Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force/Archive 2

Merger
WikiProject Free Software is now a subdivision of WikiProject Software. -- Tyw7, Leading Innovations ‍ ‍‍ (Talk  ●  Contributions) 11:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps review of KDE
KDE has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Assesment of articles
Is assesed the latest bunch of articles. Does nobody else have an interest in this? Daimanta (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review of GNOME
GNOME has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Difficulty of establishing reliable sources for freeware
I have commented at WP:RELIABLE talk page on the difficulty of establishing notability when the only sources tend to be forums, newsgroups, personal pages as freeware does not buy advertising and thus does not get reviewed in major periodicals, etc. I feel the guidelines should reflect this and would welcome other comments.Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see my comments at:
 * Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources
 * Articles for deletion/Comparison of wiki farms (3rd nomination)


 * I don't think the hundreds or thousands of deletionist-oriented spam fighters will ever accept primary sources as references for items in a list.


 * If Microsoft makes a claim that is reported in a Wikipedia article, we can reference their page that makes the claim. As a primary source.


 * In addition to secondary sources such as newspapers, magazines, and media websites for analysis of the claim. Please see: No original research.


 * Spam fighters can see the need for the URL (at least in non-hyperlinked form) for items in a list but they really dislike linking. Of course, the link is necessary for quickly checking on the software's existence and features. Why the hatred of linking? I don't get it. Spam links and verification links are not used for the same purposes. Otherwise all reference links could be looked upon as spam links.


 * But I don't think most spam fighters will ever agree to primary sources in lists, and I don't think most people want to deal with the issue, or with spam fighters.


 * So another solution may be to move all freeware lists and charts to Wikibooks, or another Wikimedia Foundation project. Maybe WikiWare or something. Some place where the stated goal is to thoroughly detail everything about freeware and shareware. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you'd suggest Wikibooks. Wikibooks isn't for lists, and it's not for spam either. If you have issues with establishing notability then it's probably not notable. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; @en.wb 08:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Freeware and shareware are not spam. Please don't be insulting and call me a spammer by implication. I see that Wikibooks will not be very helpful if it seems like one of its main admins considers lists (or books?) on freeware and shareware to be spam. I point out to you that we are using freeware (MediaWiki). You wrote: "If you have issues with establishing notability then it's probably not notable." I see that you missed the point of this discussion.


 * By the way, I said Wikibooks, or another Wikimedia Foundation project. I guess I will go elsewhere other than Wikibooks. You prove my point I have made elsewhere about spam fighters in general and WP:BITE. By the way, I am not a newbie. I have over 25,000 edits on Wikipedia and the Commons. I am also a volunteer admin at Wikia. So I don't like to be insulted by the implication that I am a spammer. An admin such as yourself should better understand WP:CIVIL in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know perfectly well you're not a newbie. If you want to write a textbook on wiki hosting or some other suitable topic, then please do. However, Wikibooks isn't for lists, and the comments I see above seem to imply that you want to export links which are considered spam to Wikibooks. I didn't say you are a spammer and if my words imply that, then you're reading them incorrectly. Furthermore, the hypothetical links we're talking about were labelled as spam by yourself - not by me. If you're looking for a place specifically devoted to making "lists and charts... to thoroughly detail everything about freeware and shareware" then I'd suggest Wikia, or your own wiki. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic coverage, and Wikibooks is for textbooks. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't have any wikis which are for arbitrary agglomerations of content. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; @en.wb 09:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You wrote: "want to export links which are considered spam to Wikibooks." I never said that. Another insult. Show me where I said that. You wrote: "the hypothetical links we're talking about were labelled as spam by yourself". I never said that either, or you are reading my comments incorrectly.


 * And as the discussion here shows, wikibooks:Wikibooks:Reading room/General, there is already a list of wiki farms on Wikibooks. See: Starting and Running a Wiki Website/Hosted Wikis. It links to all the wiki farms directly. So it is not considered spam there. It makes the list actually useful to someone wanting to use MediaWiki software without having to set up a server themselves.


