User talk:Tothwolf/rescued essays/Open Source notability

Discuss Open Source project notability here.

RfC: Wikipedia guidelines for notability of open source projects

 * Question: why open source / free software projects need to be treated differently than closed source ones? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Enric. Thanks for joining the discussion. I can think of a couple of reasons:
 * Transparency: Open source projects are naturally much more transparent than closed source projects. You can try the software, examine the source, read through mailing list discussions. You usually can't do that with a closed source project. It makes establishing notability much easier because you have so much more reliable information to base your opinion on.
 * Public benefit: Open source projects are a source of knowledge. The source can be examined. It can be derived from, re-incorporated into a larger program, etc. It benefits Wikipedia to describe these projects more than it benefits to describe an equivalent closed source program. Covering a closed source commercial projects benefits the company producing and selling the software and is a form of free advertising that is ripe with potential for abuse. I think that's why many Wikipedia contributors get very defensive about this sort of thing. OTOH, open source projects benefit the public and promote the advancement of knowledge in much the same way as Wikipedia itself. - LirazSiri (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's easier to stablish notability for open source programs, then they don't need a special status. Quite the other way around, we should loose the rules for closed source ones because they have more difficulties.


 * Wikipedia's goal is writing an encyclopedia, not promoting open or closed source, or any other thing other than encyclopedic knowledge. The WP:N guideline helps decide waht is encyclopedic or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * IMHO, Wikipedia's goal is to promote knowledge. The Wikimedia foundation, in it's fundraising efforts touts Wikipedia's potential as the sum of all human knowledge. I think there is a broad understanding of what knowledge is. OTOH, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by encyclopedic knowledge. That seems to be a much more artificial, amorphous concept that means different things to different people.
 * The trouble is that current Wikipedia guidelines don't allow you to take the additional information provided by an open source project that could be used to establish notability into account, only major media sources. LirazSiri (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a loosening of the rules for open-source projects might be sensible if we do not intend to embark on deleting almost every single article on an open source project. Most articles in Linux magazines don't exactly give you a professional journalist vibe. Package download data from a Debian ftp mirror would make a better source. Nevard (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, John, and welcome to my user space, hospital, and, sometimes, graveyard. Fortunately, "professional journalist vibe" isn't part of WP:RS, though some will advance arguments over it, which are clearly subjective. The issue is independent publication, with responsible editorial process reviewing and checking the writing and judging appropriateness for audience (i.e., a judgment of notability in the field of the publication). Some web sites meet this kind of criterion, many don't. Wikis don't, usually, but may under some conditions.--Abd (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Problem is, LS, that such information doesn't satisfy WP:V, which is a fundamental policy, sufficiently, though the exact edges are flexible. More to the point, Wikipedia uses publication in WP:RS as a guide to notability. Besides what it says in the policies and guidelines, you should realize the implications of publication in RS, which is not limited to "major media sources." When a responsible publisher publishes an article on a topic, it is making a decision that the subject is of interest to its readers, and it is backing this decision with space in the publication, which has a cost; its reputation, and perhaps even its survival (if it judges badly more than occasionally), are at stake. --Abd (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTE is a guideline, not a policy. WP:NOTE only suggests the standards for what deserves an article of its own, it does not control what is in the encyclopedia. If you have RS for a fact, generally, you can put it in; however, the most appropriate place may not be in an article of its own. For example, it could be argued that Turnkey Linux should be mentioned in a certain list of applications. It was there, it was removed by the same vandal who nominated the article for speedy deletion. So what this boils down to, at the start, is whether or not there is any source for adequate verification on the application, open source or not. If there is, it should be listed. If there is not, for any of the applications, they should be taken off the list.
 * What's RS for this? WP:RS is a guideline, and it is continually subject to editorial interpretation. What constitutes source of sufficient reliability varies with the topic, so it is entirely possible that specific guidelines for RS for open source projects could be developed, they do not have to be identical to all other fields.
 * However, one thing seems clear to me. An open source project may not declare its own notability. It is not reliable source for that. Suppose an open source project has a wiki. It's active, with developers clearly monitoring it. The home page says that the application has been downloaded by N users. Suppose it asks for free registration of the software. It says that M users have registered. Can this be cited from the home page? My opinion is yes, but with attribution. Others may consider differently. The fact asserted can be verified. "According to blah blah, blah blah." That is, WP:V can be satisfied on the specific text. However, WP:NOTE summarizes itself as If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. "Independent of the subject" must be noticed, it's very important. Until there is independent coverage, there is no basis for asserting notability, or, at least, not one which satisfies what has become the consensus here.
 * I'm an inclusionist, but with a caveat: I would include everything verifiable, above a very minimal standard which I won't describe, and subject to the following: (1) some things may be included by reference. public telephone listings are verifiable, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia must host the phone book; however, phone books might be listed and linked. (2) The project would need, if it becomes truly "the sum of human knowledge," as is advertised, a hierarchy of knowledge, with the top level being the most notable, probably on tighter standards than we now have for articles. At the very bottom would be a trash bin, publicly accessible, which would include most of what is currently deleted, excepting only material where keeping it in public view creates legal problems or the like. (Right now, deleted articles are not actually deleted, they are merely hidden from public view, readable only by those with the admin bit set.) The next higher level might link to the trash level, possibly through categories, so if you really want to see what's been considered junk, related to your favorite comic series, you'd look at the Trash space category for that series. It would be fairly easy to get into the next higher level, verifiability might be based on, for example, personal testimony. False testimony? There goes your user privilege if that's shown. And that level might require a "second," another user who testifies to the accuracy of what's in the article. And so on, up the hierarchy. Top level articles would be much more like traditional encyclopedias than what we now have in mainspace. Thoroughly vetted, including vetting by experts. Stable. Vandal-proof. Etc.
 * Now, back to our topic. What standards are proposed to be different for open-source projects? In the absence of a specific suggestion, the abstract question would seem to be quite ungrounded. There is already great flexibility in the guidelines. That, in fact, may be part of the problem, because flexibility cuts both ways; further, it can lead to inconsistency, as different standards, in effect, are applied to different open-source projects, so that outcomes may depend on luck-of-the-draw of who shows up and who closes an AfD. So, to phrase the question more specifically:


