On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:03:37AM -0400, Karl Dahlke wrote:
> I submitted my edbrowse article to wikipedia,
> with my wife's help getting past the captcha.

That's good to hear.

> I then pulled it down to view, and there at the top was a big note saying
> "This article has been marked for speedy deletion by our automatic filter."
> Really?
> I clicked a few links, fortunately wiki is a very edbrowse-friendly site,
> and found out why.
> In 2010 someone posted an article about edbrowse.
> I had no knowledge of this.

I have to say, it's the first I've heard of any previous article as well.

> The assumption, by their software,
> is that the conditions are as they were in 2010,
> and I'm just reposting it to be stubborn,
> and so it is marked for speedy deletion by the administrators.

That's understandable.

> I found the place where I could make a comment and request that it
> not be deleted, speedily or otherwise.
> I pointed out that during those 4 years it had gone beyond a personal project
> and was now part of many distributions, including the references
> that would validate my claim.
> Soon thereafter the notice of deletion disappeared, leaving only the article,
> looking just like the one I last posted on this list,
> that we all agreed to.
> In other words, I think we were successful.
> It is there.

Good work. Thanks for doing this.

> Course it could be deleted next week for some other reason,
> but for now it is there.

Yeah, or edited beyond recognition, but that's the nature of a wiki.

> 1. Should I reference it in my users guide?

Yes.

> 2. Should I include some of its paragraphs in my users guide?
> It is perhaps a better introduction than anything I have in usersguide.html.
Hmmm, I'd assume that anyone whos got as far as the user's guide
probably only needs a brief intro to edbrowse, so probably not.

> 3. Should I include the raw markup of the article in the doc directory?
> That would show people how to write wiki articles, if they wish,
> but it also runs the risk of becoming out of date
> as anyone on the planet can edit and change my edbrowse article on wikipedia.

It would almost certainly become out of date, so I wouldn't.

> 4. At the end of the users guide, talking about various command line utilities,
> should I add a section about my experience posting the article,
> and how to interact with wikipedia, and it's markup language etc?
> Or is that such a rare thing to do that it's not worth talking about.

I suspect it's probably not worth it,
as they may also change the submission process, markup etc.
May be worth a post to the command-line list though.

Cheers,
Adam.