 * Are you in charge of WikiBooks? Is that why wikibooks:Wikibooks:Computing department seems to have little coverage of freeware and shareware? --Timeshifter (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

50-item limit for computer-related lists
For background please see:
 * Comparison of wiki farms
 * Articles for deletion/Comparison of wiki farms (3rd nomination)

I think that WP:LISTS is not clear about inclusion criteria for freeware, shareware, free hosting, and other computer-related lists. For example; the wiki farm topic is notable, but there are only a few notable wiki farms. Notable in print media, mainstream media, and the normal places for WP:RS. See the previous talk section. I think this could be discussed over time here, and at WP:LISTS, Village pump (policy), etc..

Maybe we can get a policy on how many entries can be in a notable computer-related list before inclusion criteria must be implemented, and what those inclusion criteria might be. Otherwise, arbitrary numbers will be used to limit list entries. Many times some very complete well-charted, well-crafted, notable, computer-related lists have been cut down from 30, 40, 50 entries to 10 big commercial software programs, hosts, etc.. Due to notability being required for all entries by some spam fighters entering into the picture.

An idea might be to limit computer-related lists to 50 separate entries regardless of notability of the individual entries in the list. This would give clear guidance to everybody including spam fighters. Spam fighters could point to the 50-item limit guideline. So could the regular editors in defense of the list.

Comparison of wiki farms has 49 separate entries according to my paste of the list into the freeware NoteTab Light. It can count the lines or paragraphs in a list. I like the idea suggested by somebody on the talk page of using the Alexa number to keep the list under 50 entries.

We can't include all wiki farms in the list. There may be many more than the 49 currently listed. On the other hand I don't want nothing but 10 big companies like Wikia that managed to get mainstream media coverage. That would be unfair, and not very useful to readers. I like Wikia, and I am a volunteer admin there, by the way. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal issues subcategory?
It strikes me that there needs to be a category for significant legal cases relating to free software. In particular, Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp. et al. needs to be in some free software related subcategory. And there are any number of relevant articles that could be put in such a category in a manner useful to readers.

I'd go ahead and make one, but I'm not sure where to put it in the category hierarchy. If someone else knows precisely where it should go, please do it :-) - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I added this category: Category:Free software licenses. There may be better categories, or they may need to be created. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A question for the editors

 * Note: Some of this discussion was copied from Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 18

I am an undergrad at Georgia Tech's School of Public Policy currently involved in a class extending a wiki developed by a prior class regarding open source software and public policy. The goal of the project is create a comprehensive and current understanding of FOSS in the realm of public policy based on peer reviewed scholarly research. The technology we are using is abysmal and I am looking for a solution to improve the way we compile our knowledge base. One thought was to just change the technology but the more I thought about it - developing a way for the class into constructively interface with the wikipedia community might be much more productive both in terms of an educational experience and actually contributing to global knowledge. Unfortunately the scope of the information we are attempting to compile is much broader than this particular WikiProject seems to encompass. For example we are interested in compiling information regarding the FOSS legal issues and cases mentioned above, indexing data useful for evaluating FOSS policy claims, as well identifying local, state and national policy with regard to the use of FOSS, just to name a few. Would incorporating our project into Wikipedia be appropriate or even a good idea from a community development standpoint?

Thanks, Wryen Meek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.180.118 (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see Village pump (miscellaneous). --Timeshifter (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wyren Meek wrote (emphasis added): "I am an undergrad at Georgia Tech's School of Public Policy currently involved in a class extending a wiki developed by a prior class regarding open source software and public policy. ... The technology we are using is abysmal and I am looking for a solution to improve the way we compile our knowledge base."


 * I think this is important info. Maybe it could be added to Wikiversity? I don't know; so I am asking here where there is more likely to be discussion. Here are some related portals, projects, and categories of interest:


