- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Magnus Manske
edit- ... that German biochemistry student Magnus Manske wrote an early version of the Wikipedia platform, and Jimmy Wales declared January 25 to be Magnus Manske day in his honor?
2x expanded and sourced (BLP) by Obiwankenobi (talk), Jayen466 (talk). Self nominated at 21:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC).
The third reference is an unreliable blog. The sixth reference is an unreliable blog. The 8th reference is a dead link. The 9th reference is a previous Wikipedia edit. The 17th reference is a previous edit of Wikipedia. Most of the references either reference the software itself or were written by the subject of the article. There is no notability shown in the article. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for the feedback. There are at least 5 independent sources which discuss the subject. The reason there are so many other sources from the subject is those are primary sources, which are permitted if used carefully. The same applies for the wikipedia threads - those can be considered primary sources for happenings on wikipedia itself, and I was careful in using them (and only used them to reinforce things noted in secondary sources).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- The independent references in the article are unreliable sources. Wikipedia can never be used to cite a Wikipedia article even if it was about things that happened on Wikipedia. The dead link needs to be taken care of. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm not sure if I agree with that at all. Robert Clark Young was subject to much focus, and wikipedia was cited. I don't see anything that prevents use of wikipedia as a primary source about something that happened on wikipedia. In terms of independent references, which are you referring to? I'm thinking of these:
- The independent references in the article are unreliable sources. Wikipedia can never be used to cite a Wikipedia article even if it was about things that happened on Wikipedia. The dead link needs to be taken care of. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Jennifer Joline Anderson (2011). Wikipedia: The Company and Its Founders. ABDO. p. 44. ISBN 9781617148125.
- Sumana Harihareswara; Guillaume Paumier (2012). "MediaWiki". In Amy Brown; Greg Wilson. The Architecture of Open Source Applications. Kristian Hermansen. ISBN 9781105571817.
- Andrew Lih (2009). The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia. Hyperion. ISBN 9781401303716.
- Rajeev Kumar. "Wiki Installation and Customization". Retrieved June 4, 2013.
- N. A. Polukarova (June 2007). "The concept of open editing from the copyright viewpoint". Automatic Documentation and Mathematical Linguistics (Allerton Press, Inc.) 41 (3): 104–107.
- Mathias Schindler; Denny Vrandečić (March 2009). "Introducing new features to Wikipedia". In Jim Hendler; Helen Margetts. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Web Sciences WebSci09. Athens, Greece. Retrieved June 4, 2013.
- Larry Sanger (April 18, 2005). "The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir". Retrieved 4 June 2013.
- I will take another look at any broken links. Thanks again for your feedback. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- The MediaWiki source was a volunteer project to write the book that was self-published in eBook format. This reference has no preview, but I can still tell that it does not focus on the subject significantly. That article's overall subject is "the concept of open editing from the copyright viewpoint". A person being mentioned, but not focused on, in an article is a trivial mention. Like I said, slashdot is unreliable because articles are submitted by users. That leaves me doubt that the two offline references have any significant coverage of the subject. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- I went through the Sanger essay and there is only two sentences about the subject. SL93 (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've just added to the further refs a profile of Manske from a German newspaper. I don't speak german though, so am relying on auto-translate. A german speaker could add relevant information from that one too.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused on your sourcing comments. He's clearly notable for having been responsible for creating one of the most widely used pieces of software on the planet. He's notable enough that Jimmy Wales named a day after him, he's notable enough that he's mentioned in several different books about the history of wikipedia, and he has a profile just about him in a German newspaper. Not all sources have to treat the subject in detail, they are used rather to fill out the profile.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- He created a notable piece of software and Jimmy Wales appreciates him which is great. The issue here is that a person's notable creation does not automatically make that person notable. That is why a non-notable creator should be written about in an article on their notable creation. Jimmy Wales naming a day for him does not make him notable either because both of them have to do with the same project. The reason why this article did not exist till now was because of his notability being questioned. It isn't like no one else had access to the sources that you posted. Robert Clark Young is completely different. He has a documentary about him, he is a significant author, and his writing extends farther. Not all sources have to be about him in detail, but there is only one source like that which isn't significant coverage in multiple sources. SL93 (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- One could use Wikipedia:CREATIVE for example to defend notability. Also, many of the sources were CREATED after the article was redirected, back in 2006 or so. Anyway, can we just focus on the DYK, and how to improve the sources? The reason I gave the example of RCY is that was a highly-trafficked and edited article, and wikipedia was used as a primary source there. Again, the claims are light-weight - that there is a day named after him, and that this was the list of features declared in the software. These are not extraordinary claims, and I think the use of wikipedia (or any primary source) here is acceptable.
- I already mentioned how to improve the sources. The article needs significant coverage (not trivial mentions) in multiple reliable sources. It works both ways on Wikipedia - the creation having plenty of coverage does not make the creator automatically notable and the creator having plenty of coverage does not make the the creation automatically notable. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am done with this review and will allow anyone who wants to review the article look over the discussion. I don't want to spend so much time reviewing an article and a volunteer doesn't have to. SL93 (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- One could use Wikipedia:CREATIVE for example to defend notability. Also, many of the sources were CREATED after the article was redirected, back in 2006 or so. Anyway, can we just focus on the DYK, and how to improve the sources? The reason I gave the example of RCY is that was a highly-trafficked and edited article, and wikipedia was used as a primary source there. Again, the claims are light-weight - that there is a day named after him, and that this was the list of features declared in the software. These are not extraordinary claims, and I think the use of wikipedia (or any primary source) here is acceptable.
- He created a notable piece of software and Jimmy Wales appreciates him which is great. The issue here is that a person's notable creation does not automatically make that person notable. That is why a non-notable creator should be written about in an article on their notable creation. Jimmy Wales naming a day for him does not make him notable either because both of them have to do with the same project. The reason why this article did not exist till now was because of his notability being questioned. It isn't like no one else had access to the sources that you posted. Robert Clark Young is completely different. He has a documentary about him, he is a significant author, and his writing extends farther. Not all sources have to be about him in detail, but there is only one source like that which isn't significant coverage in multiple sources. SL93 (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I will take another look at any broken links. Thanks again for your feedback. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I am going to see about getting someone else to look at this. Your recent edits may show him to be notable as not just a software developer, but as a scholar. SL93 (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for your help thus far.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've added some more material from German-language sources (Die Zeit, Die Welt, Der Spiegel and others) and added myself as co-nom above. I am confident that with the added sources, notability of Manske as an individual is demonstrated. Andreas JN466 05:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- I had a look at the old and the new versions, and since I made a couple of edits, and since Obi asked for my help, I shouldn't OK this, though I think it is OK (Andreas, excellent work--thank you so much). I'll ping Crisco 1492 and BlueMoonset for an evaluation, just in case SL93 is really tired of it. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
New enough, long enough, interesting enough. German sources look solid and it's not unusual for people to use books which only have a couple sentences of information on a subject to help build articles on said subject. Self-published sources look fine. Drmies, I don't think using {{U}} notifies us. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
