Does bitweaver deserve a Wikipedia page?

It seems we are facing similar problem like the guys from Openbravo - bitweaver has been actively deleted from Wikipedia. After several failed attempts to create the page, it was even deleted from the List of content management systems. The Bitweaver Wikipedia "issue" should be resolved as fast as possible.

With all its pros, Wikipedia can be nicely rude with special set of factors. In bitweaver's case this meant people biased or absolutely not knowing what they were speaking about in the deletion discussions and blind admins. You can amuse yourself with the article logs then only.

Given you are the same believing fool as me, you can do one of the following:

participate in the deletion review (update: closed for now)
talk to the admin
or commnet on the talk page

Update: Feel free to contribute to my Bitweaver proposal page.

Take care,
Kozuch

This seems unusal. Which interest can there be NOT to list bitweaver in a place like the Wikipedia. It shouldn't be possible for "special" Wikipedia users to push their private interests!

But for that unprotection service we'd have to write to some admin guy who would then decide wether he likes what he sees or he doesn't?? How can that not be pointless. There's just some guy/girl with a personal grudge, who's admin, and we're not. I suggest we get a rat in there. Somebody, preferrebly a young child of one of our developers, should grow up without ANYBODY not even himself knowing who his father is. He or she should than be secretely instructed to become a Wikipedia admin and start a revolution which leads to democracy. We won.

Wikipedia have one rule - if someone complains then an entry gets removed. If *WE* complain about every other CMS listed in Wikipedia then they can be removed as well. *ADDING* information is something wikipedia are not interested in. Therefore I'm quite happy to point people to any OTHER online facility and strip any references to wikipedia until they become a little more democratic.
Just put 'wikipedia sucks' into google - 1/2 a million hits!
The problem is there are too many alternatives BECAUSE wikipedia is so disliked and we need a shakedown so that a smaller number get wider support :(

I belive Kozuch's approach can be useful, though I wonder on what reasons the original article failed to meet the wikipedia standards. I followed up at least one of Kozuch's feedback's to the admin and hope it may help. On the other hand there is nothing that stop anyone writing articles in the other languages. I would therefore suggest to do so, but maybe there is a person skilled in wikipedia literacy that could outline and create an master page which could be translated into some languages and proposed for wikipedia. I think that it should be respected the need of references and sources when anything touchy may be claimed so that an article won't be barred again. If sources and references are provided it is also easier to stand against criticism and unfound argumentation because counter references must be brought in to proof or construct an dispute. I do not remember much from the article on wikipedia, but have started an talk about it to see if the admins could give some details on what steps may be needed to make the article pass through. Not sure it will lead to any change though.

Anyway good luck :-)

The reason for the initial deletion back in 2006 (after a painful, prolonged debate) is we met all the "notability" (bull@#$%) requirements ( see notable software policy ) except we have not been reviewed by a "major industry publication". All we need to do is to get (or submit) a review from www.phparch.com or similar. If there is a nuetral user willing to fairly evaluate bitweaver R2, and work with phparch or similar site to get a reivew up, that would be fabulous. And we could tie it in to an official R2 launch, which we still haven't gotten aronud to doing.

The wikipedia things sucks, because wikipedia is fundamentally flawed by it's strict adherence to the Penny Arcade Greater Internet @#$%wad Theory. That we cannot fix, and should not fight. However, I suggest we put all of our effort into getting reviewed, as that will solve two problems at once (more exposure, and securing an wikipedia entry).

innanzitutto credo che il link a wikipedia si dovrebbe togliere dalla vostra prima pagina, (perchè gli fate pubblicità) probabilmente non vi accettano perchè l'editore della sezione CMS sarà un vostro concorrente o qualc'uno pagato da altri cms che si preoccupano di voi e del vostro lavoro.
Se vi può interessare, sarei felice di pubblicare una recensione di bitweaver sul mio sito vostroportale.it

(:exclaim:)Hi,

I have to upgrade bitweaver 2.0.0 pre alph to latest stable version 2.0.2 on a production system.
What care to be taken without disturbing the current version.

Need help asap!!

Thanks in advance,
RK

Does bitweaver deserve a Wikipedia page?

Comments

Follow a good example

Re: Follow a good example

bitweaver upgrade