On 02/02/07 00:40 +0100, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Alberto Simões wrote:
>
> > As #kwiki users know, the entry on Wikipedia about Kwiki was deleted
> > because it doesn't have reliable sources and because "Kwiki is not
> > notable".
>
> I'm not a kwiki user, only a hangaround on this list. I also
> happen to be a hangaround on several of the mailing lists of
> Wikipedia.
>
> This winter, "notability" is a great issue. People who are not
> serious contributors to Wikipedia are adding entries on their
> school, their street and their cousin. The way to fight this
> abuse is to require that articles should describe "notable" items.
> If you have something serious to write, you must provide some
> simple evidence that the topic is notable. The article must
> mention in some verifyable way why this topic is interesting and
> relevant enough. For kwiki this shouldn't be hard, I guess.
> Look around at articles describing comparable objects to get some
> ideas. I know too little to write the kwiki article myself, but I
> have written many other articles and never had any problems with
> the notability requirement.
What this really comes down to is that a single Wikipedia moderator,
Earle Martin, who is also a Perl CPAN author, and who has also worked on
a different wiki framework on CPAN, has decided to take it upon himself
to remove various pages referring to or related to me, Ingy döt Net.
There once was a page about me specifically. I surmise that he felt I
was not worthy of a page. But there was the uncomfortable fact that two
other Wikipedia project pages referred to Ingy döt Net. So he had to
remove those first. Those pages were about YAML and Kwiki. There was
also a page called Rock_dots,in which a mention of the gratuitous umlaut
in my last name was removed.
Mr Martin was obviously not concerned about the Kwiki page as notable
wiki software itself, or he would have deleted a lot of other Wikipedia
pages about wiki software. Most pages about wiki projects are not
notable by this criteria.
Let's look for a second at some notable facts about Kwiki:
* On CPAN since 2003.
* http://cpan.org
* Over 200 plugin modules on CPAN by over a dozen authors.
* http://search.cpan.org/search?m=module&q=kwiki
* Used by almost every YAPC conference since 2003.
* http://yapcchicago.org/wiki/index.cgi
* Used by every OSCON conference since 2003.
* http://oscon.kwiki.org
* Used consistently by O'Reilly as their conference wiki of choice.
* http://wiki.oreillynet.com/wiki/railsconf2007/
* Subject of an O'Reilly interview.
* http://osdir.com/Article1534.phtml
* Was the base software that Socialtext was built on.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialtext
This seems like enough notability to warrant a Kwiki page on
Wikipedia. I'm sure we could find more facts, but most other pages
about wiki software have nothing notable on them. For example, this
Perl-based wiki:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikiwiki
I haven't even gone into Kwiki's unique and/or interesting feature list,
which in my mind is more important than proving worthiness.
Last week some Kwiki people tried to make a new Kwiki page on Wikipedia,
but Mr Martin got it deleted. I'm not sure what to do next.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kwiki
Kwiki will be fine without a Wikipedia page, but still it doesn't seem right
that one person, with whom I have no quarrel, can decide to get rid of it.
--Ingy
>
> > Socialtext [...] It also donated US$2,000 in the Wikimedia Fundraiser 2005
> > Q4.
> >
> > So, you can BUY your entry on wikipedia :-(
>
> This is plain wrong and your accusation is stupid. Donation or
> not, there is no doubt that Socialtext is notable enough. The
> current article on Socialtext is surprisingly short, though. The
> mentioning in the article of their donation is not something I
> would have included there. Would it be appropriate, from kwiki's
> viewpoint, to write about kwiki as a section in the article on
> Socialtext?
>
>
> --
> Lars Aronsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
