'Wikipedia Entries' Category

[+lumbricus]

Hi,

 

the Wikipedia category is one of the largest categories. The last weeks we got some submissions which had been borderline. Some officers want to change some rules, etc. I think we should talk about it here, and we should give other Waymarkers the chance to share their thoughts. Here is the actual category description:

 

For a new Wikipedia entry in this category, you need to find a unique topic within Wikipedia that matches a location you can mark with a GPS unit. We're not talking about air or water, but articles like the Seattle Space Needle.

 

Any submission without a Long Description, will be declined. If you get your information from a specific source, please cite your reference.

 

UPDATE: March 14, 2009

 

The following amendments to the submission requirements go into effect immediately. Those waymarks which have already been approved and are contrary to the new requirements will keep their approved status and be considered "grandfathered" into the category.

 

1. People - All persons, living or dead, shall not be waymarked. A grave, a memorial, a bust, a statue or anything else to the contrary, whatever, shall not constitute the referenced person and therefore shall not constitute a waymark. A bust, statue, memorial or grave of a specific person must be referred to specifically as a unique Wikipedia entry. The Benjamin Franklin grave is an example of a Wikipedia waymark which could be created but a Wikipedia entry for Benjamin Franklin would be a violation of this rule and subject to denial.

 

2. Singularity and Uniqueness - No objects generalized or of a general nature shall be waymarked. All objects have to be designated as unique by a Wikipedia entry. A violation of this rule would be submitting "school" without reference to a specific school and therefore would be contrary to this rule and be subject to denial. All submissions must be unique, singular and identifiable by name, number, code or any other symbol thereby making an object unique and special.

 

UPDATE: December 16, 2011

 

3. Plagiarism - Any sources used, referenced, reviewed or otherwise utilized in the creation of a Wikipedia waymark shall be cited in the Long Description. A citation gives credit to another person, source or site by listing that person, source or site by name and including all other relevant information one would expect to find in a citation. Any information, reference material, quotations, ideas, or anything else used from another cite or source must be referenced. Any submission that does not adhere to this policy will be considered to be plagiarized and will be denied. If you take information word-for-word from any source and include it in your Long Description, it MUST be in quotations and the Source of the copied text MUST be referenced at the end of the quotation. There shall be no exception to this rule.

 

UPDATE: June 5, 2009

 

The following amendment will go into effect immediately with the same terms and conditions as above amendment.

 

4. Photos - All waymarks must have at least one unique photo which clearly identifies the object or place being waymarked. Two exceptions included in this amendment are: A) A single picture of a sign or building identifying a town, city, district, university, locale or any other place being waymarked is not sufficient (in this case multiple pictures are required to give one a flavor of the area) or the waymark has sufficient security restrictions placed around it as to prevent a person from taking a reasonable picture under normal conditions. Reviewers make the final judgment call when a picture is in question and are the sole determiners in accepting or rejecting a submitted waymark, lest there be a vote.

 

What should we exclude/change?

 

Thanks for your input.

 

lumbricus

[+BruceS]

I don't know what the issues or borderline waymarks were. I think the rules are fairly clear with the key being unique things and not general things. One of the problems is where to waymark for large things for example mountains, oceans, lakes, highways etc. and the corollary with large things are more than one waymark acceptable or is there a good way to insure that only one waymark is accepted for that listing.

[+lumbricus]

...One of the problems is where to waymark for large things for example mountains, oceans, lakes, highways etc. and the corollary with large things are more than one waymark acceptable or is there a good way to insure that only one waymark is accepted for that listing.

Exactly that's the point. Not sure how we should solve this problem.

[+NW_history_buff]

As a new officer to the category, that is EXACTLY the problem with reviewing submissions of towns, cities, counties, large bodies of water or land and any other location that may encompass many square miles. NOTHING in the category description mentions how to handle these types of submissions so that only one waymark per location is created. Personally, I've limited my own submissions to the category to locations of a much smaller scale, like a building or site where there is no issue with potential multiple waymarks. If we are to accept a whole town or city, do we require the submitter to place coordinates at the City or Town Hall? If we accept a large lake, where do we require the coordinates to originate? There could be multiple access points that could be used. What about a large mountain expanse? Where do we want to coordinates to be? Do we allow more than one waymark for large bodies of land or water? There just seems to be many loose ends when dealing with these types of submissions to review them adequately. There needs to be some verbiage added to the category description to handle these types of submissions so that officers know exactly how to deal with them in the future. We've lost a few new officers recently because of this confusion.

