![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I just archived this talk, I'll try to get a summary together. - brenneman 23:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The thing that led me here was the "being bundled = notability" criterion, by way of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group-Office (third nomination) so I'll start by summarising those arguments. I'm going to copy/paste the relevent section here and then distill them to the juicy nuggets. - brenneman 23:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
A software package should get bonus points for being in an OS distribution (Linux, FreeBSD, etc.). For the more selective distributions such as Fedora Core or Ubuntu main, just being in the distro should make it notable. Debian is too big for a software package to be included in Wikipedia just because it has a package in Debian; the Debian Popularity Contest is a great resource; we could choose a percentile above which packages are considered notable. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-22 19:37 Z
How is the list of Linux distributions determined? The use of the word major appears to make that criteria subjective. DistroWatch lists the top 10 [1] as:
Also, the criteria is qualified by "The more packages a distribution includes, the less notability is implied by inclusion in that distribution." It would be useful to provide package count stats or links to stats to help wikipedians see which distro's hold more weight. John Vandenberg 20:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Just added that list to a new section on linux distribution. I was looking for it earlier there. So thanks :) FT2 ( Talk | email) 03:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi; I contribute to Wikipedia in areas unrelated to software, but two programs I've written, pydance and Quod Libet both have articles about them. My feeling is that both articles are unencyclopedic (as is almost every article on Wikipedia), but I'm not going to AfD them because obviously someone else disagrees. The problem I have is that the articles get out of date very quickly for active projects, and for active small projects that means no one upates them. Quod Libet is very unhelpful for example, having had two inaccurate comparisons to other media players, and having been at stub status for a very long time. The Russian article is more complete, but also 9 months out of date. I've updated pydance myself to improve the quality a little, but I felt uncomfortable doing it; enough so that I don't want to touch Quod Libet, since music player flamewars are common already. There's a huge music player feature comparison table somewhere, which is really out of date and probably was wrong even when it was written. Users are getting bad advice about what software serves their needs, and developers are basically having their software lied about.
I guess I don't really have a conclusion here, except: If you're going to put a thousand active free software projects into Wikipedia, you're going to need to keep a thousand active free software projects up to date, which is going to be hard if you don't let involved developers edit. piman 02:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
So we should be asking ourselves: What areas are we trying to ensure are comprehensive with these two criteria? WP:CORP's secondary criteria are aimed at ensuring that all of the links on List of Fortune 500 will be blue. Wikipedia has no "list of all software packages included in Debian". Nor has it "list of core products by notable software developer X" articles. So what gaps are the proponents of these criteria actually trying to fill? Uncle G 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
getting into debian is not that hard, with a little determination pretty much anyone can become a debian dev and package thier own software to thier hearts content. I'd imagine fedora is similar though i don't have experiance with processes there.
the only other ways in essentially require you to be a big powerfull company or to have had the luck to get into print and have someone here recognise you (web review sites seem to get disregarded here unless they are the web arm of some print operation in almost all fields). Plugwash 21:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the idea that inclusion in any distro constitutes notability. I'll illustrate why with some examples from what's described above as one of the more selective distros, Ubuntu - do any of the following warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia?
Now, to me at least, that seems ridiculous, but my interpretation of the comments above is that they're saying these packages are automatically notable and worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Where am I going wrong, and what's wrong with the idea that something is notable if it attracts enough attention for independant and reliable parties choose to write about it? CiaranG 13:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The question is, under what situations would (stand-alone, integrated or systems) software be notable. I can think of a few. Can we look closer at them? These are my suggestions for notability criteria:
Exceptional circumstances only:
How do people like that as a starting point of a framework for software notability? FT2 ( Talk | email) 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Radiant! placed the merger tag on both this article and Wikipedia:Game guide.
If you all want a test case, take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcohol 120%. One user argues that (1) WP:SOFTWARE applies and (2) on-line reviews and reviews on download sites qualify Alcohol 120% as notable. [13]
I am not really familiar enough with your proposal to judge, but am curious how you see it playing out. Thanks, TheronJ 19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
How would the notability of a game be decided then? Shrumster 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, user guides, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews 2 except for the following:
Make it clear by, for example saying, any third party newspaper/magazine/tele reports instead of such long, detailed but ambiguous words. -- Der yck C. 14:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Based upon the comments on this page, I'm going to remove the distribution section. Anyone going to scream? - brenneman 03:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Therefore, this should be tagged as rejected under Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which state: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction."
There seems to be no progress toward consensus here since the end of January. This seems to be dead and should be tagged as rejected. -- Kevin Murray 16:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It's biased *against* F/OSS software - OSS doesn't get reviewed in magazines for example, even if it has a few million users, you have to be up to the point of Debian or Spamassasin to be 'notable' acording to this guideline.
Case in point, somebody has tagged the E107 (software) with both this guideline and the {{advert}} one, so now there's a problem, notability could *easily* be established with a link to http://www.packtpub.com/article/open-source-content-management-system-award-winner-announced for example - but now it looks even *more* like an advert. Even though it's OSS - advert, funny. So no now with this perspective in mind there's two guidelines that are both strongly add odds with each other and frankly, unworkable.
