Talk:Karrigell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] "Controversies" section

I am removing the "controversies" section given that there are no published, reliable sources on the topic (content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable), and also because it is factually incorrect due to the editor's misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia as well as the reason for deletion, and Wikipedia's deletion processes. The section said:

"Wikipedia administrators accused the Karrigell community of creating the Karrigell article for use as an advertisement and as a tutorial to using the framework. Most Karrigell developers argued though that since there were very few negative points about the subject that there was little to pick apart about it. Also Karrigell developers point out that since Wikipedia is open and allows anyone to edit the page that anyone would be welcome to add anything to the article whether it be negative or positive."

1. The only Wikipedia administrator involved here was the one who deleted it in full accordance with the proposed deletion process. This deletion process means that articles tagged with a proposed deletion tag are deleted after five days when nobody has shown enough interest to remove the deletion tag. I was the one who tagged it, since it conflicted with several Wikipedia policies.
2. "anyone would be welcome to add anything to the article whether it be negative or positive" — this conflicts with any and every Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In addition to that, people who are associated with some particular organization (hence potentially having a conflict of interest) are discouraged from editing Wikipedia on these topics.
3. "and as a tutorial to using the framework" — ditto; Wikipedia is not the place for tutorials or manuals, it is an encyclopedia.
4. "for use as an advertisement" — part of the concern for this article was that "it was written like an advertisement", not that it was used as an advertisement. What this means is that the article was presenting non-neutral claims as facts, not as different points of view — that is what advertisements do.

The fact that you went ahead and re-created this article just shows your arrogance and negligence for Wikipedia rather than solving anything. -- intgr 17:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note that nobody is "accusing" anyone; the deletion was proposed for the simple reason that the article did not conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- intgr 18:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I published the first article about Karrigell in Wikipedia. It was proposed for deletion a first time, shortly after being published. Me and other members from the community changed the content to adapt to Wikipedia guidelines. It remained on line and unchanged for a couple of months, which made us think it was compatible with your policies

Then it was again proposed for deletion recently for the reasons you explain. No one saw the "prod" within the 5 days, which explains we didn't react on time. Our mistake

I understand you miss evidence of Karrigell's notability, established by independant sources. I try to list here a number of elements proving that, although not as popular as other web frameworks in Python, it has a real place in the community of web developers :

- googling for "karrigell python" on the web returns 80.000 answers, on groups : 710 answers. There are quotes in English, French, Italian, Chinese, German, Russian etc.

- it was quoted 65 times on the official Python usenet group (comp.lang.python) - and not only by members of the community, although it's difficult to count

- the software was first published on sourceforge (http://karrigell.sourceforge.net) in November 2002. Since then it has been downloaded 10.321 times (on April 23, 2007), according to the statistics page

- the Karrigell usenet group (http://groups.google.com/group/karrigell?lnk=li) started in beginning 2006. It has 133 subscribers at this date and received 910 messages so far

- it was reviewed in devshed : http://www.devshed.com/c/a/Python/Karrigell-for-Python/ by someone who is completely independant from the community. Quote from the first page of this review : "While Karrigell is very powerful and flexible, offering multiple solutions to web development, it is surprisingly simple to set up and work with. Python novices won't find any obstacles when working with Karrigell, and Python experts won't feel too limited. It offers its own web server that gets the job done, but it also can be easily integrated with technologies such as Apache, so you do not have to sacrifice the use of other technologies when choosing Karrigell."

- a book published by O'Reilly on programming with Python (Apprendre à programmer avec Python, by Gerard Swinnen) chose Karrigell as the example of a Python web framework : see http://www.cifen.ulg.ac.be/inforef/swi/python.htm, chapter 17. The book can be viewed on line and the part mentioning Karrigell is here on Wikibooks : http://fr.wikibooks.org/wiki/Apprendre_%C3%A0_programmer_avec_Python/Applications_web#Installation_de_Karrigell.

- the book was written in French ; a translation in Hungarian is available on line : http://www.cifen.ulg.ac.be/inforef/swi/download/python_forditas.pdf

Should the article mention these references to be more acceptable ?

Quentel 09:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, listing published sources such as books and independent reviews are indeed the way to establish notability, although there are just two sources for now.

The rest of your comment seems to confuse notability with popularity. For a rationale of requiring notability, you can read WP:N#Rationale for requiring a level of notability.

"No one saw the "prod" within the 5 days, which explains we didn't react on time. Our mistake"

You needn't react in five days — articles that were deleted through the proposed deletion process are normally restored on request at deletion review.

I am concerned about articles like this turning into fancruft — only edited by a small number of people who all have a conflict of interest, especially considering that the primary author of this version of the article has been uncooperative. Per the conflict of interest guideline, people who have a direct connection to the subject should not be editing an article in the first place.

