EDIT: After lots of helpful feedback in this thread, the article is now accepted. Thanks everyone who helped!
Any #Wikipedia editors around who can help? We are trying to get the article on #CHERI 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.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from david_chisnall@infosec.exchange
@david_chisnall we're not involved with Wikipedia but three consecutive rejections are the kind of thing that would make us wonder whether somebody has a grudge against the subject matter
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ireneista@irenes.space
@ireneista To be clear: I think the first one was definitely deserved. None of us have edited Wikipedia for about 20 years and back then the flow was to add a stub and then extend it, because it's much easier to get people to improve articles than contribute new ones, so that's what we tried to do. That seems not to be the flow anymore.
The second one was probably a valid concern as well. We made a lot of improvements after that.
The third one just seems like an editor being obnoxious for no reason. On the other hand, maybe I'm too close to the material and the explanations need to be clearer. But some guidance on that would help, rather than just 'a 15-year-old, who is reading an article on a subject that requires you to have some understanding of how instruction sets work, would not understand this'.
I've had several books, over 150 articles, and a load of academic papers published, so I have some idea of how editing normally works in a variety of contexts. A content editor who wrote the comment from the last review would not remain working at a publisher for very long.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from david_chisnall@infosec.exchange
@david_chisnall ah, yeah. well... good, sort of. maybe it's more of a procedural deficiency then, like there's nothing designed to ensure that editing feedback is actionable, or something like that?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ireneista@irenes.space
@david_chisnall @ireneista from a quick read, yes, you are too close to the material.
This article is way overcomplicated, without even answering in the lead: What is this, to whom does it matter and where am i (not you) likely to encounter this.
Most of the article is a technical description that is not useful for most readers and can just as well be read from the sources quoted to those who care about it.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from TheDJ@mastodon.social
@david_chisnall @ireneista And yes this often goes for some of the math articles as well, but they tend to have wider relevance and more historic documentation, giving them slightly more affordances.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from TheDJ@mastodon.social
@TheDJ @david_chisnall @ireneista As someone who is farmiliar with a software based capability system I would like to add that the article is strangely vague about how this actually works.
I was expecting to see what changes to the different systems are needed and how the different operations on capabilities are implemented. More in the style of the wikipedia entries for TLB or CPU caches.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from MaxStriebel@mastodon.gamedev.place
@MaxStriebel @TheDJ @ireneista That's partly because it's about the CHERI architecture not a specific microarchitecture. For example, on big systems we store the tag bits in a separate table and have a memory-side (past the final coherence point) hierarchical tag cache and then they flow along with data in cache lines. On embedded systems, we can simply widen SRAM to hold capabilities alongside data. Morello also has a mode where it stores tags in ECC bits in DDR. There are a lot of possible ways of implementing CHERI that make sense on different microarchitectures.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from david_chisnall@infosec.exchange
@david_chisnall I think starting with a non-draft stub with adequate refs to establish notability is still the best way. Though my pref is to start a wikidata item even before that.
The drafts process requires a lot of up front work and easily gets stuck if that work results in something that doesn't feel quite right to the reviewer who happens to look. More like a capricious publication process than wiki. /idle commentary
You've done that work though, keep pushing on it, a needed article!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from mlinksva@mastodon.social
@david_chisnall the 15yo would userstand objection is ridiculous for the reason you state (90% of science articles would fail). But I also think the intro paragraph since that rejection is pretty approachable, so you could resubmit claiming to have addressed the feedback.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from mlinksva@mastodon.social This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini