Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Bugapi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MadeYourReadThis (talk | contribs) at 20:31, 18 March 2011 (→Something to add to Smerdis of Tlön's opinion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Something to add to Smerdis of Tlön's opinion

I generally agree with Smerdis of Tlön's view, but want to add one thing: I think the bar is currently too high for open source projects. They are being dealt with in the same way products are, but the coverage is very different for open source projects. They aren't covered in mainstream sources, but are instead covered in a lot of WP:SPS sources. The deletion (and subsequent DRV) of Nemerle is a great example of this. We still need inclusion guidelines, otherwise people will just churn out thousands of articles on their crappy "look, I made an address book in Visual Basic" projects, but it does seem like open source project articles get deleted quite often. I'm not sure how one formulates a rule for open source notability, but it should be something we think about. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see both points of view but think that there is ample opportunity for open source projects to demonstrate notability. If you look at Google Code or SourceForge, there are thousands of projects of varying levels of activities. Are they all notable? Certainly not. Are some notable? Definitely. How do we know which ones are and which ones aren't? We use the same guidelines that have served us well, WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. If any of these open source projects is notable, someone somewhere will write something about it in an independent and verifiable source. Forgive the strawman but there isn't anything special about open source software that should allow them to be treated any differently. We see a lot more use of blogs and self published sources as references in articles like this but that doesn't mean the rules should be relaxed. It would be great if there were a reliable source that reviewed these open source projects.
Also worth pointing out that the article in question here isn't about an open source project, while it was made available for free download and use, it's not open source. Subtle but important difference.--RadioFan (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Bugapi&oldid=419517746"