Wikipedia talk:Essay on the notability of software/Archive 1

message: * Inspired by this AfD, which points out that we don't have any sort of metrics to use for software projects.  As mentioned by me in that AfD:
:: There has to be a line somewhere between Apache and Joe's File Renaming Script such that projects on one side are included, and projects on the other side are not.
: This proposal is a first stab at generating some guidelines for the inclusion of software projects. --Stephen Deken 16:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Rough Draft 

message: This sounds quite reasonable for a start. I think the main goal should be to filter out (most) self-published shareware and freeware, as well as indie projects that haven't actually released anything yet. There's far too many of both on the web, and while there are some quality (and notable) indie games and tools out there, about 95% of them are utter crap. That includes both "cut-n-paste job" games such as most created in Klik-n-Play or Games Factory, as well as the zillion of near-identical utilities to perform a trivial task such as icon editing. Radiant_>|< 21:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a suggestion that programs that have some user base but not are notable enough may be merged with others of the same kind. Of course, I excluded that is used only by its authors and their friends. - Liberatore(T) 17:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasonable 

message: The current version of the page (as I write this) lists a standard of 100,000 downloads from, specifically, Download.com or Sourceforge. I don't think that these should be the only "blessed" download sites; in particular I think Freshmeat.net is a better standard than Sourceforge (which is technically a software development site, not a download site). I'm adding freshmeat, but I'd prefer to see discussion of which sites should qualify. 168.12.253.82 15:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavily Downloaded - From Where? 

message: I think that the "genericization" item is redundant: if the name is so popular as to became generic, surely there will be a couple of publications in major media. Mukadderat 19:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's certainly not harmful, but I can't think of a single piece of software to which this criterion would apply.  -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's completely redundant. I removed it. --Sharcho 17:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genericization 

message: A software package should get bonus points for being in an OS distribution (Linux, FreeBSD, etc.).  For the more selective distributions such as Fedora Core or Ubuntu main, just being in the distro should make it notable.  Debian is too big for a software package to be included in Wikipedia just because it has a package in Debian; the Debian Popularity Contest is a great resource; we could choose a percentile above which packages are considered notable.  —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-22 19:37Z
:Agree.  Inclusion in a major mainstream distro is notable. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 22:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux distributions 

message: I would like to throw out the idea of user expectation as at least something to consider. I don't think anyone expects to find new software on wikipedia, but for something that is very important, like Apache they may expect to find information about the history of the project, for example. If there is a software project that is so small that you can't imagine anyone trying to find information about it on wikipedia it might not belong, it will certainly be difficult to maintain if that is the case. - cohesion★talk 02:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have extensive :Category:Lists of software that, arguably, visitors use to browse software. -- Perfecto  02:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if enough people use that in searching for software to install, maybe. I would argue that isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia though, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (WP:NOT). But others might feel differently. Personally I would say we shouldn't be a software directory, but if we are going to be one we should include everything. - cohesion★talk 02:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Last I saw Apache was the dominant player in the web server market, so would be included under the "top ten" criteria currently listed. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 22:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Expectation 

message: IMHO this is a bad idea. Articles on your own software comes under a vanity article. Under those critieria, GeneRally (With it's wealth of community contend and community competitions as well as community members) would not get an article. It should be on community size, amount of user content (where applicable) and so-on. Duke toaster 19:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is a bad idea?  GeneRally arguably belongs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, not this one.  Software usually has no "user content" so I understand not what you're saying. --Perfecto  00:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Computer games are software; these rules are as applicable to game software as they are to any other software.  The GeneRally article appears to have a large number of contributors, none of whom appear to be the author of the software.  If you think that people who own a copy of the software or who use the software aren't allowed to contribute to the article, you've misinterpreted the guidelines.  -Ikkyu2 02:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Nevertheless, I think GeneRally is under Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games.  If video game articles requires inclusion discussion, I most certainly will look for it there, not here.  I still do not see the connection (as what you're saying) between the documented count of the software's users and the count of the contributors of its article here in Wikipedia.  AFAIK, having a dozen contributors does not guarantee that a topic stays here.  And, again, which is a bad idea?? --Perfecto  04:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IMO bad idea