 * What more-specific guideline is proposed for notability for open source projects? The answer to this would be positive and specific, not general and negative (i.e., not "guidelines don't apply to open-source," which would be negative, giving no guidance.) This discussion would only start here, but would presumably, if there is some cogent suggestion, be taken to Wikipedia talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), with reference to Notability_(organizations_and_companies) or possibly a new section to be created in the guideline. But, beyond preliminary remarks like this, it would start with specific suggestions that would satisfy WP:V and the overall WP:NOTE, understanding that WP:NOTE is a guideline and can be flexible.--Abd (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the data from an open source projects necessarily doesn't satisfy WP:V. In aggregate I think it does, because due to the transparent nature of open source projects it is very difficult to "forge" project histories and get away with it. Manufacturing fake activity in the revision versioning system or trying to fake an extended discussion in the mailing lists / web forums is difficult technically, but nearly impossible socially for a sufficiently large project. You just can't credibly fake an open community of people. Also these projects are frequently tracked and mirrored by independent third parties. The Internet Archive can reliably show the history of a project on the web. Sourceforge can reliably provide statistics on how many people are downloading their products (when hosted by sourceforge). Services like Ohloh can reliably show the history of development activity. Software mirrors can reliably show the state of the software at various stages. Transparency breeds verifiability. -- LirazSiri (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, my comment above about WP:V was more thoroughly explained; I do not hold the position that open source project data doesn't satisfy WP:V, with one specific exception: the statements by a project about itself cannot establish notability. In theory, it could, but it would require original research on the part of the editors here, which is likewise contrary to policy. Now, perhaps some exception might be found, but I'll stick with this as a solid general rule: there must be some independent verification of notability, i.e., some reliable independent source which clearly considers the project notable. Suppose that there are other open source projects that clearly recognize this one as significant. It's tricky, because open source project sites are wikis, and wikis can be quirky and may include information, for a long time, that doesn't represent consensus there. I am not saying that it's impossible. You state that it would be difficult to "forge" project histories. Sure. But how to we know that a project history hasn't been, say, clumsily forged? How much "history" is needed to establish a fact from a project wiki? What editors are reputable and which ones might not be? What I'm saying is that it is not simply a matter of finding a wiki page. Further, wiki pages are subject to editing, so what would be referenced would be a page from history. There are many issues, LS. Sourceforge, though, is an independent source, though a primary one. Primary sources can be used under some conditions. The appropriate usage of Sourceforge would be part of what would be included in a guideline on open-source projects.
 * A stable page on an open source wiki -- again, open-source guidelines could address what that means -- could indeed be a source for details about the project. Editorial consensus can handle specific problems. I'm pointing, here, to how to solve the problem. Reliable source guideline for open-source projects. Get consensus on that, you can do just about anything. There may be conflict over it, but then you are working on resolving a specific conflict, specific text in a guideline. With support, you could take this all the way up to ArbComm, if you encounter intransigence.
 * I advise starting right here, or set up a user page. Put it in my user space, I'll mediate it if necessary. Put it in your own, you'd theoretically have that kind of control, but you might also be more vulnerable to ... what happened before. I'm suggesting that you
 * Become very familiar with the existing guidelines, as well as actual practice on the project (they are not necessarily the same: actual practice, if it is deliberate and considered, trumps the guidelines, they are supposed to reflect it. On the other hand, a lot of articles being a certain way does not necessarily reflect "consideration." It may just be that nobody got around to fixing them or trying to delete them yet.
 * Try to craft guidelines that will satisfy the intent of the policies and existing guidelines. Don't just look for loopholes!
 * Then participate in crafting, discussion, and implementation of the guideline, together with other editors, some of whom might have a COI like yours. Disclose your COI, always. But COI doesn't prevent you from participating in Wikipedia space, as long as you maintain spotless decorum. If you don't, editors with an axe to grind may successfully use any slips on your part against you. Is there a WikiProject on open source software?
 * It's work. If you don't have time, well, reflect on WP:DGAF. It can help. Just do what you can, and leave the rest to the community. Some good things never get done, that's life, in fact. But I think the issue you raised is a valid one, and obviously others do as well. So, here, we are starting to do something about it. Many hands make light work. Good luck, I'll be watching.
 * You might notice that I'm trying to establish precedent here: quasiadministrative control by a user of their own user space. I've done it before, it's been challenged at AN/I, and it survived, but it's not definitely established, there are still grumblings over it from time to time. My purpose is to use it to allow any user to facilitate discussions in their own user space. The content here belongs to Wikipedia; it's like an ad hoc committee that I form and thus begin as the default chair. If the committee decides I'm not good at that job, they can pick up and move to another user space. I simply control what lives in my own space, and if I need admin help, I ask for it. It's only been necessary, so far, with vandals. RfPP, takes a minute. --Abd (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll have to go over your recommended reading list and see how I can help. Maybe over the weekend if I have a few hours of free time. In the meanwhile, I'd like to salute you for the level of thoughtful attention you have already given this matter. In your role as a voluntary advisor and mediator you have already gone above and beyond the call of duty. Salute! LirazSiri (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Closed projects are often privately funded/subsidized and can hence afford the additional media attention. Open source projects however can be quite big (and have a bigger user base than there proprietary counterpart), and still have less media attention.Smallman12q (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't automatically archived after a month, so I thought I'd just comment that perhaps Notability (software) could be revived, rather than crafting an open-source-specific guideline? The proposed guide already included some terms that were rather specific to free/open source software, some of which have been mentioned here. --Karnesky (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Smallman12q Response
I do see what point you are trying to make with the "open source notability" proposed policy, and I fully support it. I will start by saying that one of the main parts of notability is finding reliable empirical data. In the case of some open source projects, this is hard to prove, especially whether a community is active or not as this is subjective. A few changes to policy proposal...


