Wikipedia
-
Christ Wikipedia is serious business.
Could we not prove media coverage. There's an interview with some chap floating about the net that Julian did.
Nodebb has been mentioned in news articles dozens of times.
Include a few high end companies/users that use nodebb. If that's allowed to show off different themes or whatever. Content be King. Add sources.
-
Shitshow; insular community championing moded policies in a rhetorical style of self-defense that borders upon sad.
the first forum software written in node.js is not notable? I am guessing that node is the N-word mentioned.I gave them five bucks once...
-
@Kowlin said:
@Nicolas There also traces from a forum software named Luna on his talk page, no response on that. Fun stuff facedesk
This whole situation smells of trying to silence competition through desperation. im not going to pass judgment on Luna without trying it, but having firmly moved away from php. I can't see that happening. The php forum market has been over saturated since 2004.
-
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".
but it was about bitcoins
