Wikipedia talk:Notability (software)

My comments

This is not really all that bad. If we got a sharper picture of what "significant" means it might even be workable. And if "significant" means historically or technically significant, not run of the mill, not just another entry in its field, and we required that historical or technical significance to be referenced independently --- not by self-published sources --- that would be a positive step in clarifying when back-office software is in fact notable.

Open source software: too inclusive

The first problem I see is that this sets up a separate track for open software, and allows open source software to be referenced to blogs and other self published sources if they are "prominent, notable, and independent". First, I suspect that this is institutional bias at play. The open source encyclopedia that anyone can edit attracts fans of open source software and free content. Second, this puts a burden on page patrollers and admins to judge whether some blog with a tiny, technical readership is "prominent, notable, and independent".

Rather than have a separate track for open source software, I'd prefer to mention that software marketed by a business is also a product and must meet the notability guideline for products.

Consumer software: too exclusive

The proposal I drafted made clear that video game publications are general interest and confer notability. They are notable in the common sense definition: the general public is likelier to have heard of them than they are of IT department supervision suites or sysadmin tools. While sourcing is usually not an issue for video games and well known products, I would not apply a requirement of "significance" to those sorts of products.

Best practices in policing software pages

If that's going to be part of the guideline, please add this: "Any proposed deletion or AfD nomination of a software product should mention the sort of software it is, if that can be intelligibly derived from the article." A good number of my !votes are prompted chiefly by a desire to add this missing and vital context. If you're looking at AfD for software articles to rescue or improve, it helps to know whether it's the sort of thing that interests you.

- Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ihcoyc, here's my response:

A)This is a essay. Not a policy or guideline. That being said, nothing prevents this essay from eventually becoming a guideline with enough work/consensus.

B)I agree that the wording of Open Source is too inclusive, I wanted to make it so that prominent sources (even if they are blog like) can be allowed (ex. Linux.org, Ubuntu.org, TorrentFreak, etc.) while avoiding mere existence (maybe a clarification is needed on "significant"). I did state that independent ones were preferable, maybe add that 2-3 such references are needed in comparison to 1-2 independent. Apart from the exceptions listed in FOSS section though, FOSS software follows the same rules as non FOSS.

C)I don't see the current wording excluding any "general interest games." Any general interest game will have plenty of citations meeting the current requirement. Perhaps some clarification on the exact wording change? I added reviews to the third clause if that was what you were looking for.

Edit: I noticed you felt that they do not have to meet all of the requirements if they met one. That is correct. The current revision says "if it meets any "one" of the following criteria".

D)Done.

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit/revision needed

Having submitted many college applications, I noticed my writing is naturally littered with grammatical and style errors when unedited. I frequently use the words "have" and "like" amoung other repetitions. A copyedit by an uninvolved editor is appreciated, as I am too tired to properly revise this myself. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ideas versus functions

I have realized one of the things that is wrong with the deletionist sentiment towards software, and what is partially right about a special "FOSS clause". I think some sort of distinction really should be made in this essay (or proposed guideline).

Software may have at least two nearly orthogonal functions. One of those functions is performing technical tasks in a "mechanical" manner. Software is just a kind of machine from this functional perspective, and the notability standards pertaining to machines is nearly relevant. By this standard, a category of machine like Microwave oven has an article, but an obscure individual model like Sharp R-230KK does not, and should not (that model chosen at semi-random as the first one the shows up in a Google shopping result; I have no knowledge or opinion about the model). Of course, some individual machine models become highly notable, say the Model T or the Playstation 2, through some combination of sales popularity, third party reporting, and general innovation.

Proprietary software is, for the most part, simply a particular model of machine. However, FOSS software can also be something quite different. Software source is a form of expression, and publishing source code is much like publishing a book or an article. In source code, ideas are conveyed which may be discussed, critiqued, analyzed, rephrased, cited, etc. (just like in a book or article). Obviously, not every book or article should have a Wikipedia article, but many do and should on a basis other than massive volume sales or household recognition. Many books, and many software programs, are by design targeted at narrow, technical or specific audience, but within those target audiences may have a notable influence. Software can certainly be more widely known and used than are many "obscure" mathematical theorems that can, do, and should have WP articles about them.

