Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Free Software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Article tagging

I noticed the tag in Audacity. All the wikiprojects I've been a participant in—and noticed—have placed such tags on the talk pages of the associated articles. Examine the contents of these examples: Category:WikiProject Rivers Category:WikiProject Oregon Category:WikiProject Ski Any particular reason for putting the tag on the article pages themselves? —EncMstr 22:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the Audacity article, and I wondered if it should be in the talk page myself. I tagged the article at the bottom of the page as per instructions on the WP:Free project page. I've seen wikiproject tags on both talk and article pages before, so there's precedent for either one, but I think I prefer to tag the talk page. Any others have thoughts? This should be decided before a big pile of articles get tagged. Strobilus 00:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I created the template today. It doesn't matter to me where the tag goes, actually, the talk page may be preferable. My only reservation is the ugly yellowish color that these tags often seem to have. I vastly prefer the clean white of the current tag. Also, it may be a good idea, when we're just starting out, to have the tag on the main article to attract attention. However, when we've been around for a while, I support just tagging the talk page. I would create a template myself, but I currently don't know advanced template markup. I can, however, copy it from another, similar template, and modify it so that it fits WPFS. Geekman314(contact me) 03:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
There's a standard for how talk-page banners are supposed to look and act (WP:TPT). The "ugly yellowish color" is, alas, part of it. I've updated the {{WPFS}} template to use the template-building template, so it now follows the rules. RossPatterson 04:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm undecided, but I see one problem with adding tags to article pages, and that is that it sets an example that will be followed. We could end up with many free software articles having 4 project boxes on them (WPFS, WPLINUX, WPSOFTWARE, and I don't know how many others...). Gronky 01:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that would pose a problem… Geekman314(contact me) 00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject banners go on the talk pages per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide. I've moved all the uses of {{WPFS}} accordingly. RossPatterson 04:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never understood why it is better to spend time adding dozens of ugly yellow banners to articles rather than improving them. NicM 09:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
WP:PROJGUIDE#Recruiting explains why: By far the most effective method (to recruit new project members) is through the use of a project banner template. Another substantial benefit is to direct people to the relevant WikiProject page(s) before they edit an article. Often, a WikiProject has style guidelines and such for articles it oversees. This can help new editors, who may not know what infobox, stub template, navigation banner, etc., to use for a given type of article. In any case, project banner templates belong on talk pages rather than on article pages themselves, so they don't ugly up the articles. --Teratornis 23:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles

I'm going through my start menu and trying to tag every piece of FOSS I can think of. Even if you don't want to do the tagging, can anyone tell me the names of some FOSS so I can tag/create their articles? P3net 05:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a Linux system? The software package manager has a long list of free software. This is an online list for Debian. That should keep you busy for awhile...  :-) —EncMstr 06:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure do! P3net 03:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Free software is a category containing virtually all free software articles on Wikipedia. Geekman314(contact me) 12:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC channel

Wikinerd2000 has been kind enough to register a freenode IRC channel, #wpfs, for our use. Feel free to use it to discuss the project, or free software in general. (By the way, if you don't feel that it's appropriate to use a Wikipedia IRC channel for general discussion, please feel free to say so.) Thanks! Geekman314(contact me) 14:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, I changed my nick from [gosub] to yamato on freenode. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikinerd2000 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 20 February 2007.

[edit] An existing FS todo and stub box

Portal:Free software, on its Portal:Free software/Contribute page, has a todo box:

and a box of requested articles and stubs:

These can be added (transcluded) to the WP:WPFS page by adding these:

  • {{Portal:Free software/Task_list}}
  • {{Portal:Free software/Expansion_required}}

But I'll leave it to someone else to say where they should go. It makes sense for the portal and the project to share these things. They've currently been designed to fit into the portal, but they can be changed if required - but Portal:Free_software will be applying for Featured status soon, so, if they are to be changed to fit in the WikiProject, I'd still like to keep them looking reasonably well on the Portal. Gronky 15:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free Internet forum software category

I think that the OSI-approved-license restriction should be removed from the Free Internet forum software category. This does not accurately reflect the category description and means that any free forum software released under its own license (or any other non-OSI-approved license) is excluded from this category.