[+BruceS]

...One of the problems is where to waymark for large things for example mountains, oceans, lakes, highways etc. and the corollary with large things are more than one waymark acceptable or is there a good way to insure that only one waymark is accepted for that listing.

Exactly that's the point. Not sure how we should solve this problem.

 

In general I don't like Waymarking large area type things as I feel little is gained by doing so. Even historic districts I often don't waymark the district but rather I prefer to waymark contributing buildings.

[+elyob]

Why not use only the co-ordinates used in the actual Wikipedia article? Even in articles concerning large features, there is usually a single set of co-ordinates.

[+T0SHEA]

Why not use only the co-ordinates used in the actual Wikipedia article? Even in articles concerning large features, there is usually a single set of co-ordinates.

 

HEY! Elyob has it. That is an elegant solution allowing one and only one submission. Any other solution (that I can think of at the moment) will eventually allow duplicate submissions, as two waymarks sufficiently far apart will not be caught by the proximity alert, requiring reviewers to search far afield for possible duplicates.

 

Another nit that needs picking: Photos - All waymarks must have at least one unique photo...

 

The word unique is very often used without an understanding of its lack of descriptive power. All things are unique, as all photos are unique. Useful wording would be more like: All waymarks must include at least one photo taken by the submitter... The original wording allows for the possibility of submitting a photo taken by someone, anyone, other than the submitter.

Edited September 9, 2016 by BK-Hunters

[+BruceS]

Why not use only the co-ordinates used in the actual Wikipedia article? Even in articles concerning large features, there is usually a single set of co-ordinates.

 

HEY! Elyob has it. That is an elegant solution allowing one and only one submission. Any other solution (that I can think of at the moment) will eventually allow duplicate submissions, as two waymarks sufficiently far apart will not be caught by the proximity alert, requiring reviewers to search far afield for possible duplicates.

 

 

The problem using the coordinates listed in the Wikipedia article as the coordinates is that they are often wrong. It maybe the solution for the large things as they will hit them somewhere however for small things they are often way off. Thus the problem becomes when to use the Wikipedia coordinates for the object and when to use the coordinates the individual records on their GPS.

Edited September 9, 2016 by BruceS
spelling

[+T0SHEA]

 

The problem using the coordinates listed in the Wikipedia article as the coordinates is that they are often wrong. It maybe the solution for the large things as they will hit them somewhere however for small things they are often way off. Thus the problem becomes when to use the Wikipedia coordinates for the object and when to use the coordinates the individual records on their GPS.

 

'Tis true. How about size of object ≤ proximity alert distance? Half a mile or half a klik, don't remember for certain what it is. And/Or, for objects larger than the above, take the load from the shoulders of the reviewer and force the submitter to check the accuracy of the Wiki coords, make note of any discrepancy and, if necessary, use correct coords taken by the submitter. Make the submitter do a little work for his Waymark.

[+lumbricus]

I have less time the next two weeks so that's the reason I'm not writting much. Sorry for that. We should not! decline Waymarks at the moment if the reason is what we discuss here at the moment. Exactly this happened today, we lost another submitter through this.

Thanks, -lumbricus

[+NW_history_buff]

As an officer, I'm not reviewing ANY submission of a town, city, or large body of land or water that could encompass multiple points of entry until the forum decides how best to deal with these types. As it stands, I could decide to waymark the entire Pacific Ocean in the Wikipedia Entries category, since it's technically a 'unique physical presence in the world.' I may also decide to waymark the entire Rocky Mountain range. Heck, while I'm at it, I could waymark the entire United States too. You see where I'm going with this?

 

Solution: Any area to include a town or city or body of land or water encompassing more than a square mile shouldn't be allowed in the category. The category should be focused on sites on a much smaller scale, such as a building, bridge, statue, cemetery, university, etc.

