People

[webwit]

Should we have a "People" category, and if so, should it only include real names (which would limit it more or less to industry names, inventors, etc.) or also virtual names, so people like Sandy55 and sixty could be included? (Circlejerk danger?) I think if we do, we should set one clear rule: you can never write or edit your own article. Your opinions please.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

All my acknowledgements go on my user page at the moment. I have certainly considered writing a page for alps.tw, considering just how much work he's done (and we now have authorisation to use his photography ourselves). Sandy55 deserves similar credit — someone else whose knowledge we all build on. MouseFan likewise.

Not sure who would be guarding pages against being edited by the described person, or what the criteria would be for inclusion, but the idea is not without merit.

[rindorbrot]

webwit just wants to have a wiki page written about him

[webwit]

Sandy55 deserves similar credit — someone else whose knowledge we all build on. MouseFan likewise.

You're now in that list, and surpassing them in knowledge in various topics and fields. All in just 2 years...
I guess by now you're already the leading switch expert in the western world. I bet in 2 years you will rule them all. I think we should all be very happy you use the open deskthority wiki to document it all.

[webwit]

Not sure who would be guarding pages against being edited by the described person, or what the criteria would be for inclusion, but the idea is not without merit.

No one in particular. We just add to the category that you shouldn't edit your own article or, if someone sees it, we will PUBLICLY HUMILIATE you. I think with our magnitude we'll be fine. Criteria for inclusion is more difficult. It shouldn't include everybody+dog. Only important persons, l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶m̶e̶ like Daniel Beardsmore.

[002]

I can see a problem here if we don't allow people to edit their own pages. Everyone of note will have a detailed article about them except Daniel - it's not fair to him because he's doing all the work

[Daniel Beardsmore]

lol, I see, you expect me to write all these pages as well? I know very little about any of these people.

What we really need is a go-between (someone like litster and that Russian who translated Sandy's old Alps page) to learn about all their work and translate it into English in a way that Google Translate simply cannot. (I did learn from Google which two pins are connected in a Futaba clicky switch, but since mine's jammed closed, I cannot prove it.)

My acknowledgements list is pretty much the extent of what I can write.

[webwit]

Nah we won't write a page about you.

Btw, what are the names of your father and mother, and state your place of birth and birth date please.

[002]

haha...what would the rules be for that sort of thing? Can we just include information that's in the public domain (would that include twitter accounts?). Would someone need to be employed to constantly roll back anonymous edits on the 'Ripster' page?

[daedalus]

Funny, I was thinking about this very issue earlier. There's quite a few people who've helped me acquire knowledge about IBM's keyboards, including people (one example in particular comes to mind) who aren't well known around these parts. There definitely should be some sort of prominent acknowledgements section somewhere on the wiki, it's not really meaningful to do it on a page-per-page basis, especially if the person has helped you with several things.

[Findecanor]

I am not entirely sure...

I typed up a stub about Geekhack yesterday and thought about adding a "people" section, but I wasn't even sure that there should even be an article about Geekhack, so I limited myself to that.
I can see it being a bit justified to have some short info about someone that is in or has been in the community, if that person is someone that pops up in discussions now and then. Just some short objective info to point new members to if they want to know.
The people I thought of for the Geekhack article were Ripster (...) and Smallfry. Just to tell people how they had contributed to Geekhack and why they are no longer there. Maybe a picture of Smallfry's avatar or his mystery keycap.

I think that if there should be a proper Wiki article about a person, it should be for structural reasons.
If a person is known for having designed or greatly influenced more than one thing, then it would be justified to have links from the articles of each of those things to an article about that person, and vice versa.
If it is someone who is known for precisely one thing, then info about the person would only need to be in the article about the thing that he/she is known for.
For instance, I see that it could be justified to have a page about bpiphany / PrinsValium, with links to/from articles about the Phantom, the ErgoDox and the Symmetric Stagger Keyboard.

Pages about sixty and sandy55... not so sure. Sure, they have contributed a lot to the community, but they have not contributed that much tech, that I know of.
Sandy55's web site could be included in a collection of links to useful web sites, for sure, but that is another thing.
In other words, focus on the achievements, not on the people.

[bpiphany]

There are already "users" on the wiki, right? If i click someones name I come to a page where it looks like I would be able to enter a text about them.

I don't see why not everyone would be allowed to have an about page.. It would of course look questionable if someone edits in praises over themselves, but it would also be terrible if everyone wasn't allowed to correct information about themselves... The discussion page could of course always be open for the victim to have a say in =)

[Daniel Beardsmore]

The User: namespace is personal — you write about yourself there.

[bhtooefr]

I'm thinking, for a person page on the wiki, a good standard would be, any edits done by the person in question get reverted, and the person must be notable in some way.

The problem is, setting notability standards that don't turn into a circlejerk popularity contest.

[webwit]

Maybe for starters a person should only be added if this person is mentioned in a wiki article.

[Muirium]

Notability is a slippery standard to define if there ever was one. Webwit's suggestion is reasonable, but just asking to kick the quibbling elsewhere. Now it's not Joe Bloggs who must be notable, but the page about his prized stash of candy-corn skulls.

I'd suggest letting things be organic. The Venerable Mr. Bloggs can have a page if his mates insist. That's not to say that any worthwhile article has to actually link to them! Wiki pages are a free resource, in essence. It's the effort of contributors that's a very finite supply.