Wikipedia
-
This Yannick guy seems to be deliberately excluding NodeBB.
-
@lulzdev Yeah, but "notable" is a tar pit in itself. The rigorous rules state something like "used in education, mentioned in books" and so forth. I was also thinking a claim like this could be made, but it's probably the rules that are stagnant and then the spergs wanting the article deleted are technically right.
In the big picture nodeBB doesn't need an article. Lots of software doesn't have it. It's probably easier to make changes to the comparison article (like suggest deletion) where this all started. It's a hell of a lot easier than argue that WPs rules should be changed.
-
Can we report the guy? Maybe if enough of us report him he will be removed.
-
- NodeBB is forum software.
- Wikipedia has a forum software comparison page.
- There are references. And links.
- To give people a fair overview, all forum software packages (or at least popular, regularly updated ones) should be added.
- In not doing so goes against the open nature of Wikipedia.
Yes, Wikipedia is a mire of anal rules and requirements (which are equally ignored and applied at convenience), which should be a way to keep a lid on allsorts of nonsense happening, though as the above link shows it does mean some people are going to get on their high horse and abuse their position.
-
@Danny-McWilliams common sense does not apply to Wiki contributors!
Joke aside, there are rules and guidelines the nay sayers are basing their stance on, and saying use "common sense" is a logical fallacy. That said, it is rather frustrating that these people seem more concerned with denying nodeBB than filtering out bad articles and seeing the bigger picture.
I've looked at previous AfD and right now the prospects for nodeBB on WP looks grim. It's not a simple matter of having more votes for keeping. I've seen other articles get deleted for double the keep votes. That may be the outcome.
-
@TiaZzz I agree. Conversation should be positive - what we can do rather than what we're not doing.
-
Aaaaand gone.
As expected really. nodeBB is still in the comparison list though but I wouldn't be surprised if any of the usual suspects move to have nodeBB removed.
-
Deleting that article is doing a disservice to Wikipedia's readers. We should report it to Wikipedia's help desk (if they have one)
-
@TiaZzz @henrywright R.I.P. NodeBB Wikipedia article.
-
That's unfortunate. I'm at a loss as to what to do at this point because I'm not really familiar with how wikipedia works.
If I contacted some local newspaper outlets and got them interested in writing a story about NodeBB would that help?
Otherwise, it's not a huge loss I guess. I think if you google "forum software" we're on the first page anyways... Although as someone mentioned earlier they missed out on NodeBB at first because they didn't see us on the wiki comparison page
-
@psychobunny you can't let this rest here. For whatever reason, someone at Wikipedia isn't playing nice and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.
-
(Read this with an open mind! Some of you seem confused. One way or the other: mistakes have been made. I'm merely sharing my best guesses on why the article got deleted.)
First off: This guy's points are all valid.
In my opinion, it's not so much about NodeBB not being popular; although the discussion revolved around that. Quite honestly, I wouldn't approve of the article in question myself. Is there a way to get the text back? Did anyone save it? I'd like to give some examples, but can't, now that it is deleted.
Anyhow. Back when I read it, my overall impression was more like reading an ad than a wikipedia article. Please keep in mind that wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia. In that, there just isn't room for "We want to", "We plan to" and anything of that sort.
- "modern platform that will hopefully help shape forums of the future", for example, is a claim, not a fact. If it was true, this sentence would read something like: "platform that has pioneered the shift from php to javascript driven bulletin boards". Let alone the word "modern" isn't timeless, therefore not suitable for an encyclopedia entry.
- "will soon allow integration with services such as WrapBootstrap" - Well, that's fine. But is it a fact? No, it's not. It's again just a claim of what will be. I am not that familiar with wikipedia articles, but I feel that there's also no justification for forseeing the future in those kinds of reads.
Then there's the (inferable) intention in this very topic - which the deleter refers to:
Phrases like "Thats the most important page to be on" make me think: Why is it important? I mean, the strive for gaining popularity can too easily be infered.Last, but certainly not least, maybe the biggest mistake was to call for action. The very first post in this thread acknowledges the fact that you can't write an article about yourself, but simply delegates the task at the same time. Actively asking one of your users at least implies that the article is (again) written by NodeBB itself. I think this is also where this notability claim might be based on. Try to see it as you having given the job to an amateur (no offense) agency. It's not like someone stumbled upon NodeBB and went: "Hey, that's nice. I'll write a wikipedia article about it."
I admit, those are minute details, but they still are there. And I am actually pretty relieved that wikipedia authors think in and act upon those details. It's an encyclopedia! It has to be unbiased, neutral and almost painfully correct.
P.S.
Putting myself in that guys shoes, I'd be pretty pissed too, if someone was to accuse me of "fanboyism". -
Yeah. I'd have to agree. I was disappointed that it ended up this way though, with a seemingly bitter taste for all parties involved.
-
While I see why the article could be deleted for valid reasons, most of the discussion in the AfD (look at me tossing WP lingo around!) was cherrypicking. Poor language or poor phrasing shouldn't result in deletion, it should result in editing or requests for citations. Most of the noise was because of sources and no matter how much one cited WP:NSOFT, people ignored it. WP now has so many various guidelines, rules and essays delving into facets that cherrypicking whatever fits your stance is bound to be a problem. I tried to argue that a more specific essay - one that is specific for software - is in contrast with the more general guideline, but not no avail.
I have little actual interest in nodeBB. I'm not even running it. I still think that this little exercise showed some interesting tendencies in the WP community. It's seemingly "cool" to stomp in on an AfD, toss off a one-liner to seem clever and then furiously defend the initial stance when confronted with it. Given the forrest of rules and guidelines, this is quite doable. Sow doubt is seemingly a valid technique no matter if you can back it up. I take offence by that. If WP demands sources to be found and said sources is lined up according to the rules (for instance searching Google News), any dismissal of said sources needs to be backed up. Unsupported claims that the source is so-and-so is just noise.
I love WP but I don't really like the subculture of some wikipedians.
-
Maybe the NodeBB guys should commission a seasoned Wikipedia article writer to get the job done properly?
-
That will end with the same result as long as the sources found for nodeBB are the same; like I said, the main objection were notability. No word wizardry will fix that.
People should help spread the word and get coverage for nodeBB. That will help the cause.
-
@TiaZzz
That's good to know, thank you! But this also means that paying 20 publishers around the world to have an article in their magazines would generate said citations and therefore solve the problem? Well, that feels awkard to me; I think I'm beginning to get your point.
Still, proper wording seems to be important, too. It was one of his points. Everyone simply forgot about it in the following discussion.The discussion on the deletion struck me as being somewhat off the point. Anyways, I myself decided to see Yannick's (he is the one who tagged the article for deletion, isn't he?) as constructive criticism and now try to act upon it. Even if we took the worst case scenario of himself being biased and therefore wanting to delete the article (which I don't), the only way to solve that would be to fulfill his requests up until insinuated bias would become apparent to everyone else. But I (maybe naively) think this won't happen.
My final suggestion then, which I will follow myself, is the same as yours; to go outside and make NodeBB notable. There are tons of free magazines handling open source topics, for example. Many of them rely on articles written by volunteers. I bet those would gladly print an essay about NodeBB. Or speak at one of the many JS, Node.js related meetups around the world. (Linking this here, because I love the irony of the next 2 Berlin meetups taking place in the Wikimedia building.
)Discussing things into oblivion, instead of acting upon criticism is also a negative trend on the internet, imo. While for some WP articles there might be no other choice than arguing, this isn't the case here. We are in the best position to eradicate the notability claim. We just have to do it.
but it was about bitcoins