message: If there is a Que book or a "Dummies" book that's a fair indication of a substantial market, as written that's not taken into account. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 22:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media coverage 

message: WP:BIO seems to imply a notability threshold at 5000 copies for a book. As such, the 100,000 users proposed in this guideline seems too high a number. I would propose to lower that at 5000 as well. As for the number of downloads, that's another story. - Liberatore(T) 17:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Change done. The amount of 5000 was also the threshold for the size of forums in WP:WEB before the latest change . - Liberatore(T) 17:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said above, I would support a removal of the number of users from the guideline. First, it is difficult to evaluate, and Stephen's post shows also that in some cases it may not make sense at all. Second, it is arbitrary (why 5,000 and not 4,500?). However, in this case we should also clarify (as a note) that a similar threshold is intentionally missing, and that a program may very well be notable with 100 users while another is non-notable with 100,000 users (or downloads). - Liberatore(T) 14:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with WP:BIO 

message: Creating an article about software you have personally developed is discouraged but not forbidden. It is indeed easy for an author to overestimate the notability of their work. If such work is notable, someone else will eventually start an article about it.
:Let's take it a step further.  Articles whose only contributions had been from the software developers themselves should always be marked ASAP as stubs, and possibly a template indicating the contribution has been solely self-contributions.  Or something like that.
::I would be happy for such articles to be allowed, but marked as such. Articles could say how many people have contributed to them as well, for example. My article about FORscene was removed primarily because I'm involved in FORscene, even though it meets both current and proposed notability criteria, depriving the Wikipedia community of any article on the subject. An appropriately flagged article would be better than no article. Stephen B Streater 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  taking anti-vanity a step further 