Some of the more popular software excluded by this restriction:

Ikonboard MyBB Phorum SMF YaBB (I thought YaBB was GPL, but their downloads page says otherwise)

This would also give some of the more obscure titles more exposure.

Because this restriction has been in place since the category was created, I wanted to discuss this instead of just changing it myself...

Oldiesmann 16:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I've fixed it now by copying the standard "Category:Free whatever" intro. Gronky 18:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title of WikiProject

Greetings,

Iraneal has brought to my attention that term used to refer to software which has has its source code released is a point of contention, and that entitling the WikiProject "WikiProject Free Software" seems like it exhibits a bias towards one camp. Perhaps a re-titling is in order? Geekman314(contact me) 02:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Open Source was already tried, and it didn't work. Wikiproject Free Software is off to a pretty good start. Maybe it's that free software implies a slightly different scope (one that includes the ethical and political issues), maybe it's that the term "free software" has a clearer or more accepted definition, maybe it's that free software has a more defined history (did "open source" begin in 1998? 1983? the 50s?). IMO, changing what people have signed up for won't help. Gronky 02:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
As long as the project page is clear what "free" means in relation to the project, I don't see a problem. As Gronky points out, the flexibility of the term might help attract participants. It's rather ingenious to use an article for the definition... —EncMstr 02:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Retitled to what? There is no alternative that isn't ugly (FOSS, FLOSS) or stupid ("free / open source software", "free software / open source software"). And as Gronky points out, when talking about the actual software they are pretty much the same thing, but free software has a lot more philosophy and ethics articles. Although I think we should cover specifically open source related articles too. NicM 09:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

This project is still young, but it seems to be working out regardless of its name. You can count me as one of the "Stallman is a raving lunatic", "BSD beats GPL hands down", pro-Open Source camp, but I can live with calling this "Wikiproject Free Software" just fine. The internecine wars among the advocates of freely-available-source programming need to stop someday, why not start stopping now?

Besides, WPFLOSS would have to be group for either dentistry or G-string fans :-) RossPatterson 17:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll weigh in as the one who brought this whole thing up. Nine times out of ten, the two terms are completely compatible. What I try to avoid are projects/communities that are proponents of "Free Software" to the deliberate exclusion of the open source definition. When I was invited to participate in this project I checked the project page, found no mention of open source, and assumed it was intentional. The inclusion of this very discussion, however, proves otherwise, and I believe that Linus' intentions were to include as many Free Software/Open Source advocates as possible to make it a better project. In sum, I can live with "Free Software" as the title of the project. But it would still be nice (and inclusive, in the wikipedia tradition) to reference open source (and the compatibility of the two) somewhere in the project page. I know it's just semantics and hair-splitting for some, but for others (me, obviously) it makes a difference. Neal Locke

Free software used to mention in the intro that it is also called "open-source software". That seems to have disappeared at some point. I've just re-added it. Gronky 13:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article improvement

I believe that enough articles have been tagged that we should start really improving them in earnest. We should probably pick some articles to focus in particular on. Any ideas? Geekman314(contact me) 23:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google searches for WikiProject Free Software

I'm impressed: [1]. Also, with the inclusion of quotation marks to narrow the results: [2]. Geekman314(contact me) 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's how to link to the same searches with an interwiki link:
The trick is to represent inter-word spaces with  . --Teratornis 23:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate on free software subcats

