Talk:Mike Shaver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 3, 2005. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents

[edit] Discussion

Shaver's a founding member of the Mozilla Project, an open-source rockstar, and a strong voice in the emerging field of open source business models.

Let's be consistent, people. If Blake Ross is important enough to have a page, then so is Mike Shaver.

This is where I'm at so far. I'll continue to edit in here, I guess.

Mike Shaver (born in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, on February 17, 1977, the year of disco and Star Wars) is a software developer who is known for his work on multiple open source projects. He is at least partially responsible for a good deal of the technology that makes today's web pages interactive, such as the Javascript language, and yet resolutely refuses to accept responsibility. He also makes a BBQ lamb steak with crumbed blue cheese that is out of this world.

After a high school career that can at best be called "confrontational", Mike began working with Ingenia Communications, an Ottawa area computer consultancy. His machinations saw him rise from a humble summer student who worked as a system administrator and software developer to chief system architect and eventually CTO. Having exhausted all that Canada had to offer a young, up-and-coming technology tyrant, Shaver began working with Netscape Communications. His modus opperandi was similar: beginning as a visiting developer, he quickly rose through the ranks and eventually gained Internet fame by becoming a founding member of the Mozilla Organization in 1999. And yet, the authorities never took notice.

Yes, that last sentence completely redeems you. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

For what it's worth, I agree with Beltzner here. Mike has been (and continues to be) a major force in the Open Source community in several ways, and so long as this page is edited to meet NPOV requirements, should be allowed to exist. Outright deletion (particularly while the article is in-progress) seems a shade harsh. -- Dria 05:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits are killing America (and in subtler ways, boring people to tears)

re: "it's not a good picture anyway" -- it's the one on his blog, people.

re: "article cites no sources to support it" -- I cite the subject, Mike Shaver; as to its importance, I think it's important for people to know that not everyone who ended up getting somewhere in the world had the best grades in high school.

Also, fwiw, and while I defer to your editing prowess, NPOV != boring writing. It's possible to be interesting and yet neutral.

People don't read an encyclopedia to be amused (that's what Uncyclopedia is for), they read it to learn about something. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
I find it hard to believe that making something interesting (or even amusing!) somehow prevents learning. The two are not mutually exclusive. --GavinSharp (Talk | Block)
I'm sure there's a policy on this somewhere, I just don't know where. My lack of experience betrays me. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
I believe you're referring to NPOV, which has no mention about use of humour. Nor is there a style guide for biographies (that I can find). Also note something in Gavin's comment that I agree with: interesting writing isn't neccessarily humour writing. Beltzner
Sigh. Once again the phrase "his job is to know what's wrong with your technology, your business model, your licensing arrangements and maybe even your technique for barbecuing food" has been edited out. I give up. If anyone cares, that is a valid description of his job. Certainly a more informative one than "Technology Strategist", which barely covers the gamut. Emulating the style of an encyclopedia at the cost of reducing the value of the information does not lend credibility. Beltzner
Emulating the style of an encyclopedia within an encyclopedia (which is what this project is supposed to be) does indeed lend credibility. Deviating from an encylopedic style while within this encyclopedia is what damages credibility, and gets folks like me to nominate the page for AfD. If the early edits of the page had looked like the current edit of the page, free from the tongue-in-cheek business, I would have never suspected it of being a backhanded attack page and wouldn't have nominated it for deletion. Wikipedia is not a free hosting service for homepages. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It's the perfect picture

As someone who has met him in person, that's a good picture. Also, learning can be fun, I don't see why biographies can't be a little more lighthearted maybe there's a middle ground.

[edit] Why not deletion?

I am not clear, after reading the available previous discussion, why the Mike Shaver article was not deleted. If Mike Shaver is a "minor notable" then perhaps thousands (or tens of thousands) of other software developers are notable as well, so why don't they have Wikipedia articles too? (not a good idea) Also, (as noted above) because Blake Ross has an article, then does that mean Mike Shaver should have one? I don't think that's good logic. The article needs to support (with citations) the reason for Mike Shaver's notability. This evidence would provide evidence that the article is worthy for Wikipedia.Que-Can 18:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

-- Here is my story about Mike. I am getting into firefox and how to use it to my advantage, as well as how it came about. Mike Shaver's name is cited in two different blogs about it as a recognized authority. I come to wikipedia to see if there is a npov about him. I find this article. I am happy, as it gives me a clear, concise take on who the guy is.

Sure, many minor notables don't have their own page yet - wikipedia is relatively young. But just because wikipedians haven't YET taken note of somebody doesn't mean they aren't subjects of legitimate knowledge that wikipedia can provide to the world of those who want it. The minor notables who deserve it will end up with their own page. Those who get their first...well - more power to them!

Minor notable? Maybe. But isn't that exactly what is great about wikipedia - that people in niches can get quality information even if the person hasn't received "mainstream" approval?

Please don't delete this article.Teloscientist 00:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

--

Mike Shaver meets the notability guideline for creative professionals. "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Having been at Netscape in 1997, I can personally vouch that Mike had a key role in the creation of what eventually became Firefox, and that Mozilla and Firefox meet the "multiple independent periodical articles" criteria. I am removing the notability complaint, revert it if you want. -- Rob McCool, 06 Aug 2007.