Misplaced Pages

Portal talk:Free and open-source software: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:27, 27 July 2017 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,147 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Portal talk:Free and open-source software/Archive 2) (bot← Previous edit Revision as of 02:27, 3 August 2017 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,147 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Portal talk:Free and open-source software/Archive 2) (botNext edit →
Line 36: Line 36:
|small=yes |small=yes
}} }}

== Increased frequency in deletion of open-source games as non-notable? ==
I'm not sure if this already a trend but I saw (no hard statistic) this year an increased frequency of deletion of open-source video games. In one instance I was involved in the deletion discussion, ], where I was unable to turn the tide (I still believe the game was notable). Other instances i stumbled over ], ], ]. Did someone else also see an increased frequency or pattern? If yes maybe we should become active in some way (policies?) ] (]) 20:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
:I don't see any organized effort there to delete them, just the usual lack of third party sources, plus some COI editors involved in nthe one that went to AfD, which always muddies things. If you feel that you have sufficient independent third party sources that will meet ], then any of these articles can be re-created with new material and new refs, although it will be undoubtedly carefully scrutinized as a new version of a previously deleted article. - ] (]) 20:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
::Thanks for your feedback, maybe just a coincidence (will keep the eyes open). About specifically, I think here the discussion went out of control and the minds were set from the beginning against FOSS as being less notable per se, which confused and scared me; there were several good sources available also a paper. ] (]) 11:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
:::Yeah I did read the AfD on that article. If you think a new article can be written that will meet ], then fel free to give it a try. - ] (]) 20:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
::::*sigh* looks like I'm the only one having a issue with an of the better article removed which was also among the more notable FOSS games. thanks anyway ] (]) 13:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Shaddim}} Please keep on with this. ''If'' there are some news reports on it which warrant notability request it to be restored to draft space, add some references and then simply restore the article. --] (]) 16:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
::::::Sorry just a small question: I have a feeling that ] is a bit inappropriate for FOSS or more general: software projects. Even projects which became an important standard or at least well-known, like ], ], ], have a box asking for more independent sources. But thinking from scientific citation practice: Important is the usage of the source, means: If an article describes features, internal references are the appropriate source for this section, aren't they? Notability is shown if one can proof with external references that the software is in use and relevant, not if 90% of the refs are external. Therefor the number of internal references will always be higher compared to other articles which does not put in question the quality. Was there already a discussion about it?
::::::Background: My ] was declined two times for this reason and I get the feeling that the reviewers just counted internal/external references without regarding their specific use.-] (]) 06:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Well, a pity looks like interseting software and suitable article. On "independent sources", they are indeed a good idea for various reasons. The problems starts if notability is requested, and the brought in external sources are neglected as itself not reliable or broad enough etc etc. Did you searched for independent recpetion? Is this software used by scientist? Commercially? Artists? Was it reviewed by magazins? Mentioned in articles? cheers 15:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Oh, the program is broadly used, commercially and by artists. Which I showed: I have proven that there are 2 independent projects increasing usability, 3 minor user projects, 3 big institutions using it within their publications. (Plus big institutions where I have no good source...) Now I found some more sources, especially a series of commercially selled books. What I don't have is: An independent tutorial explaining usage, a review or presentation in a magazin. It could be that it was used in a scientific journal (which belongs to the institution which uses the software what I already showed), that could be a good hint. Even now I have 50% external sources - much more is not possible I think.
::::::::But my point was a bit more general. External resources are extremely important, yes. But there are cases where independency is not the most important property of the source. The best source for software features is the documentation, which is ''not'' independent. I think this should be taken into account and formulated somehow in the guidelines. Something like: The ratio of independent sources necessary to establish notability and neutrality may depend on the subject of the article.
::::::::At the moment, if you apply the current guidelines strictly, you would have to delete half of the FOSS-articles or more. They have all these boxes asking for more independent sources. Hopelessly! Often there are no ones.--] (]) 06:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Actually there is is plenty of FOSS and other free software that has at least small articles or some coverage in videogame, computer or IT publications (journals, magazines, websites) and that's exactly what you need. I understand your point about being widely used, but you cannot simply argue that based on personal experience, but need to illustrate that via third party sources. --] (]) 07:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::"Widely used" needs third party sources, that for sure. But not "XYZ is a text-based application."--] (]) 08:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::] has now 9 internal references and 17 third party ones. Any comment? Could this pass the review? --] (]) 13:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::I miss an explicite "reception and use" chapter where do you show that the software is relevant for user groups and is in use. I think this would address the criticism most effectively (see or ). cheers ] (]) 15:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::::: Well "widely used" and "XYZ is a text-based application." have some room for interpretation/personal assessment depending on the specific context and personally I'd cut FOSS some slack there. As far as your draft is concerned ''at first glance'' none of the sources seem to fall under the description I gave above. They all at best only reliably verify the content but do not establisj notability. Mainly because all seem to be from development community itself or private websites without any traction. So in this form imho you may face deletion due to failing ].--] (]) 15:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