As it is now, the article yet again makes non-neutral claims without citations, and without pointing out who holds that belief, using weasel words. -- intgr 14:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the article, Quentel; you are on the right track. -- intgr 21:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I use karrigell

I don't know if it means anything to anyone, but I personally use the karrigell framework at work. Christopher Mahan 21:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted again (?)

I don't understand... This page was deleted a few weeks ago, then re-created, there was a discussion with an administrator requiring more evidence for notability and references of what was stated ; I edited the entry and got a positive feedback from the same admin last week... Now I see that the page has been created once again (that's version 3), with the same content as the initial version 2. Was version 2 deleted meanwhile ? Why ?

Quentel 13:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't want to get into an admin war, but can we just keep the page? I use karrigell in production at a fortune 500. Just because it's obscure to some people, and because it does not reference its sources (it does, in the way of a primary reference--the author of the framework edits this page directly), does not mean this does not belong. Anyway, I'll keep this on my watchlist. Christopher Mahan 17:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the previous content of this talk page. -- intgr 18:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cristopher Mahan: As an administrator, you should be well aware that "I like it" and "I've heard of it" are not legitimate reasons for deciding whether an article should be kept; while I am not opposed to having this article, it clearly does not establish its notability (just one good source), and the repeated re-creation is a clear indication that someone is not acting in the interest of improving Wikipedia — given that there has not been a single request at WP:DELREV, just blatant re-creation with old content. -- intgr 18:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Quentel: PS, I am not an administrator; I initially proposed the article for deletion due to policy concerns and later offered advice to you, but that's where my relations end. -- intgr 18:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

intgr, I understand where you're coming from, but as I witnessed the forming of some of the policies, I can tell you that they should not be considered law. It's a wiki after all, and as Jimbo said once: We're not running out of disk space. I do appreciate your taking the rake out to clean the yard, though. Christopher Mahan 00:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

intgr, I understand where you are coming from, and I think you may be getting upset. First, the notability guidelines are a guideline. Exceptions can be made. Karrigell is an established web framework, has been in existence since 2002. See http://directory.fsf.org/all/karrigell.html from the Free Software Foundation, See http://packages.debian.org/unstable/web/karrigell-demo for the debian package. See http://cheeseshop.python.org/pypi/Karrigell/2.3.4 for the page at Python.org. See http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/14463 for a securityfocus advisory on karrigell. See http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2006-August/396367.html for a mailing list post by a user (not the author), See http://osvdb.org/displayvuln.php?osvdb_id=18506, See http://secunia.com/product/5478/ (you have heard of secunia, right?) see http://xforce.iss.net/xforce/xfdb/21668, See http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?cvename=CVE-2005-2483 from the US National Institute of Standards and technology, part of the Department of Homeland Security.

To make a long story short: Karrigell may seem like a pet project, but in fact is used in fortune 500s in production environments and is used by a narrow number of people in very serious environments. You don't go delete the CURL article because it's not referenced in a newspaper article, do you? See Django_(web_framework), TurboGears, Pylons (web framework) for software that does very similar things.

So with all due respect, I will have to ask you to refrain yourself from deleting this article. If you wish to put it again into the "request for deletion" for a time (2-3 weeks or more) and let the participants and interested parties have a say one way or another, that would be all right with me. I would prefer to keep this civil as there is already too much traffic in wikiEN. Sincerely. Christopher Mahan 18:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"I will have to ask you to refrain yourself from deleting this article."

I got the impression that your comment was directed to me, but I have not deleted the article, beyond prodding it once way back — and I am not even an administrator, so even if I wanted to, I couldn't delete it.

To continue my nagging: as an administrator, I would expect you to be aware of the deletion review process for restoring articles (which the last delete explicitly mentioned [1]), and you should be aware that edit warring and wheel warring only serves to escalate conflicts.

"and I think you may be getting upset."

I was never upset about this article being here; However, I am starting to get disappointed with your neglect for established conventions and processes on Wikipedia.

"I can tell you that they should not be considered law."

If you are going to override guidelines then I would not expect a single person's judgment to be sufficient; WP:IAR states "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." Correct me if I'm wrong, but my interpretation of that is that ignoring the rules implies a consensus, since what constitutes an "improvement" is inherently not universal. Additionally, IAR is also meant for new users not familiar with policies. Surely a community could never work if every person could always do what they wished, ignoring everyone else. This is what deletion review is about — to discuss whether the deletion of an article was justified.

As far as I can see, the notability guideline was written so that articles that could not become neutral and verifiable could be deleted. Is there a reason for overriding these policies in this case, too?

One of the rationales behind the notability guideline states "and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors." which appears to be happening here; the article was repeatedly re-created by users who have hardly edited other articles, and likely with a conflict of interest, and now you are endorsing their behavior with administrative measures.

The URLs you listed do not help with establishing notability.

"You don't go delete the CURL article because it's not referenced in a newspaper article, do you?"

WP:ININ.

-- intgr 02:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)