Talk:List of rich Internet applications

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Technologies 2 Suspicious at Best 3 List 4 FORscene / Clesh

[edit] Technologies

Would it be possible to add to every item information what interesting each site has from technological point of view. I, as a programmer, would be much interested in such things. Pavel Vozenilek 16:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suspicious at Best

Your request is suspicious at best. It appears to be another attempt to gain sockpuppets on this issue since this topic just surfaced a few hours ago. Wikipedia is here to provide information that is encyclopedic -- not to list every application ever made. Without the notable criteria, this list could get out of hand. - Sleepnomore 17:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• And yet again you are wrong. I don't even understand what that previous request is about. --Sleepyhead81 17:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List

24SevenOffice is not notable. In fact, the article is added by an employee of the company itself. This is blatant marketing and should get the user banned. - Sleepnomore 16:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

24SevenOffice is relevant and noteable. One of Australia's biggest newspapers (Sydney Morning Herald) says this about 24SevenOffice: "Other successful companies following the ASP (sorry, SaaS) model include NetSuite (backed by Oracle's Larry Ellison) and 24SevenOffice, which offer financial software and other office applications." Read more here. Besides, this is a list - not a text in an normal article. All relevant links should be included. --Sleepyhead 20:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It certainly seems notable enough to me; sure, it's not Google Mail or Google Maps, but no application on that list approaches the impact of Google Mail or Maps, so that's not a good standard to use. Rather, 24SevenOffice seems to have won a few awards in its software space, has had a few articles published about it that reveal it to be a legitimate, reasonable-quality web app, and I can't think of any reason it doesn't belong here. (And Sleepnomore, your unilateral decision to remove links to 24SevenOffice from nearly a dozen pages doesn't do you any favors in this debate, since it appears to reinforce the notion that you have a specific vendetta you're looking to execute.) Jason 14:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You finally make a fairly decent argument. If a neutral newspaper can put you in the same category as NetSuite, then I have no further arguments to make on it. - Sleepnomore 14:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• It seems that Sleepnomore is not aware of what a list is. See List of FTP clients or list of accounting software. It includes a full list of all items within those topics. As should this list of RIA's and natuarally 24SevenOffice belongs on this list. --Sleepyhead81 14:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Please read Wikipedia:What_wikipedia_is_not. This is not the place for your application to be bandied about. Wikipedia cannot and should not list every Rich Internet Application available. Instead, it should only list those that are notable and known. Of which, 24SevenOffice is not. - Sleepnomore 14:44, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily. A list can be a complete list. See guidelines for lists. Since 24SevenOffice has an article on wikipedia I think it belongs in relevant lists such as this. --Sleepyhead81 15:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The article needs a VfD which I will handle once I have time to make sure I handle it according to the rules of Wikipedia. The fact that it has an article means nothing. It is still irrelevant and not notable. - Sleepnomore 20:03, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sleepnomore - can I refer you to WP:SOFTWARE. In particular: "Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged but not forbidden. It is indeed easy for an author to overestimate the notability of their work. If such work is notable, someone else will eventually start an article about it."

This suggests that banning someone who writes an article about their own software is not WP policy. Stephen B Streater 12:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss other articles. --Sleepyhead 12:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I misinterpreted the previous edit. Stephen B Streater 12:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FORscene / Clesh

Hi. I'd like to work towards a consensus of including FORscene in this list. It has been removed because there is no article in Wikipedia about it. But there was briefly an article on FORscene, and one reason it was removed was that there were no links to it. It's a bit ironic that the deal here seems to be that you can't link to things unless they have articles!

Things are more interesting though. The editor who actually deleted the article looked into it when asked and said (see my talk page): "Stephen, after looking over the deleted article, I do indeed think the topic meets notability guidelines, and could be written in a way that would get it past/through AfD. Tomorrow I'll write up a new version of the article and post it, with an explanation on the talkpage as to why I did so. Cheers. Babajobu 09:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)"

I even have seen quotes from the article on the internet, despite its short life, so I know there is demand for one.

So what happened?

I've used Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, on and off in the past. But having just had a baby, I had two weeks of time round the clock to play with. So what better than to write a FORscene article. The product easily meets notability guidelines, which ask for two independent articles. FORscene has had dozens, including multiple in trade journals, multiple in the national press, and also multiple across the world (can show you where to find some of these). Here's one I found last week. And this website lists hundreds of web applications, but FORscene isn't just on the list, it has its own category. And talking of current usage, hundreds of millions of people see content made using FORscene every week on broadcast TV.

So I ploughed in and wrote an article. Except it was deleted two minutes later. There were three main reasons:

• The first draft was not encylopaedic enough - still it was my first attempt and things can (and do) improve with editing
• I hadn't include proof that the software was notable at that stage - providing this evidence is what swung the editor who had finally deleted it
• I wrote the article

Number 3 is a bit harsh, but makes sense just like the article requirement makes sense here. Although not excluded by the guidelines, you're not supposed to write about things you are involved in.

