Back to the main page.

Bug 1975 - Get into wikipedia

Reported 2013-02-06 16:17:00 +0100
Modified 2014-03-12 12:21:37 +0100
Product: FieldTrip
Component: documentation
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
Operating System: Windows
Importance: P3 normal
Assigned to: Jörn M. Horschig
Depends on:
See also:

Jörn M. Horschig - 2013-02-06 16:17:09 +0100

SPM is there: would be good to be there as well, right? :) Any ideas for good content?

Robert Oostenveld - 2013-02-06 16:28:19 +0100

I don't see Friston listed here which I think is a good sign ;-) Please consider

Jörn M. Horschig - 2013-02-06 16:37:20 +0100

but Friston was here: ;) admittedly he didn't create his own page, but noticed that page freakingly fast though sure sure, the page should be informative and descriptive. I saw a number of pages which got shut down, because they were considered to be advertisements made with commercial interest. Quite important to not leave the impression that we're doing it for the money :)

Roemer van der Meij - 2013-02-07 14:05:26 +0100

How about this for a start ;) Am busy creating a first minor page :)

Roemer van der Meij - 2013-02-07 14:22:38 +0100

I made a small start, which is slightly reworded copy-paste from our own wiki. Reworded to be a bit more neutral, this can still be improved. I wanted to get at least a basic page going as a starter. It can be found at, obviously:

Roemer van der Meij - 2013-02-07 14:31:40 +0100

Oh wow, within 5 minutes we get a proposal for the page to be deleted: ******** It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: Software that is still in development. No indication of notability. ********

Robert Oostenveld - 2013-02-07 14:32:27 +0100

(In reply to comment #5) so better demonstrate that it is notable.

Robert Oostenveld - 2013-02-07 14:33:32 +0100

(In reply to comment #6) e.g. phrase it as "has been developed"

Roemer van der Meij - 2013-02-07 14:46:09 +0100

It was ill-phrased the way I put it, this has been changed. I may have been a bit over eager, the page is now in another deletion process. Why, I don't really see. Yes, it is a small page, but it does provide a short description of what it is about. Is it common that the first version is already nearly full? It is now under discussion for deletion here: Apparently, this is a talk page where one discusses? I don't really have the time now to go into this. I had no idea they would be so on top honestly.

Robert Oostenveld - 2013-02-07 14:53:33 +0100

(In reply to comment #8) it should be an encyclopedic entry, not a "me too" entry. I suspect that wikipedia gets a lot of "link" spam, and that a lot of volunteers are therefore on top of cleaning it immediately. Detecting inappropriate "first pages" is easier than scanning over the whole wikipedia.

Johanna - 2013-02-07 14:55:36 +0100

I was just going to add the link to the paper, but then saw the link to the FT wiki was removed (to avoid self-promotion I presume). But doesn't the peer-reviewed published article speak for 'notability'?

Robert Oostenveld - 2013-02-07 14:56:47 +0100

have a look at and ask him and/or explain the situation. Maybe if JM offers him piano lessons he will agree with the entry ;-)

Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen - 2013-02-07 14:59:14 +0100

hehe, and Jorn can teach some German...

Robert Oostenveld - 2013-02-07 14:59:22 +0100

(In reply to comment #10) better then point to the original article, not to an abstract. Idem for the website, does not take you anywhere (not even under facilities) but does. Have a look at for an example.

Roemer van der Meij - 2013-02-07 15:44:19 +0100

Oh boy, I must have upset them with my faulty link. Which they removed. And which I then accidentally added again because I didn't notice it was missing. And which they removed then again. With writing AGAIN in all-caps. I'm trying to find a way to apologize to the kitty-guy, but there are these talk-pages? They are like open discussions fora or whatever? And there are these automated reply's on my own talk-page? And there is his/her own talk-page? And a fieldtrip-page-talk-page? Don't worry, I'm facepalming myself heavily right about now.

Roemer van der Meij - 2013-02-07 15:49:39 +0100

BTW, Robert, the preferred external link in papers is right?

Jörn M. Horschig - 2013-02-07 15:51:06 +0100

hehe, that's why I didn't go and just created the page myself ;) I thought it might be wise to discuss about what to put there *before* creating that page

Jörn M. Horschig - 2013-02-07 15:53:04 +0100

btw, having that many external links is a good hint for any automatic heuristic to detect that article as spam ;)

Robert Oostenveld - 2013-02-07 15:54:53 +0100

(In reply to comment #15) correct, as that is stated in

Roemer van der Meij - 2013-02-07 15:57:07 +0100

(In reply to comment #16) Yeah, I see the wisdom of that now. I thought I would give it a headstart with content from our own wiki. I guessed wrong I think. Still though, I tried to change it to a more neutral writing. (In reply to comment #17) Most of them point to internal wiki pages though. I added a comment on the talk-page to explain my 'spammy' behaviour. Well, not so much explain as to apologize.

Robert Oostenveld - 2013-02-07 15:57:36 +0100

(In reply to comment #14) Please see

Roemer van der Meij - 2013-02-07 16:42:58 +0100

Ah, he saw my comment and even added the link for me. I created the following page for discussing of not deleting the main page (which I think is the way to do it).

Jörn M. Horschig - 2013-02-08 09:31:30 +0100

gonna write a comment about workshops that were given

Jörn M. Horschig - 2013-02-08 10:02:22 +0100

Does anyone have any more URLs pointing to FieldTrip workshops/talks? Wanted to be sure before submitting an incomplete list (also because I couldn't find too many links) :# [ A FieldTrip workshop was given in St. Louis] in light of the [[Human_Connectome_Project]] of which FieldTrip is part of and receives funding from :# [ An upcoming workshop] at the university of [[Tubingen]] :# [ The FieldTrip Wiki itself lists more workshops] - definitely not an independent list, but the most complete summary of external workshops that have been given. :# [[EEGLAB]] and FieldTrip have, as already mentioned, a collaboration going, see also [ the EEGLAB homepage] :# [ An extensive list of papers citing FieldTrip]

Robert Oostenveld - 2013-02-08 10:46:55 +0100

(In reply to comment #23) > Does anyone have any more URLs pointing to FieldTrip workshops/talks? most external ones have never appeared somewhere online.

Johanna - 2013-04-03 13:52:51 +0200

there should be a disambiguation page between FieldTrip and

Johanna - 2013-04-03 13:59:20 +0200

tip: use development section of fieldtrip wiki first to develop what to add before putting it live on real wiki. goal: make FT wikipedia page more like eeglab page.

Johanna - 2013-05-06 22:07:47 +0200

I found this an interesting commentary, and we can appreciate it from the FT experience with wikipedia:|newe|5-6-2013|5664297|37347662|UK

Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen - 2013-11-29 11:25:52 +0100

Are we seriously going to pursue this? If so, I suggest to assign this to a named person, otherwise it will stay on the unassigned list forever. Assigning to the reporter ;-). Feel free to assign to anyone whom you may think more appropriate for this (not me).

Jörn M. Horschig - 2013-12-11 16:15:48 +0100

(In reply to comment #25) disambiguated (In reply to comment #28) we should be done here for now