Secure a place in history. Create the source material for hundreds of journalists, bloggers and shitposters writing about the downfall of reddit and the rise of the threadiverse. (also missing!)
At some point, there will be some sort of drama involving kbin. It could be constructive drama or not; who knows.
When it happens, whatever it is, lots of people will direct themselves to wikipedia to learn about what this website is. We all know wikipedia can be very influential. Even in the absence of drama.
“Kbin is . . . a good . . place. I . . . like kbin because . . it is fun.”
<submit>
i just took a look at what it takes to write a wiki article, and it is extensive (rightfully so). anyone who plans on trying this, please be prepared to have sources prepared, be unbiased, be a good writer, and more.
Let’s just have ChatGPT do it.
ChatGPT is going to get you rejected for made up sources for sure.
[citation needed]
There wasn’t a lot of good source material to use a couple months ago. I’m unsure if that has changed, but it might’ve. It’s a prerequisite for writing a good wikipedia article, at any rate, as opposed to a shitty one.
You’re not allowed to write your own telling of the story on there, you have to copy other people’s and cite them. So a lot of other people need to have written on it, from a position of being a reliable source, before a quality wikipedia article can be written.
Though a small, mediocre article can be better than no article, if you’re giving someone a good framework to improve on later, as more sources develop.
There’s been a lot of articles about the recent Reddit drama or whatever you want to call it. I’m sure some of them have mentioned Lemmy and Kbin!
And also bear in mind that if someone writes a crappy enough kbin article now and it gets deleted, that’s going to make it harder to get a kbin article started again in the future. I know that’s not how it’s supposed to work in principle but unfortunately it’s how it works in practice.
Pleroma still doesn’t have a wikipedia article because of this, despite being one of the oldest AP-enabled fediverse services. It’s been deleted twice because some moderator didn’t like the quality or number of sources.
@FaceDeer oh that’s interesting. do you know why?
Wikipedia doesn’t like articles that are basically ads. Articles should be written from an unbiased standpoint using independent sources. If an article has been removed because it’s basically self promotion, then mods will be more careful about reopening it again.