One absolutely mind-numbingly bad AfD nomination I saw recently was for the Ratpoison X window manager. This is a software program that I have known of for years, and that I have frequently discussed with technical colleagues. Not having an article would be a painful gap in Wikipedia, since there would not be this place to point interested readers to. What makes Ratpoison so notable isn't that it has such a huge userbase (it probably doesn't), but rather that it expresses a distinct, novel, and widely discussed idea: that a window manager can avoid use of pointing devices and overlapping windows. For this particular case, the fact that I could read the source code is actually not the main point; it's more about the ideas advanced by the actual functionality (one could, perhaps, imagine a proprietary work-alike that had come earlier that would merit similar discussion). I don't really know if Ratpoison is the first in the family of tiling window managers, but it was early and is probably the most widely known one.

Judging software--the expression of ideas between humans--solely as commercial products, that need to sell a million copies (or whatever) for an article, is deeply misguided. This is so much more true for FOSS software where the conveyance of the ideas as source code is inherent to conveyance of the functional machine. It would be something like claiming a book doesn't deserve an article because there was "nothing special" in the way it was bound and printed! LotLE×talk 08:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain you could have argued such an article is notable in it's field (open source) as allowed under this essay (see exceptions part too). If consensus would have agreed, I have no idea. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 13:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel like the current FOSS clause is a band-aid for an issue that should be addressed in another way. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 13:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As noted, I did not really like the FOSS section, so I boldly went and rewrote the entire paragraph, and added additional factors that I thought might weigh in on the reliability and significance of sources and coverage that were not entirely covered by that rubric. It continues to mention FOSS, but is no longer focused exclusively on that kind. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent changes Ihcoyc! Although I see an overlap between promotion and scope and this section on the issue of wikipedia not being a laundry list. Do you think it would be appropriate to removing the latter redundancy because it is already mentioned elsewhere in two places (at least) about the different between notability and existence? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI: reviews are okay for videogames

Wikipedia:VG/RS#List. Pcap ping 12:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said they weren't. The wording was intended to achieve the same affect as your link, to notable reliable reviews while also accepting occasional unique circumstances. If you disagree, feel free to change the wording ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Using popularity as an alternative to media coverage

One way forward could be to use the results of popcon, popularity contest, an opt-in program which gathers statistics on which programs are installed and votes for them: http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/05/27/ways-to-understand-the-linux-users-popcon-and-smolt/

http://popcon.debian.org/

http://popcon.ubuntu.com/

This would let us set a minimum install base, rather than simple availability in distributions. Unomi (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this. Gaming the system is very possible, as well as skewed statistical base. What is popular will have media coverage. I guarantee you.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Move this page

The title (and the hatnote on the rejected Wikipedia:Software notability page) are likely to lead to confusion as to the status of this page. I'd like to move it to a title with a much larger hamming distance. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Current practices in assessment of notability

Just a couple of questions:

1. Under section 2 "Inclusion" of your essay, you posit that the software must be the subject of instruction as opposed to merely being used in instruction. The two categories may be somewhat blurred. Could you give an example to clarify? GNU Octave and Matlab, for instance, are widely used in instruction; but would you say that they are also the *subject* of instruction?

1. Under section 3 "Reliability and Significance of Sources", you recommend that "[i]t is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown". Is there consensus then that inclusion in a major distro such as Fedora is indication of notability?

1. Is there consensus concerning usage of download statistics as an indicator of the software userbase and if so, what is the measure of the userbase size that imparts notability? What do you regard as reliable evidence of download statistics?

Thank youVisionat (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

1. There are university courses titled in variations of "Using Matlab". You should be showing there are such courses for GNU octave.
2. To my knowledge, no.
3. No.

Someguy1221 (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, the answer to 1) is what I thought you meant in the essay. I gather there is disagreement concerning 2) and 3). Thanks, I had no idea that the Notability of Software essay was authored by Some Guy - I might not have asked.:) :)

Hopefully there will be wider agreement on some of the elements discussed in your essay and it can become more "notable" as an official guideline. With regard to my first question, it might be possible for a software package to transform the manner in which a particular subject or core theorem is taught, yet might be so simple to use that there would be no point in dedicating a course for learning how to use it. I'll get back to you as I acquire more information.

Visionat (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)