[+Benchmark Blasterz]

As an officer, I'm not reviewing ANY submission of a town, city, or large body of land or water that could encompass multiple points of entry until the forum decides how best to deal with these types. As it stands, I could decide to waymark the entire Pacific Ocean in the Wikipedia Entries category, since it's technically a 'unique physical presence in the world.' I may also decide to waymark the entire Rocky Mountain range. Heck, while I'm at it, I could waymark the entire United States too. You see where I'm going with this?

 

Solution: Any area to include a town or city or body of land or water encompassing more than a square mile shouldn't be allowed in the category. The category should be focused on sites on a much smaller scale, such as a building, bridge, statue, cemetery, university, etc.

 

That's how I have always approached Waymarking in this category. I don't have a problem limiting the category to specific things that are not vast in scope or size. At the same time I me, I would not want to visit 15 separate waymarks if I had a landscape shot of a part of the Rocky Mountains. BOOORING

[+elyob]

Even Rocky Mountains in wikipedia is a single set of co-ordinates.

 

43° 44′ 24″ N, 110° 48′ 0″ W

[+NW_history_buff]

Even Rocky Mountains in wikipedia is a single set of co-ordinates.

 

43° 44′ 24″ N, 110° 48′ 0″ W

 

You're missing the point. Even if Wikipedia provided coordinates for EVERY entry it publishes, do we REALLY want to waymark large bodies of land or water to include cities, mountains, states, countries, rivers, lakes, and oceans? It borders on ridiculous and if the category decides to accept these kinds of submissions then I'll leave as an officer and let the other officers deal with the mess.

[+NW_history_buff]

We just had another Wikipedia officer quit the group. I feel this forum on the topic of Waymarking large bodies of land or water has run its course. I strongly feel we need to edit the category description to draw a line on what the category accepts.

 

Lumbricus, if you as the leader feel comfortable with limiting the category to more tangible sites and locations smaller than a square mile, then I would be more than happy to edit the category to reflect this.

 

We need to find closure on this issue ASAP before other officers get disillusioned and quit the group. It will also clear up confusion for new submissions.

[+NW_history_buff]

We STILL have not resolved the issue with the Wikipedia category accepting or not accepting submissions of Wikipedia entries of large bodies of land or water. The category description as it stands, needs to be edited to draw a line on what it accepts.

 

lumbricus, as the leader of the category, what is your response to this forum post? We other category officers await your reply...

[+lumbricus]

We STILL have not resolved the issue with the Wikipedia category accepting or not accepting submissions of Wikipedia entries of large bodies of land or water. The category description as it stands, needs to be edited to draw a line on what it accepts.

 

lumbricus, as the leader of the category, what is your response to this forum post? We other category officers await your reply...

I'm not sure how far we should change the requirements. I wrote an e-mail to the other officers, maybe we get more opinions. I don't want this category too be to complicated.

[razalas]

We STILL have not resolved the issue with the Wikipedia category accepting or not accepting submissions of Wikipedia entries of large bodies of land or water. The category description as it stands, needs to be edited to draw a line on what it accepts.

 

lumbricus, as the leader of the category, what is your response to this forum post? We other category officers await your reply...

I'm not sure how far we should change the requirements. I wrote an e-mail to the other officers, maybe we get more opinions. I don't want this category too be to complicated.

 

Hi lumbricus,

 

I think that a limit should be set (or someone will waymark the Earth), but i understand that this is a tricky thing to do

 

If is decide not change much the requirements, i think at least we should change the number of photos rerquiered to post waymarks of large bodies.

[+T0SHEA]

Just read this entire thread, and it seems the guidelines have not changed from the first post.

 

There are a few pending waymarks that are for towns that have 4 to 5 photos each.

 

There needs to be a definitive answer, are large bodies, oceans, mountains, earth etc. acceptable or not?

 

Are towns, cities, counties, states acceptable or not? (regardless of how big or small they are)

 

These two questions are asked in the context, how many pictures submitted is not the main criteria.

[+lumbricus]

My decision is that we let it stay like it is now.

Through all the years I got no submission like "Germany" or "Atlantic".

I'm okay with cities or mountains. I would decline "The Alps" or "Himalaya", but I'm very sure this will not happen.

So please call a vote if we get a borderline case and we will see what the result is.

Thanks,

lumbricus