Any #Wikipedia editors around who can help? We are trying to get the [article on #CHERI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Capability_Hardware_Enhanced_RISC_Instructions ) added. It's so far been rejected three times:
First, it did not have enough independent citations. We added a lot to news articles about CHERI.
Second, it was insufficiently detailed and lacking context. We added a timeline of development, a load of cross references, and a simple introduction.
It was then rejected again because it lacks an explanation that a 15-year-old could understand. This is true of 90% of science-related articles on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how we fix it. An explanation at that level is something I can write (I have done for the #CHERIoT book!) but it would then make the page 3-4 times as long and not suitable for an encyclopaedia (I've previously seen pages rejected because Wikipedia is not the right place for tutorials).
I don't understand the standards for Wikipedia and I really need some guidance for how to resolve and progress this.
David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)
npub13g…dk50d
2025-01-21 10:46:53 UTC
Author Public Key
npub13gcwraghdcw9xzkg3tky24feu0lzkhtlt57wpdn58y4m4tyr9qdsxdk50dSeen on
wss://relay.momostr.pinkPublished at
2025-01-21 10:46:53 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "4060caa668cf5e8c21faf4ad9a822b5c4ec1ce27fcac6475ebbc8738a4f63d68",
"pubkey": "8a30e1f5176e1c530ac88aec455539e3fe2b5d7f5d3ce0b674392bbaac83281b",
"created_at": 1737456413,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"t",
"cheri"
],
[
"t",
"cheriot"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://infosec.exchange/@david_chisnall/113865943488497223",
"web"
],
[
"t",
"wikipedia"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://infosec.exchange/users/david_chisnall/statuses/113865943488497223",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://infosec.exchange/users/david_chisnall/statuses/113865943488497223",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "Any #Wikipedia editors around who can help? We are trying to get the [article on #CHERI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Capability_Hardware_Enhanced_RISC_Instructions ) added. It's so far been rejected three times:\n\nFirst, it did not have enough independent citations. We added a lot to news articles about CHERI.\n\nSecond, it was insufficiently detailed and lacking context. We added a timeline of development, a load of cross references, and a simple introduction.\n\nIt was then rejected again because it lacks an explanation that a 15-year-old could understand. This is true of 90% of science-related articles on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how we fix it. An explanation at that level is something I can write (I have done for the #CHERIoT book!) but it would then make the page 3-4 times as long and not suitable for an encyclopaedia (I've previously seen pages rejected because Wikipedia is not the right place for tutorials).\n\nI don't understand the standards for Wikipedia and I really need some guidance for how to resolve and progress this.",
"sig": "751452cc13434f3ad515cfdbe153c21d1398251781ce7ff2fc2b7b5a82a4bc0386e91f8a7f32bcb6904096f586263660f55e602f8456128593de707af8b78f14"
}