|
Re: Is Wikipedia afraid of MojoMojo?
by ELISHEVA (Prior) on Mar 02, 2009 at 08:08 UTC
|
I just googled "MojoMojo" and was stunned by the paucity of third party sources.
Wikipedia aside, the lack of 3rd party commentary, is indicative of a "marketing problem" that needs to be addressed. (Yes Virginia, even open source projects need to market). The people involved seem to be pretty good about blogging and creating a web-presence but they appear to be over-relying on their own words. Buzz only happens when other people talk.
Some ideas for starters:
- invite users to add their websites to a list
- design a "powered by" button
- add a section to the wiki with MojoMojo "success stories" and implementation/roll-out adventures
- request/submit articles to moderated or juried e-zines or print magazines - even if developers write them, others outside of the project have to read them and comment on them.
- make requests like this - maybe one of the monks not on the project will take time to study mojomojo and write something up
- contact bloggers in the CMS, web design, etc community and ask them to review MojoMojo and write a short article
- start a facebook group for users of MojoMojo
- start a Linked-In group for developers and consultants interested in learning how to extend MojoMojo or considering MojoMojo for their clients.
- add technorati, etc buttons to your wiki webpages so that really helpful documentation/use cases have a chance of getting tagged.
It would be a shame to put all this work into a project like this without also getting a vibrant user community. Users generate users and third party reviews generate trust which generates users. Users creating their own extensions and helping each other use the software build community. Users - not developers.
In the long run open source projects survive and thrive because of their user base and the only way to create one is to get the word out.
Best, beth | [reply] |
Re: Is Wikipedia afraid of MojoMojo?
by bellaire (Hermit) on Mar 02, 2009 at 12:45 UTC
|
Since this is listed under "News," I'll take it that the last question is rhetorical.
The assertion that other primitive and abandoned projects are listed and so MojoMojo should be as well is based on a logical fallacy (argument from common practice). Just because other projects which appear to be non-notable have not had their articles deleted deleted doesn't make this article notable.
Second, the OP seems to deliberately insult the decision-making abilities of people who support deletion, saying they have "nothing better to do than delve into ... astrology", and that they have "jumped on the bandwagon", implying they can't think for themselves. Ad hominem, both.
A proper argument would describe the notability standards for wikipedia and simply demonstrate that this article meets them. I haven't been at PerlMonks long, but this doesn't seem like the right place for that discussion.
MojoMojo seems like a really great project, but I don't think this write-up serves the project very well. The OP is obviously very passionate about the project, which is a good thing, but those energies are probably better spent elsewhere.
On the other hand, if the whole point of this was just to get people to check out MojoMojo, it worked. :) | [reply] |
|
|
> Since this is listed under "News," I'll take it that the last question is rhetorical.
Indeed.
> Just because other projects which appear to be non-notable have not had their articles deleted deleted doesn't make this article notable.
I've well aware of this fallacy, and there's a Wikipedia policy about it.
What I'm questioning is the impartiality of the person who marked MojoMojo for deletion. They have not done the same for other wiki software with fewer external references.
> The OP is obviously very passionate about the project
Yes, I am passionate about MojoMojo, and it has already taken me more than a
few hours to wage this stupid war, during which I would have much rather coded
some features up. I'm not exaggerating when I'm saying that some people just
have nothing better to do than hang out on Wikipedia all day, marking for
deletion articles completely outside their area of competence, then engaging in
an ego battle about it, and accusing venerable folks like Daisuke Maki of spammy practices when they pitch in to keep the page up.
Wikipedia has various other mechanisms to indicate that an article needs more verifications (badges like "citation needed", "needs more 3rd party sources" etc.). Marking a rather new article for deletion is gratuitous when said article is about open-source software and does actually list references (including a 3rd party one, CPANTS).
Think "Don't you have some real criminals to catch, officer?"
> if the whole point of this was just to get people to check out MojoMojo, it worked. :)
Not the whole point, but the Streisand effect was intended.
| [reply] |
Re: Is Wikipedia afraid of MojoMojo?
by CountZero (Bishop) on Mar 02, 2009 at 07:05 UTC
|
Under the "notability" rules, Wikipedia may have an argument. Whether these "notability" rules are a good thing, is an entirely different discussion.However, this "notability" argument is easily defeated if more independent references are added to the article. Now they all point to sites too close to MojoMojo.
CountZero A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
Re: Is Wikipedia afraid of MojoMojo?
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Mar 02, 2009 at 18:33 UTC
|
Modern Perl Books is always happy to publish high-quality guest articles; send me a note if you know of someone willing to write about it.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
Re: Is Wikipedia afraid of MojoMojo?
by castaway (Parson) on Mar 02, 2009 at 07:10 UTC
|
I suggest someone prod perl.com, perlbuzz.com or similar to do an article, and make sure it doesn't appear to be written by someone part of the MojoMojo project.
C. | [reply] |
|
|
Ah... nothing like astroturf to make your pet web framework look "notable."
| [reply] |
Re: Is Wikipedia afraid of MojoMojo?
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 02, 2009 at 07:14 UTC
|
Isn't this considered spreading flame war from one forum to another, something to be discouraged? | [reply] |
|
|
No. This is called final protective fire and a well used and accepted technique. Even the Wikipedia lists it, so it must be notable!
CountZero A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
Re: Is Wikipedia afraid of MojoMojo?
by educated_foo (Vicar) on Mar 03, 2009 at 03:47 UTC
|
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: No, they just recognize the fact that it's not notable. | [reply] |
Re: Is Wikipedia afraid of MojoMojo?
by sir_lichtkind (Friar) on Mar 04, 2009 at 10:33 UTC
|
I put my thumb up on the vote page, but hej guys don't be afraid don't feel attacked. Wp is often unfair because of unpreventable ignorance. most people don't haven't much clue about most things. How should they know? Improve the catalyst article. Do explain Mojos releance there and link from there to Mojo. Do argument. I did mention Mojo in german wikipedia years ago.
Exactly to prevent this, I gave my wiki talk few days ago on german perl workshop and maybe too in lissabon.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
As a previous poster said, Wikipedia is often unfair and the quality of it's content suffers because of it.
The MojoMojo drama has confirmed for me what I already suspected... and that is that Wikipedia does not deserve the reputation it has as a source of reliable / impartial information. The only things we can do are a) inform others and/or b) prepare a better replacement.
This article describes exactly this issue, for those interested.
| [reply] |
|
|
Re: Is Wikipedia afraid of MojoMojo?
by Argel (Prior) on Mar 31, 2009 at 23:29 UTC
|
Well, I went and looked at the archived discussion and quite frankly, I have to agree that notability was not established. Skimming over the comments I got the impression that the people voting "keep" were not familiar with Wikipedia policies and thus were not able to make an effective argument to keep the article.
Wikipedia is more concerned about what they consider to be reliable sources. It reminds me of Feudal Japan (and the fictional Rokugan from the Legend of the Five Rings role-playing game) where evidence of a crime was based on testimony, and naturally of course the testimony of high ranking officials carried much more weight. So it was possible to know someone was guilty but "prove" they were innocent. It's important to think of Wikipedia in a similar light. Actually, that probably goes for traditional encyclopedias as well. As the saying goes, he who wins gets to write the history.
If you want to really test how biased Wikipedia is then wait for some articles to be published about MojoMojo and then create an article in Wikipedia about it. Until then, at best you can claim the article was unfairly singled out for deletion.
Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks
| [reply] |