:Another case , if this goes on (and it looks like) we well loss big proportions of the FOSS software content ] (]) 17:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
:Maybe we should try pro-active to address these ref requesting taggs. Actively going to the tagged pages, improving the ref situation and removing the boxes before the articles end in an AfD. I guess there are better tools available for indenfiying them (but as always hard to find or discover), but here is a ] (]) 15:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
:currently up for deletion ] ] (]) 16:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
:More history on ] (]) 15:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
:I just noticed that FOSS seems to be side-target / collateral damage of a general fight against what is perceived by some purity faction as "unworthy" ]. What is a shame. :( ] (]) 10:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
::For potential AfD-discussions: There is a section in ] which is worth to be cited:

::"Factors that may impact on the evaluation of sources include: The way the app is distributed. It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown. For instance, Usenet posts may be acceptable sources for some guy's homebrewed Unix clone. On the other hand, an app that is distributed commercially or supported by businesses is a commercial product. Sources used for such apps should satisfy the breadth and depth of coverage required for a standalone commercial product article."

::--] (]) 12:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


== re. Usage of "free" in relation to software == == re. Usage of "free" in relation to software ==

Revision as of 02:27, 3 August 2017

Skip to table of contents
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Free and open-source software page.
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
This portal does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconComputing
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing

To-do list for Portal:Free and open-source software: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2016-05-30

Recommendations to improve page to featured portal status

These below tasks are to improve the portal, hopefully to get it to Featured portal status. For tasks related to improving wikipedia's free software articles, see Portal:Free software/Contribute.

  1. Add images to the portal, but no "fair use" images, they're not allowed on portals (they're only allowed on articles). Suggestions are at #All images removed - advice sought
  2. Replace the "selected articles" box with something that includes selected articles plus news. Suggestions are at #Add "news" and fold in "selected article"
  3. Add references to History of free software - since it's linked to from the portal intro
Former featured portal candidateThis portal is a former featured portal candidate. Please see the links under Portal milestones below for its original nomination page and why the nomination failed.
Portal milestones
DateProcessResult
June 10, 2006Featured portal candidateNot promoted
February 8, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
May 17, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured portal candidate

re. Usage of "free" in relation to software

It sounds like the word "free" needs to be a or and break out its application. 107.190.207.144 (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)John Bennett107.190.207.144 (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Portal:Open-source software should be deleted / merged into here

Portal:Open-source software is redundant given this portal and should be deleted. Normally I'd say it should be merged into here but there's almost no content in it that could be merged - and it also doesn't have a talk page. The deletion discussion can be found here: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Open-source software.

--Fixuture (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree! --Monochrome_Monitor 20:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

GamingOnLinux deletion

GamingOnLinux was deleted. *sigh* Shaddim (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

TripleA on deletion

Long running and successful open source clone TripleA is voted for deletion. Please help provide sources and references for the disucssion. thanks Shaddim (talk)

case close, kept, thanks for contributions. The article could still need some love in exppansion, though. Shaddim (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Robocode

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robocode&oldid=637979357 I would like to restore this page, as it is quite popular (https://sourceforge.net/projects/robocode/files/stats/timeline?dates=2000-05-12+to+2017-05-18 1 million downloads) and I believe notable. Someone want to help me finding more good reliable secondary sources ? Shaddim (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Linux Game tome

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Linux_Game_Tome&oldid=745063278 Maybe revivable with more sources... Shaddim (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Neverball / neverputt

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neverball&oldid=623005433 revivable? Shaddim (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

infobox video games

I try to start a discussion to add (re-add?) fields from the general software infobox which would also (or especially) FOSS games, e.g. license and more differentiated release model. Shaddim (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/Template_talk:Infobox_video_game

It seems the general software infobox is better suited for our needs. Shaddim (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

ardentryst

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ardentryst&action=edit&redlink=1 revivable? Shaddim (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC) hotpick linuxformat https://archive.org/stream/Linux_Format_120_July_2009/#page/n71/mode/2up/search/hotgames page 73

Red eclipse

I'm still think red eclipse should be revived... some more material for that.

Shaddim (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Freeorion

FreeOrion was created and deleted already multiple times (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FreeOrion), yet, I think with at least 700,000 downloads and broad recpetion it should have an article. Shaddim (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Ultimate stunts

Exult

reliable refs:


notes

  1. ambiguity of free vs freely licensed, etc
  2. O'Kelly, Jackie, and J. Paul Gibson. "RoboCode & problem-based learning: a non-prescriptive approach to teaching programming." ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 38, no. 3 (2006): 217-221.

Logo is missed

The logo was used for this portal is missed, I don't know how to import it, the logo is this:

commons:File:Free and open-source software logo (2009).svg

Editor-1 (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I misunderstand your questino but we can use material from the commons just fine:  ?!? Shaddim (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No, the logo must be appears within the articles, see: GNOME#See also

Editor-1 (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I saw to portal:Linux and did this changes:

edit#2

But the problem is not resolved, it seems the portal main page is not sync with Portal:Free and open-source software/Introduction. Editor-1 (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

a server cache "purge" was needed. :) Shaddim (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Categories: