Wikipedia talk:Education program archive/Peer to Peer University/WIKISOO Round 3: student projects

I will continue editing the page that I started in the previous course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology_of_Wikipediaggatin (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been working on an article that has been speedily deleted for lack of notability. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Nations_Seeker&action=edit&redlink=1

I know that the First Nations Seeker website is widely cited but not in sources that are considered to be significant. I did add links to published articles but these were not seen to be adequate. Clearly the resource is seen as authoritative in many circles but not in the circles that the Wikipedia editors recognize. This is often an issue that brushes up against conversations about colonialism in academe and how that gets replicated in Wikipedia. ggatin (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the issue that I raised in the lab this morning. I was looking at a list of search engines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines and noticed a list that was labeled Geographically limited scope. I knew of a search engine that fit this description so I tried to add it to the list. The search engine that I added did not have its own wiki page so I started one and supported it with the citations that I could find. It was initially scheduled for quick deletion and deleted. I restored it and added more resources and a rationale for why it should be kept but was unable to convince some Wipipedia admins that it made an appropriate contribution to Wikipedia. What confuses me is looking through the other search engines listed on the original page, for example Goo, Japan -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goo_(search_engine). I have trouble seeing how it is any more notable or well supported, yet it remains. Some of the entries have been tagged for improvements but have not been removed outright. Is the criteria of "significant" one that is open to interpretation? negotiation? Or have I just caught the eye of some overzealous editors who now have this on their watchlist. ggatin (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)