Re: Is Wikipedia afraid of MojoMojo?

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. :)

Comment on Re: Is Wikipedia afraid of MojoMojo?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: Is Wikipedia afraid of MojoMojo?
by dandv (Novice) on Mar 03, 2009 at 01:10 UTC

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]


go ahead... be a heretic
	PerlMonks