> Previous contributors to this mailing list highlighted the problem > that Wikipedia's policies militate against Gemini as it isn't > trivially discoverable via the sources that Wikipedia privileges. "militate" is a strong word... Wikipedia can't let everything in, so it restricts articles to topics for which there exist sources that cover it in relative detail, are independent and 'generally reliable'. <1> To be honest, I'm not sure the two articles would currently survive a deletion discussion: the sources they cite are stuff like announcements by gemini-related projects - not independent - and blog posts - not considered 'generally reliable'. So really, the existence of a Gemini article is not guaranteed until it is covered by a publication, preferably multiple publications, that meet(s) that standard. 'General reliability' mostly has to do with having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".<2> Obviously, we think Wikipedia should have an article on Gemini, but equally obviously, we are biased. Unfortunately for us, the Wikipedia bureaucracy can be quite unforgiving :). > We'll see if this persists as an issue; the mitigation would be to > do some marketing, but that's probably not something we want just > yet. My instinctive response is to end that sentence with "ever" instead. I associate the term marketing with empty publicity for commercial products. Gemini will naturally become gradually more relevant as people keep putting effort into it, and consequently more well-known. <1> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability <2> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
---
Previous in thread (1 of 5): 🗣️ Martin Keegan (martin (a) no.ucant.org)
Next in thread (3 of 5): 🗣️ pjvm742 (a) disroot.org (pjvm742 (a) disroot.org)