So where does this leave us so far?

In 2000, data traffic on the telecoms network overtook voice for the first time. Now, because of the sheer size of video files, the internet is becoming a video distribution network. And what tools are available and meeting this need? FORscene allows anyone with a video camera or camera phone and a web browser to make and publish web videos (and mobile ones too on about 100m phones). FORscene gives you everything you need: Reviewing, logging, editing, publishing and hosting of videos; access on any Windows, Mac or Linux machine over the internet; full frame rate video on modern machines. No wonder it won the Royal Television Society award last December for most significant advance in post production.

We have potentially a very significant developments in rich media applications - a rich media application for making rich media. It seems to be the only professional-standard web based tool for making videos. And it has no article (yet).

FORscene should obviously be in the list of Rich Media applications. I can provide vast numbers of links to press coverage and articles, as well as obviously the company web pages. This looks like a good place to ask for a volunteer to write the Wikipedia article. Stephen B Streater 10:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A long comment that I can give a short answer to. Lists are not to be made up of external links - only wikipedia articles should be included. This is to avoid linkspam and to ensure only notable entries are on the list.

Not all long lists of external links are linkspam. For example, the consensus on the Go article is that lists are helpful eg list of links to national Go associations. Each list should be looked at in its relevant context. Stephen B Streater 22:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Im sure your product is very good but do not take it personally when the links are removed. You must follow the wikipedia guidelines. --Sleepyhead 10:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't take it personally - though I notice you only just added the bit about Wikipedia articles in response to my links! I was advised that things which didn't merit their own articles could be mentioned in other relevant articles, particularly lists. This is academic though as FORscene does merit its own article, easily meeting the notability guidelines. The question is: how to find someone who is allowed to write the article? [[User:Stephe

If the article is indeed notable then someone will come along and write an article for it. --Sleepyhead 11:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Stephen, as Sleepyhead says, if these are notable, make articles for them (I don't think they are, but that is not the job of this discussion). If they are not notable (i.e. don't have articles) there is strong consensus for not including them in this and similar lists. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and thses lists are routinely targeted by spammers. We need to keep below the spam event horizon. Just zis Guy you know? 11:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I did write an article, but it was deleted because I wrote it. As a B-B application, the typical user is a highly paid professional in the industry who is too busy to write an article. And the typical article is written by a journalist for his own publication. There are loads of these. This is a slight weakness in Wikipedia. However, there is a third group - Wikipedians interested in Rich Media Applications. Perhaps someone here could write an article! Stephen B Streater 11:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was deleted simply because you wrote it, it was deleted because it was reckoned to be vanispamcruftisement. We have numerous articles which have been written by their subjects or those closely involved which have not been deleted because they managed to be sufficiently neutral in tone - your article was not neutral in tone, it was blatantly promotional both as originally speedily deleted and as deleted after AfD. But even then you can go to deletion review and appeal. But far better, I would say, to wait until a neutral third party comes along and documents your product in neutral terms. Without dozens of external links. Just zis Guy you know? 12:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the external links for the discussion because someone said I should in the AfD to show independent third parties thought the product was significant. I would rather someone neutral wrote the Wikipedia article too. With any luck, someone with an interest in Rich Media Applications will do just that. Stephen B Streater 13:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a difficult balance. External links from reliable secondary sources (newspapers and technical magazines with a dead-tree existence, in this case) in the "sources" section are what people are looking for. Second best is links in the "links" section to notable implementations or significant content created with the tool. Links in the text have a horrible tendency to look like search engine optimisation. So what they wanted was evidence of neutral third party coverage to back the statements made. Again, I don't dispute this may exist, but you may not be the best person to judge what is and is not appropriate. Just zis Guy you know? 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll look in more detail at the WP:RS section. There are dozens of articles in national and trade press, as well as the internet, so it would not be a problem to quote from these. The Forbidden news section has dozens of "Recent press" stories from a wide variery of sources. Often the news items looked pretty controversial when they went up, but now look pretty mainstream.The product is very progressive, and as I am immersed in it, I am somewhat ahead of the curve ;-) Stephen B Streater 09:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That is part of the problem: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news site or discussion board, so deliberately does not place itself "ahead of the curve". Instead, Wikipedia waits to see whether the curve leads over the edge of a cliff, or turns out to be a blind alley. Just zis Guy you know? 11:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not so bad a problem - we get lots of coverage in the news media, and our software has been used millions of times. Six years ago we were ahead of the curve, but now, even Wikipedia has a list of primitive rich internet applications - you can find it here ;-) Stephen B Streater 13:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)