primary sources like documentation pages can be used. If notability is not shown, then the topic doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and the content of the article is moot.

Without this requirement, any company would be able to publish promotional articles on all of its products, and exclusively use its own web pages as citations. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are in place to prevent spam and to ensure that topics only get articles if they can be written about in a neutral way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_usin...

The original research has been done by the company inventing the file format. Reporting on it is not original research.

I would put it on Github. Check Stack Overflow and google for has questions about the format, answer there and point to your repo.