 * How long has the project existed?...there should be a way of accurately determing this(was it active one year, asleep another?, what is the minimum?)
 * Has the project released working software?(instead of quality...do stability/stage.)
 * What is the quality of the released software?(instead of quality...do stability/stage.)
 * Is the project a substantial original work? A minor fork of an existing project?(this seems subjective)
 * An estimation on the amount of labor that went into developing the project. (trivial projects usually don't motivate people to work on them very hard for very long)(seems subjective...but should be provable)
 * Is there an active community around the project?(seems subjective...but should be provable)
 * How many users does the project have? (e.g., a popular software application is more notable than an obscure software application)(this is a good start)

I mainly want to say that you need to be more specific about the requirements if you want this policy to get passed. Cheers!Smallman12q (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Open source projects offer a wealth of empirical data one can use to form an opinion. The problem with trying to quantify an exact criteria for notability is that this isn't a black and white issue. A project is not really notable or not notable, but rather more notable and less notable. It's a matter of degree and I think the point at which you draw the line and say - ok that is notable enough should be determined by consensus of Wikipedians who have examined the data and formed an opinion regarding notability and the merit of including the project in Wikipedia.


 * The questions I have listed are merely examples intended to illustrate what criteria could be used to form such an informed opinion. Unlike closed source projects, open source projects are transparent and offer a wealth of data: mailing list and forum traffic, bug tracking statistics, usable software, source code, commit statistics, etc. Each project is different so I don't think it would make sense that the criteria be too rigid, but I don't think a knowledgeable person that looks into a project would have trouble forming his/her own opinion in this matter. -- LirazSiri (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We should try to limit subjectivity. It should be easily apparent whether or not a project is notable based on "set" guidelines. Otherwise, there will be disputes.Smallman12q (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)