Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi! --ShaunMacPherson 02:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Scope
The scope seems a little limited. Software is more than just a few programs. We can have algorithms, programming languages, operating systems. Can we use a WikiProject template to get this off the ground? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Naming conventions?
It's normally the role of WikiProjects to define naming conventions, I recently posed a question at Talk:Mac OS X#Interface Article name standardization, which has yet to be resolved. It has to do with the creation of valuable disambiguation names for technologies that use common terms. Can anyone else involved with WikiProject Software weigh in on that? If we could set some precedent for WikiProject policy with this too, that would be great. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 04:04, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Improvement Drive
Sysop and Multimedia have been nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Vote for these articles to support them.--Fenice 09:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Past, present, future ...
One difficulty that I've seen crop up on a number of software-related articles (most notably Internet Explorer) has to do with how Wikipedia should cover the histories of pieces of software -- or particularly the features and bugs of various releases over the course of a program's history.
Typically, people who are closely associated with a piece of software -- the developer, enthusiasts, or professionals whose career depends on the software -- are keen to have articles reflect the latest version of that software. Usually, the latest version has the most features and the fewest known bugs, so this makes for a more positive portrayal. And naturally, it's worthwhile to have a particular focus on the latest version, since that is the one which people are most likely to find in the marketplace.
However, the past releases of a piece of software are also of great importance to an encyclopedic treatment. There are many things that need to be said about software history which don't apply to the current release. For instance, the current version of Sendmail isn't vulnerable to the Internet Worm, but the version at that point in time was, and clearly the Worm is an important element of the "story of Sendmail".
Old releases are even more important when (as with Internet Explorer) there are still large installed bases of the old release. Whenever an article tries to depict what a piece of software is like "in the present", it needs to take into account not only the very latest release being pushed by the manufacturer, but also all the old versions that are still in use even though the manufacturer wishes they weren't.
This can create substantial tension between editors who are advocates of a product, and editors who aren't, or who are advocates of a competing product. It's happened, for instance, that an editor with a negative view of Microsoft modifies the "Internet Explorer" article to present more of IE's past security problems ... and then an editor with a positive view of Microsoft disapproves, considering the edit to be biased (or "POV") because it brings up "ancient history".
There's also an issue -- particularly with regards to open source software -- about depicting the "release version" (or "stable") vs. a "development version" (or "beta"). There are a lot of open-source products, and some proprietary products, where the development version is widespread well before the release. (MySQL, Debian, and Windows AntiSpyware come to mind.)
Again, there can be tension between advocates and others. Advocates wish to include description of features in the latest development release. Others may see this as *jumping in front* or even as vaporware hype, since there's frequently no guarantee of when those features will go into the stable or released version. (Consider the number of features that were in development versions of Windows Longhorn that didn't make it into Windows Vista.)
In one sense, a "beta" is an acknowledged incomplete product, one that's still being constructed, and so it should only be reported on in the same sense that we'd report on a building that isn't built yet. But in another sense, particular betas (like Windows AntiSpyware) can be greatly influential in their fields and useful to users. Betas are software that certainly exists in the present (people use them) but which exist with an eye towards the future (they aren't "released" yet, whatever that means).
So I'm curious to know what other editors think of this. What kind of guidelines (if any) should we have in writing about the "past, present, and future" of software products? --FOo 20:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