message: In summary (though these could all be relaxed to count the top few):
* First in class
* Best in class
* Most popular in class
* Multiple independent press articles
What do people think? Stephen B Streater 09:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that proposing modifications to guidelines which directly affect disputes in which you are actively engaged without declaring your interest is something you should avoid.  Not that I am necessarily opposed to an influence guideline. Just zis Guy you know? 09:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think there is a dispute ongoing. I've declared my interest all over the place. If you think otherwise then please be more specific (perhaps on my talk page if it is not relevant here). Stephen B Streater 12:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I had missed the comment a couple of discussions up, and I apologise, but I am still uneasy about you, a publisher of software the article for which was deleted recently for failing these guidelines, arguing for a change to these guidelines which would allow your product to have an article again.  I guess you can see why. Just zis Guy you know? 18:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - I am not opposed to Wikipedia ethos either. But it is worth pointing out again that under existing guidelines, FORscene is notable. See here under "Criteria for products and services": "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself... This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations." This is so true of FORscene its hard to know where to start, including multiple reviews in industry press and websites, long reviews in multiple languages I don't even understand, and multiple articles in the national press. Even since the AfD, FORscene has has another independent website review  (unsolicited I might add), and been included on the magazine disc of .net magazine, and had a whole sector created for it this web applications website. TV Documentaries have been MADE on FORscene! FORscene is notable under ALL the proposals given on this page. This is why I thing the article failed because of VSCA. You've seen my style ;-) And why I think it's OK to be involved in this discussion. Stephen B Streater 18:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woo-hoo!  Obsessive capitalsiation - yup, WP:VSCA alright :-P Just zis Guy you know? 00:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One of these days I'll include a video comment :-) (Available for editing in true Wikipedia style, of course, here). Stephen B Streater 08:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Obviously this doesn't really work without uploads enabled and accessible to everyone. But that's only a matter of a few years away. Stephen B Streater 09:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with the first three bullets. They completely depend on how a "class" is defined. As a trivial example: a non-notable text editor may become notable if someone decides that that "text editors with automatic lorem ipsum generation" is a class on its own. A more realistic example: "this is the first compiler for a language I have invented"; this is not a proof of notability: the language may not be notable. We had a similar problem with a bullet that said that software is notable if "it has a feature not present in other software". This bullet was removed because it depends on what is a "feature".  - Liberatore(T) 12:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The updated version (below) allows for the exclusion of obscure things eg "The only text editor with feature X" by insisting that it is the first of more than one. This doesn't answer your main point as to where the classes would begin and end though - this would have to be up to the discussion. In fact, all the first three points would be subjective - but that's because I can't see how a few guidelines written now can guarantee to give an objective answer which will work for all possible types of software. And if discretion is to be used, why not admit this up front. It is notable if people think it's notable [amend] - but they need some guidelines as to what to think about. Stephen B Streater 13:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, these are guidelines and not policy. More specifically, these are proposed guideline, not even official ones. However, once an agreement over them is formed, they will likely be followed in most cases, especially because doing that makes articles to be treated equally. My objection is that defining notability in terms of classes is just too vague and open to gaming (you've been fair when your article was nominated for deletion, but some other people aren't) for being part of an official giudeline. Regarding the updated version of the proposed bullets, I'd remark that software being alone in a class may be a sign of notability of the software and may be a sign that the class is chosen impropertly. In my opinion, this shows that these bullets are just too imprecise, even for giving people a rough idea of what is notable. - Liberatore(T) 15:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: There is no real need for an explicit awards criterion.  Awards are just a single special case of the primary criterion.  When computer magazines publish their awards, they often have accompanying articles, and when they don't what they do publish is of no worth in creating an encyclopaedia article.  The PC Magazine Editors' Choice Award given to WebTrends was accompanied by a full and detailed review, for example, thereby fulfiling the primary notability criterion by being a non-trivial published work created and published by someone other than the author of the software.  In contrast, where awards are just bare lists of product names, such as is the case for the Codie awards, the award doesn't provide any sort of source material that can be used to create an article.  There is no way that the 2005 Codie awards can be used to write an article on The Everdream Management Suite, for example. Thus the package fails the primary criterion because the published work is a trivial one that is no more than a directory listing.The point of including secondary notability criteria is to fill in the gaps where the primary notability criterion fails.  (The secondary notability criteria in WP:CORP, for example, are to ensure that our coverage of the Fortune 500 et al. is comprehensive, in the exceedingly unlikely event that the primary notability criterion should fail.)  In most cases, and for most alternative notability criteria that people can come up with, the primary notability criterion doesn't fail.  Uncle G 15:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: I, CherryT, motion to amend the Software Notability policy to include:
*The Community
**If the author/supporter of the article runs a poll/fourm post (preferably on Wikipedia in the Talk page for the article) and the community acknowledges the existence of the software and further goes to say that the software is notable or important AND the voting peoples are NOT a part of the company/producers, then the article is protected from deletion.
*Terms
**The voting body must be of 10 people or more and must NOT be a part of the company/producers of the software in question.
Please feel free to amend this amendment, or if you think it is appropriate, reply with Vote - Aye if you accept. If you reject this amendment and feel it is inappropriate, reply Vote - Neigh and please explain your reasoning.
--CherryT 04:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not gonna fly, CherryT. As a note, this is in reference to Articles for deletion/Within a Deep Forest. Andre (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Call for Amendment

message: I think an important consideration for notability of software is that much of the value of WikiPedia is the ability to get great content on highly specialized subjects.  Given this, readers of these specialized articles would likely be very interested in software (yes – even commercial software) that in a general context are not particularly notable.
*Give us an example please? People who write their own small-time tools that a dozen people use worldwide, for instance, do not get an encyclopdeia article. (Radiant) 14:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Long Tail Considerations