New Wiki about Structured Backus-Naur Form?

Hi all :)

I'm thinking about extending Wikipedia with a new page: Structured BNF. Is anyone interested in helping in changing content or lecturing it before I publish it? I would appreciate any comment, even if you think that this is not a thing to place in Wiki.

here is the content

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It's probably not well

It's probably not well suited for Wikipedia. It looks like you're intending to facilitate discussion of your original research, but Wikipedia isn't a general discussion forum.

There might be another wiki that's a good home for this content -- at least you could always make a project-specific wiki with GitHub or Google Code, if no other wiki comes to mind -- and of course you already have a project website that you could put this on. Do these options fall short for you?

Tx

Tx Ross, I never realized that aspect and I guess you are right. I guess I need to cite ten existing papers not to look like original research because wiki doesn't accepts original research.

I just wanted to publish some achievement of mine to a broader public, but maybe SBNF isn't ready yet.

But there might be another question: Do people that would like to read about regular BNF would like to read about SBNF also? Is the weight of the answer heavier than original-research-policy?

I guess I need to cite ten

I guess I need to cite ten existing papers not to look like original research because wiki doesn't accepts original research.

I can tell you're frustrated, but I'm optimistic there are better options for you than Wikipedia anyway.

I just wanted to publish some achievement of mine to a broader public, but maybe SBNF isn't ready yet.

Since you're concerned with promotion of your idea/project and receiving personal recognition for it, it's a good plan to get your idea in front of an audience with two qualities: A passion to explore that kind of idea, and a passion for tracking accurate attribution for each idea.

Wikipedia cultivates a culture of accurate attribution, but not of exploring fresh ideas. On the other end of the scale, industry entrepreneurs have a passion for fresh ideas, but sometimes they face selfish incentives that cause the attribution to be neglected or obscured. The academic and open source communities are probably good examples of the audience you want.

You might want to look at how you're balancing your curve of mass audiences, discussion groups, and close collaborators. The former might make you popular, but the latter will help you quickly develop your ideas further. Regardless of what kind of audience you're facing, there's some amount of politics involved, which will mean lots of hypocrisy even if you don't realize it: Altruism is often valuable to achieve selfish goals, and selfishness is often valuable to achieve altruistic goals. So wherever you feel your motivations reside most, whether in selfishness or altruism, be proud of the things you do to practice the other.

In a certain sense, Wikipedia isn't entirely separate from the academic and open source communities. So just because it's a good idea to target a certain general audience, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to target every possible subcommunity or intersecting community within that audience.

Anyway, I'm making a lot of big claims here, and I can't claim to have much first-hand knowledge of this stuff. :) I'm probably teaching myself a lot just by trying to explain my thoughts to you.

Here!

Instead of a Wikipedia article, I'd submit an article here with the content you put together.

There is a link to SBNF in

There is a link to SBNF in the root of this thread, so I consider it already published here.