Don't get me wrong, the page is nasty and needs fixing, but this guidline just makes it that much more akward -- Streaky 14:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a trend whereby if a proposed notability guideline has not been accepted as a guideline, an editor will tag it as rejected. I object to this trend, and I would rather see this guideline accepted than rejected. -- Metropolitan90 14:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Per the WP Policy: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction. -- Kevin Murray 16:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way to whip this page into shape? I really think it's an important guideline, and should become official. Andre ( talk) 07:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I just archived this talk, I'll try to get a summary together. - brenneman 23:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The thing that led me here was the "being bundled = notability" criterion, by way of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group-Office (third nomination) so I'll start by summarising those arguments. I'm going to copy/paste the relevent section here and then distill them to the juicy nuggets. - brenneman 23:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
A software package should get bonus points for being in an OS distribution (Linux, FreeBSD, etc.). For the more selective distributions such as Fedora Core or Ubuntu main, just being in the distro should make it notable. Debian is too big for a software package to be included in Wikipedia just because it has a package in Debian; the Debian Popularity Contest is a great resource; we could choose a percentile above which packages are considered notable. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-22 19:37 Z
How is the list of Linux distributions determined? The use of the word major appears to make that criteria subjective. DistroWatch lists the top 10 [1] as:
Also, the criteria is qualified by "The more packages a distribution includes, the less notability is implied by inclusion in that distribution." It would be useful to provide package count stats or links to stats to help wikipedians see which distro's hold more weight. John Vandenberg 20:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Just added that list to a new section on linux distribution. I was looking for it earlier there. So thanks :) FT2 ( Talk | email) 03:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi; I contribute to Wikipedia in areas unrelated to software, but two programs I've written, pydance and Quod Libet both have articles about them. My feeling is that both articles are unencyclopedic (as is almost every article on Wikipedia), but I'm not going to AfD them because obviously someone else disagrees. The problem I have is that the articles get out of date very quickly for active projects, and for active small projects that means no one upates them. Quod Libet is very unhelpful for example, having had two inaccurate comparisons to other media players, and having been at stub status for a very long time. The Russian article is more complete, but also 9 months out of date. I've updated pydance myself to improve the quality a little, but I felt uncomfortable doing it; enough so that I don't want to touch Quod Libet, since music player flamewars are common already. There's a huge music player feature comparison table somewhere, which is really out of date and probably was wrong even when it was written. Users are getting bad advice about what software serves their needs, and developers are basically having their software lied about.
I guess I don't really have a conclusion here, except: If you're going to put a thousand active free software projects into Wikipedia, you're going to need to keep a thousand active free software projects up to date, which is going to be hard if you don't let involved developers edit. piman 02:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
So we should be asking ourselves: What areas are we trying to ensure are comprehensive with these two criteria? WP:CORP's secondary criteria are aimed at ensuring that all of the links on List of Fortune 500 will be blue. Wikipedia has no "list of all software packages included in Debian". Nor has it "list of core products by notable software developer X" articles. So what gaps are the proponents of these criteria actually trying to fill? Uncle G 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
getting into debian is not that hard, with a little determination pretty much anyone can become a debian dev and package thier own software to thier hearts content. I'd imagine fedora is similar though i don't have experiance with processes there.
the only other ways in essentially require you to be a big powerfull company or to have had the luck to get into print and have someone here recognise you (web review sites seem to get disregarded here unless they are the web arm of some print operation in almost all fields). Plugwash 21:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the idea that inclusion in any distro constitutes notability. I'll illustrate why with some examples from what's described above as one of the more selective distros, Ubuntu - do any of the following warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia?
Now, to me at least, that seems ridiculous, but my interpretation of the comments above is that they're saying these packages are automatically notable and worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Where am I going wrong, and what's wrong with the idea that something is notable if it attracts enough attention for independant and reliable parties choose to write about it? CiaranG 13:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The question is, under what situations would (stand-alone, integrated or systems) software be notable. I can think of a few. Can we look closer at them? These are my suggestions for notability criteria:
Exceptional circumstances only:
How do people like that as a starting point of a framework for software notability? FT2 ( Talk | email) 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Radiant! placed the merger tag on both this article and Wikipedia:Game guide.
If you all want a test case, take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcohol 120%. One user argues that (1) WP:SOFTWARE applies and (2) on-line reviews and reviews on download sites qualify Alcohol 120% as notable. [13]
I am not really familiar enough with your proposal to judge, but am curious how you see it playing out. Thanks, TheronJ 19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
How would the notability of a game be decided then? Shrumster 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, user guides, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews 2 except for the following:
Make it clear by, for example saying, any third party newspaper/magazine/tele reports instead of such long, detailed but ambiguous words. -- Der yck C. 14:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Based upon the comments on this page, I'm going to remove the distribution section. Anyone going to scream? - brenneman 03:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Therefore, this should be tagged as rejected under Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which state: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction."
There seems to be no progress toward consensus here since the end of January. This seems to be dead and should be tagged as rejected. -- Kevin Murray 16:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It's biased *against* F/OSS software - OSS doesn't get reviewed in magazines for example, even if it has a few million users, you have to be up to the point of Debian or Spamassasin to be 'notable' acording to this guideline.
Case in point, somebody has tagged the E107 (software) with both this guideline and the {{advert}} one, so now there's a problem, notability could *easily* be established with a link to http://www.packtpub.com/article/open-source-content-management-system-award-winner-announced for example - but now it looks even *more* like an advert. Even though it's OSS - advert, funny. So no now with this perspective in mind there's two guidelines that are both strongly add odds with each other and frankly, unworkable.
Don't get me wrong, the page is nasty and needs fixing, but this guidline just makes it that much more akward -- Streaky 14:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a trend whereby if a proposed notability guideline has not been accepted as a guideline, an editor will tag it as rejected. I object to this trend, and I would rather see this guideline accepted than rejected. -- Metropolitan90 14:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Per the WP Policy: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction. -- Kevin Murray 16:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way to whip this page into shape? I really think it's an important guideline, and should become official. Andre ( talk) 07:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)