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
Iām not sure itās as simple as that, although such an approach wouldnāt 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 itās an anti-crypto thing. They are over cautious about being gamed by scammers.
well we dont have something that can prove to anyone that what we have is decentralized internet yetā¦
Thereās 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, thatās not enough. An article about some physics concept that wasnāt 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 observerās 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 donāt know the requirements but I can imagine what Wikipedia must be dealing with every day, trying to keep marketing noise off their platform and donāt think they have the resources to consider each case thoroughly.
Does Wikipedia take into account the identity and business or social affiliation of contributors?
Hereās a link. I didnāt recall correctly - it was titled āMaidSafeā not āSAFE Networkā MaidSafe-wiki-new.docx - pCloud
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 pageā¦
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 havenāt seen before. Seem like thereās 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 āThe SAFE Network is an encrypted overlay network that replaces the top four OSI layersā. That doesnāt really say anything to 99% of Wikipedia readers. It could be there in some detailed description, but shouldnāt 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 itās in Wreckit Ralph, with references. This could maybe be under a section āThe SAFE Network in popular cultureā, many Wikipedia articles have that. That would help establish that itās notable.
Metioning SAFE and Solid/RDF/Semantic Web with link to Tim Berne Leeās 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.
Itās 18 months old now. I donāt feel like resubmitting it as it will need a complete rewrite if itās not to be ātoo similarā to the last rejected one and I donāt have time, but if anyone else wants to adapt it theyāre very welcome to.
The more recently deleted Wikipedia āSAFE Networkā article (from enwiki-20181220-pages-articles-multistream.xml.bz2): JustPaste.it - Share Text & Images the Easy Way.
Nice to keep as a reference. Though as JPL says, a new article shouldnāt be too similar to any of the old articles or it can be deleted again just because of that.
Not being on Wikipedia is not the end of the world. Maybe the energy can be used more productively elsewhere.
The Web Archive also has the āMaidSafeā-version from 2015-2016:
Other suggestions that could help: donāt discuss the Wikipedia page (only) here, but (also) on the talk or Wikiproject pages of Wikipedia before adding or changing it, let someone with already a lot of Wikipedia edits make the page and do read this Wiki crypto warning block and the Wikiproject reference(s) below it.