People in this project may have ideas on how to improve categorization of free software on Wikipedia. I think we might want to improve the names, short descriptions, and/or generate a consensus as to what does and doesn't belong in the categories. This was brought up on Category talk:Free software#Typically, this means software in response to Talk:POV-Ray#Why is this in Category:Free graphics software, when it isn't Free?, so perhaps discussion should be centered in either or both of those other pages. --Karnesky 14:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a poll, as we're starting to get the same comments from the same small group of people. Talk:POV-Ray#Free software categorization straw poll --Karnesky 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think "Free X" categories should be zero cost and categories specifically for free software should be, eg, "Free software X". NicM 12:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
How about "Freeware X" and "Free software X?" --Karnesky 12:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That would perhaps be better. "Free X" is pretty ambiguous. The only problem with "Free software X" is that you could end up with clumsy titles like "Free software 3D graphics software," but I suppose it could always be "Free software 3D graphics programs." In either case, it makes clear that it is using "free software" as an attribute (possessing of a free software licence) rather than as a description (is software that is free, which is ambiguous). NicM 12:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
I would recommend that it remain "Free X software", but freeware be classified as "X freeware". Geekman314(contact me) 13:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't change the problem at all. NicM 13:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

It could always be "free software for 3D graphics". --Karnesky 15:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I could go for something like that. And since it puts "free" and "software" together in the title, there would, hopefully, not be the issues seen on POV-Ray talk. Also, I think the cat descriptions should prominently mention that "free software" has nothing to do with price. Furthermore, I don't think articles should be included in more than one Free, Free Software, or Freeware categories--only the most specific one that fits.--Hamitr 16:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that is ideal, it again seems to be putting the "free" before the "free software." My point is to avoid describing something as "free," which is very ambiguous and non-obvious, rather than as "free software," which is less so. "Free software for 3D graphics" can be read as "Free," "software for 3D graphics." whereas somthing like "Free software 3D graphics programs" cannot. NicM 00:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
I see your point (from the last half of your comment, at least). I could go for either as long as "free" and "software" are together. Of course my motivation is to remove as much ambiguity as possible, so whatever achieves that will get my vote. --Hamitr 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
"Free and open source software for X"? --Karnesky 01:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think both is necessary. I would pick either the FSF or OSI list of approved licenses and have either "Free software X" or "Open source X" categories. Everything else could go into whatever category is for free (zero cost) software ("Free X" or "Freeware X" or whatever). NicM 23:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
Neither individual list is comprehensive (it takes time to verify licenses), so I wouldn't like that.
Note also that there is ongoing talk on POV-Ray that "free software" is a generic term. I don't know how much to humor them--nothing less than something like "X software under a FSF-approved license" would seem to satisfy all detractors. --Karnesky 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Optimum level of sub-cats

Does anyone have an opinion on the number of sub-cat levels? For instance, the phpBB article is in Category:Free Internet forum software. If I go to that cat page, I kind of expect it to be a sub-cat of both Category:Free software and Category:Internet forum software. Instead, of Category:Free software, though, it is in Category:Free network-related software which is a sub-cat of Category:Free software.

The same is true for trying to get from Category:Free_3D_graphics_software to Category:Free software. It goes:

↑Category:Free software
↑Category:Free_application_software
↑Category:Free_graphics_software
↑Category:Free_3D_graphics_software

--Hamitr 16:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relation to: WikiProject Open Source

In #Title of WikiProject, Gronky says: WikiProject Open Source was already tried, and it didn't work. I have some questions:

  • What does "didn't work" mean?
  • Did the WikiProject's name have anything to with it "not working"?
  • WikiProject Open Source does not mention anything about the project "not working." Should it?
  • Why don't either of the following two project pages mention the other?
  • What is the relationship between these two WikiProjects? Are they working independently on exclusive sets of articles, or is one WikiProject trying to deprecate the other?

I personally don't care either way, but the presence of two WikiProjects that seem to overlap, yet seem oblivious to each other, may confuse some people. --Teratornis 00:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be doing much now anyway, I suspect not because of the name, more likely because the people who established it had less time/commitment or didn't get the word out as well. Gronky calls it free software and he has put a lot of effort into this WikiProject and pages like Portal:Free software, I don't think there is anyone similar who prefers the name open source. NicM 12:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Free_Software_3502.html"