 * Category:Freeware
 * Category:Free software
 * Portal:Free software
 * Portal:Free software/categories
 * Category:WikiProject Free Software
 * WikiProject Software/Free Software
 * wikiversity:Category:Computer science
 * wikiversity:Category:Computer science/Software
 * wikiversity:Category:Computer science/Software/Free software --Timeshifter (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest asking for advice over at School and university projects, which was created especially to assist academic groups in creating mutually beneficial collaborations with the Wikipedia community. If you feel the scope of your project cannot fit within an encyclopedia, take a look at Wikiversity: and Wikibooks: to see if they cover the scope you feel Wikipedia does not. While working across Wikimedia Foundation projects is not as natural as working within one, there are set templates and such to link across projects that make navigation relatively easy.  I think you're quite wise to think this through before starting work, as I've seen some truly disastrous results when students are assigned to edit Wikipedia and immediately have their work deleted because they have no idea about the site's inclusion criteria. - BanyanTree 09:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I found this too: wikiversity:Wikiversity:School and university projects. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Would incorporating our project into Wikipedia be appropriate or even a good idea from a community development standpoint? I suggest that your read our policy on what Wikipedia is not; for example, we're not a directory or a guide. It does seem to me that your goals go beyond what Wikipedia is - an encyclopedia that presents an overview of information and provides interested readers with additional, on-line and offline sources, if they want more.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 19:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I think creating or improving referenced overview articles on specific notable subjects in the FOSS area is great for Wikipedia. The more comprehensive stuff can be incorporated into Wikiversity according to their rules and guidelines.

Wyren Meek wrote: The goal of the project is create a comprehensive and current understanding of FOSS in the realm of public policy based on peer reviewed scholarly research."

That kind of referencing is great for Wikipedia if one learns how to add references to Wikipedia articles. See WP:CITE. There is also a reference tool that is easy to use. It automatically adds references. Here is some info below copied from a suggestion given to me.



--Timeshifter (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ogg Media
FYI, Ogg Media, the OGM article, has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Grace (plotting tool)
I have nominated Grace (plotting tool), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Grace (plotting tool). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Papa November (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Software IRC channel
All members of WikiProject Software or its departments are encouraged to join the WikiProject Software IRC channel: irc://irc.freenode.net/##WikiProject-Software. Click Here for instant access. Please your Wikipedia nickname when joining. -- Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 17:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

AFD discussion
Hi, CodeCon has been listed for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Please join in the discussion, and if possible, assist in saving the article by finding third party, reliable sources. there are plenty of mentions of it on the web, but mostly calls for papers on security lists, and blog reviews. You can find the discussion here: Articles for deletion/CodeCon Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

article selection process
is there anywhere a description on what's the process for free software portal article selection ? --Richlv (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Free alternatives to proprietary software
Is this project concerned with Free alternatives to proprietary software which needs some care. It is really a "list of...", and it may fail as an article (and has been nominated for deletion). Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages
I have requested a list of popular pages for WikiProject Free Software at. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. SunCreator (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

CMS Made Simple is up for deletion
You may like to share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry. SunCreator (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

MySQLDumper
This software tool doesn't seem notable. I've looked for referencess and can't find any in reliable sources. Can anyone show notability or suggest a suitable merge target? If not, I'll send it to AfD. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Java and Portal
Hi guys! We just opened the WikiProject Java for business and would appreciate if you could put a link to it in your 'Partner WikiProjects' section. Thanks in advance! --   A l a i n  R 3 4 5  Techno-Wiki-Geek     23:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys! We just opened the Java portal for business and would appreciate if you could put a link to it in the 'Related portals' section of your portal. Thanks in advance! --   Alain R 3 4 5   Techno-Wiki-Geek    07:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC) To get this Duke, you can paste something like:

Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Free software to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at WikiProject Free software/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC on new proposed guideline for software notability
Wikipedia_talk:Essay_on_the_notability_of_software. Pcap ping  18:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"Open Souce X" -> "Open-source X"
FYI, a whole bunch of rename requests popped up on WP:RM to rename open source to open-source, as happened to the main article open source software (a unilateral move to open-source software, now).

