| Tools | |
| Short link http://www.qaiku.com/go/47ek/ | |
|
|
@indeyets we need to present reasons to keep the page to the deletion discussion. And of course making the Midgard page more comprehensive won't hurt either.
@ferrix I think the issue there is the typical traditional disregard of blogs and wikis in favor of traditional paper publishing. Also, appears the person who proposed to that doesn't really know the field as they didn't consider CMS Watch a valid source
My talk at SambaXP conference in 2003: http://sambaxp.org/uploads/media/boko...
"Using Samba 3.0 in Intranet-based content management system", http://sambaxp.org/index.php?id=36
The talk is about integrating Samba and Midgard.
New Zealand's Metadata NZGLS standards specification mentions that e.govt.nz runs on Midgard: http://www.e.govt.nz/archive/standard...
Now the references list already looks a bit better. Would be great to have more examples and content, of course
Blogs are next to useless for encyclopedic articles. As I am expecting the article will be deleted, I won't bother, but technically all those blog refs should just be removed. Whatever, if these guys only trust major media, we provide the major media sources.
Yet again, I'm finding the wikipedia community very difficult to work with.
I fail to see any good reasons to delete the page. One guy just happens to not like an article about a CMS that's been around for ten years and runs some fairly big sites? The name comes from norse mythology, yet the software gets more than half the links for "Midgard" in the Google Search. Is it really that hard to verify that the subject is somewhat noteworthy?
Granted, there could be some more stuff and better references in the article.
@Kitti yes, publicity need tons of work that we have little experience with. Last five years or so we've been relatively invisible as everybody has been too busy, there has been more competition in the field, and we've waited for Midgard2 to surface.
But now it should be the time to come to the public again. We have the substance needed, but maybe lack the expertise in marketing and publicity. In 1999 and 2000 those came without effort, so we didn't focus on them
just so that everybody understands the point here: the debate is not over whether the article is well-written or useful, it is over whether Midgard is relevant enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia. It makes me quite sad that these people can so easily question the value of the project we've put our love into for the last ten years, software that runs in many different places and is used by tens of thousands of people every day.
Their argumentation is that the software is not covered in relevant sources like books or academic papers, whereas we're saying there are better sources for something that is related to web technologies. But if we fail to present our arguments and validate the relevance of what we've been doing all these years, the article will be gone and our efforts questionable.
@bergie I doubt my editcount is high enough to validate my participation in the discussion - I don't know. I also am not interested enough in Wikipedia as a project to care about wikipolitics.
But, since the matter intrests some of you, I gave my opinion as an ex admin in the Finnish Wikipedia about what would help me decide my opinion about the notability. Last I checked, nobody had informed people on the discussion page that there are more citations and information that might help with the decision making than when the vote started.
and the idea that trolls are running the show really put me off. Wikipedia needs some rules about notability so it wouldn't be covered in shit. Easiest way to decide notability is citations and references, and they are classified to reliable, dubious and not trustworthy... I'm not saying that Midgard isn't notable in my opinion, but I am saying that just for justices sake all subjects (ie. articles) in Wikipedia need to be treated equal.
@myrtti I agree that there must be some criteria on notability, but it seems the criteria shown is very biased towards traditional (and US) media, both which are difficult to apply to many things online.
And this kind of deletionism baffles me, we're talking about a page that has been there for years, and has been found useful by many. And suddenly it is not valid just because couple of people have the combination of being trigger-happy and not really understanding the fields of CMS and free software.
@bergie: of course it's biased towards traditional media, since the effort to get something printed/broadcasted about subject X is bigger than registering to Blogger and start spewing BS to the Internets, and as such tells a lot more about the notability (are there any books about how to use Midgard?) And of course the article is also biased towards English and especially US media, since those are the easiest for English wikipedians to check.
Anyway, good luck with your battle.
@myrtti, good point.
However, Wikipedia has long articles about semi-obscure fictional characters and baseball players whose only merit seem to be attending some big-league games. References easily verifiable? Yes. Notable? Depends very much on your point of view. It's not like Wikipedia would run out of space, or suddenly become better for dropping an article about a semi-obscure CMS.
If this is a way to say "please improve the article", it's pretty harsh.
@mandrl: current state of the article isn't a reason for deletion if the subject of it is notable enough, unless it's total crap (in the level of "Titanic was a ship", "Mary is a female first name", or "Bone is hahalolkittens" (aka. in fi.wikipedia "hauki on kala"), and should be rewritten from the start. Notability is a reason for deletion, and if the article can't prove the notability of its subject, then you have really failed your mission in writing a Wikipedia article.
The discussion has some good points on both sides, for example the critique of blogs is valid for the most parts, though I would not be as harsh, but still.
Little bit more argumentation, here are listed some conferences in the field of publishing and software that have accepted papers and talks about Midgard:
If Midgard is notable enough to be a desirable subject for such conferences, it ought to be for Wikipedia as well. The arrangers after all are experts in selecting relevant content for their events from this particular field.
@myrtti blogs are used as references because they provide valuable context and background material to the content of the article, not to prove notability. Notability should derive from the fact that Midgard is a well-established open source CMS project that runs many important sites, has a working community around it, has been a subject of a number of conference presentations, market analyst reviews and other articles.
This is getting even more ridiculous. According to comments by the deletionist person, CMS Watch is not reliable source because they happen to run Midgard. And our comments and votes are not relevant because we have also discussed the issue outside of Wikipedia.
If the deletion goes through it will be the final signal for me that Wikipedia is run be the trolls and ought to be ignored.
The "canvassing" policies are slightly more complex than that but I understand that they do not like people just spamming the conversation with votes (it's not a majority vote anyway) without contributing to the discusssion in any meaningful way.
And it's not like this "canvassing" here has generated a torrent of spam on the deletion discussion...
"Also, the conferences listed are not cited so we have no way of knowing what went on at each one" & "This is all rather academic as the material at the conferences isn't being presented here for inclusion in the article, nor has it been included in the article": @bergie could you dig up the references and put the conference list to the article.
The I thought of something but I can't write it to the article properly now: Midgard is definitely the first (and still probably the only) such framework to use a C library that a PHP extension binds to for database abstraction, also using an apache module for DB connection management and templating engine is pretty unique and interesting. For Midgard2 the use of C library with multiple language bindings should also be quite unique (along the way the ORM aka MgdSchema is defined for the C library and thus usable via any language binding).
Edit: the DBUS stuff should be fairly unique as well. To people not familiar with the field listing these simply as features speaks nothing of their true significance, so maybe a bit of up-playing of these unique features is in order.
To me, these editors seem to be powertripping, but then again I've seen and witnessed Midgard's journey from the humble beginning. I have no questions about the notability, but how would you prove it to a very critical person? Any Midgard books published?
Unfortunately I've got nothing substantial to add to the discussion. "Voting" will not help.
BTW: Plone's page is even worse than Midgard's.
Copyright Rohea Oy 2010 | Mobile version | API | Feedback | Terms of Service | Applications and tools