76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

All GFDL images are software!
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories. Cross-posting here because that WikiProject sees little participation. Pcap ping  19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Bitweaver
I would like to ask for help with creation of Bitweaver article. A draft is here: User:Kozuch/Bitweaver. Thanks --Kozuch (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

ReactOS?
Would it be wise to assess the ReactOS Article to be part of the Free Software Project? If so, can someone assess it? 71.87.112.249 (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's already a GA, I'll label it as another project. I did not do a GA review. SunCreator (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization
Hi, what's your opinion on moving (watch for the capital P). I noticed that some articles are wrongly categorized in these categories (e.g. Libre.fm), at least when taking the authoritative list at http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/. I guess this wrong categorization partly stems from misinterpretation of the terms I wouldn't like to do these moves myself yet, as I cannot say whether it will break the then-deprecated category wikilinks. Cheers, --Abdull (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:GNU project to Category:GNU Project and
 * Category:GNU project software to Category:GNU Project software?
 * GNU project (some project licensed under GNU GPL) versus
 * GNU Project™® (the one and only).
 * After enough time at Categories for discussion/Speedy without any objections, I moved the categories. --Abdull (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Mail from Mclaudt : Wikipedia e-mail Please, save OpenSource! Need help!
Regarding this mail of user:Mclaudt, these debates & his banned account - one thing is clear, that something is fishy. I'm just forwarding this whole lot for all the Wiki editors to see & go through it, if they care. I have been a bit busy lately, so wasn't active & am not still, so cant decide to take some other major steps, if any senior member would like to consider about what the whole thing is been cooking then it'd be very appreciable.

Here's the content of the mail -

''Dear Free and Open Source Software enthusiasts!

Several incompetent deletionists now decide the fate of articles about Dwm, Qvwm, Wmii and other popular FOSS projects. They ignore arguments about notability, and trend to their own interpretation of WP:N, ignoring articles in magazines and overall popularity of this software in community. They deleted a lot of opinions of linux community members with arguments and prooflinks of about 11 accounts, under baseless "Meatpuppets" therm.

Please, Opensource need your opinion and activity!

>>>>(sic!)>>>> first Dwm discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dwm second DWM discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dwm_(2nd_nomination)

first QVWM discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/QVWM first Wmii discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wmii first Evilwm discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evilwm

Please keep in mind that major activist for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Psychonaut This is a pervert that has a hobby to destroy other people's work using his status. You can see troll's bravadoes on his user page.

Problem of notability of free software is one of the most important in Wikipedia and is still under development. So each deletion that produces a wide resonance suggests that there is a lot of work to do for complete consistency of WP:N. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability_of_free_open_source_software&oldid=346257209 (Current version is changed by psyhonaut.)

We think that Wikipedia should have its own guideline about notability of FOSS (as it has for people, movies, firms etc). Due to its opensource and enthusiastic nature, FOSS have a high verifiability and a lack of commerce interest. But now each program, popular in blogs, forums, howtos, distro's wiki etc. doesn't have notability cause now all that sources do not meet "reliable source" criterion. FOSS popularity lives in the world of 0 and 1 and has no need to be proven on paper in the age of Internet. Also it has giant verifiability due to open source, so there is no need to insist on classical representation of reliable source as some glossy magazine.

Wikipedia and FOSS always were together,they are based on common Idea, and the last tendency of idiotic deletionism towards FOSS enthusiasts is very strange and sad fact.

This situation has already gained resonance in some blogs:

http://www.nullamatix.com/dwm-on-wikipedia-marked-for-deletion/ http://jasonwryan.com/post/409379904/wikipedia http://lists.suckless.org/dev/1002/index.html

Spreading this information strongly accosted!

Linux community users.''

--– Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 12:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting the text of the e-mail. The canvassing is currently being discussed at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

FAR
nominated OpenBSD for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  03:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion - Endeavour Software Project Management
Please see Articles for deletion/Endeavour Software Project Management (2nd nomination). --Ronbo76 (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

radeon also supports vaapi
Could someone please confirm that radeon (xf86-video-ati), the free driver, also supports vaapi. 80.131.186.25 (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Relicensing options among free software


I made this image — File:Licenses colored by license type.svg — which shows the relicensing paths available to software projects. I'd love to have some review of this before putting it live; I'm not an expert so a review is needed. If you want to upload an edited version (please do!) editing the .dot source and use  is the easiest way to make the change. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to add, I'd be really happy if you also want to comment about coloring the licenses by type (good idea, bad idea, wrong way of grouping?) and whether commonly used licenses which don't allow relicensing (CDDL, etc) should be listed at all. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)