Talk:Open Web Foundation

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software.

Internet

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Nomination for speedy deletion

This page is about a new foundation, do not delete. I have rephrased the text to remove copyright claims. Obviously this is still a stub that needs to be completed. Uiteoi (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for speedy deletion states: "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. If this is possible, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate. Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete"

The article was nominated for speedy deletion just minutes after its creation. I believe this is speedy nomination and that specifically no effort was made to consider if it could be improved in a way to not meet the speedy deletion criteria.

For now, though most of the information about the OWF comes from their website, there are good reasons to believe that this organization will play a very significant role in the proposal of standards for the world wide web and in particular with open data standards: The foundation was created by a group of well-known individuals, including Tim O'Reilly. The organization claims to be supported by the following companies:

   * BBC
   * Facebook
   * Google
   * MySpace
   * O'Reilly
   * Plaxo
   * Six Apart
   * Sourceforge
   * Vidoop
   * Yahoo!

I did not include these references so far because I did not find outside references for these claims but I would expect that these respected people would not make these claims. Uiteoi (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy deletion of this page, but please be aware that your statement above ("these respected people would not make these claims"" is not a valid reason to keep an article. I kept it because there were several cites from reliable sources included in the article (Washington Post, CNET, eWeek). We cannot speculate and we cannot publish rumor; we publish facts that have citations elsewhere. Frank | talk 14:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion now doesn't preclude recreation later. Day-old foundations evidently fail WP:MADEUP no matter who invented them, unless they receive substantial independent third-party coverage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the speedy deletion nomination. My point was that nomination had been done too fast, and certainly contrary to the guidelines for such nominations. You were quick to find reliable sources. It would have been much more constructive to start this way. Uiteoi (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that when creating an article, you do bear a responsibility for finding sources to back it up. Many thanks, Gazi moff_{(mentor/review)} 15:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the nomination was not premature; many articles are tagged (or deleted outright) within minutes of their creation. There are people who spend their time doing nothing else (or little else). What happened in this case was than another editor came along and found good references and added them (I didn't do it). Frank | talk 15:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I or anyone else did not have the time to provide reliable sources and the guidelines for speedy deletion nomination have been clearly violated as the nomination was done 7 minutes after its first edit and without any attempt to consider if the article could be improved!

Also I was not aware that the first author had the sole responsibility to provide all appropriate references within minutes. Please provide a reference for this statement.

Finally I believe that Wikipedia should not become a bureaucracy so cumbersome as to discourage the creation of new articles and other edits. Adding layers of rules does not help the cause of Wikipedia. I have spent way too much time nonsense and so did a few of you. This time would have been much better used adding actual content and references to the article. Uiteoi (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remain calm, please. It was evident from the first draught of the article that it concerned an entity which came into existence yesterday. Editors can still assume good faith in the creators while retaining a healthy doubt that an entity which came into existence yesterday does not yet have sufficient notability to warrant having an article on Wikipedia. The speedy deletion process here has worked exact;y as planned; a hangon tag was used to state the article's case, and it hasn't yet been deleted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the guideline for speedy deletion that states that "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved" was NOT violated. In 7 minutes nobody could have seriously considered the non-relevance of this organization. In fact, in just under a minute anyone would have found reliable sources and with a bit more work, these references could have been added. Uiteoi (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your points, You can find all the steps on article creation here, noting points 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10. A common method that I and others use is to create a user subpage to prepare and reference the article before moving it into the main space of the encyclopedia. That way, it's much less likely to get tagged for deletion. Hope this helps, Gazi moff_{(mentor/review)} 15:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with the goals of providing reliable sources, I still disagree with the speed at which the deletion was considered and the non-consideration for the relevance of the article in violation with nomination for speedy deletion guidelines. Also, making the creation process overcomplicated by requiring multiple steps and some form of immediate completion, does not serve Wikipedia. If Wikipedia had started this way 6 years ago, we would not have this conversation now. Too many rules kills the rules. Uiteoi (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating it for speedy deletion is not a guarantee it will be deleted. As has been pointed out above, this is what happened in this case. An administrator (me) looked at the request and decided that there was notability asserted and reliable sources provided, and declined to delete the article. As has also been pointed out above, the system is working. Keep in mind that there are literally millions of editors in this project - and people without accounts can edit too - and any of them can nominate an article for deletion. There are only about 1570 administrators who can actually delete an article (and not all are active). One of the qualities that the community looks for in an administrator is the judgment to know when an article should or should not be deleted. I make no statement as to whether this was nominated correctly or not, but I feel (even though biased since I was the one who did it) that the decline of the speedy deletion was the correct course of action. I would like to say that even if the refs hadn't been there when I got to it, I would still have declined to delete it, but I can't say 100% that is the case. However, there is a process for articles which are deleted which shouldn't have been - it's called deletion review. It is inevitable that there will be articles tagged for speedy deletion that won't be deleted. It is inevitable that there will be articles which are actually deleted which will, upon review, be restored. The system is working plenty well. Frank | talk 16:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is not with not deletion process but with the violation of nomination guidelines, where the first and second nominations were done without any consideration for improvement of the article and contrary to written guidelines. If there is a way to notify all administrators, I believe that the Wikipedia community at large would benefit from some form of restraint and minimal mandatory research prior to nominating an article for speedy deletion and according to stated guidelines. I believe that in this case, adding a stub template (which I later did add) would have been much more appropriate considering the age of the article. Uiteoi (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the article was first nominated, it was a copyright violation of the Open Web Foundation's web site, and would have been deleted very quickly if it hadn't been changed. The second nomination was also completely correct, because the article did not establish (or even assert) notability for the organization. You may disagree, but further discussion on this point here and now is probably not going to be fruitful. If you wish to contact the editor who tagged it, please feel free to do so. This is a community, and it survives and thrives by discussion among its many members. Frank | talk 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases the article could have been improved quickly and easily (and was) but no attempt was made to consider if the article could be improved by quick-to-shoot administrators in a clear violation of wikipedia guidelines that you do not want to recognize. The so-called copyright violation was not proven and in any case a very temporary mistake. As for discussion, we had it, and I have no intention to spend any more time on this or to become an administrator to make things change when Wikipedia is now full of conservative people willing to make it extra-difficult to edit Wikipedia. I have seen a growing number of contributors frustrated with what Wikipedia has become, in the past two years or so, and I am now part of them. Be assured that next time I have something to contribute I will think twice and do something more useful somewhere else. For years I have instructed people to contribute to Wikipedia, I will no longer do so. Keep killing it!

What wikipedia administrators are doing, in effect, is closing it. This is no longer 'Open' in any sense. Normal people (i.e. non-bot-geeks) can no longer make an edit without being flamed. You will end-up being a few thousands administrators incapable of adding content once you will have frustrated the millions of real contributors. Is the goal to reinforce Knol? You need to seriously review where you are heading before it's too late. Uiteoi (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop to consider whether you perhaps are not the first editor to have pronounced doom on the project in a state of hysteria because one article was tagged for speedy deletion after having only been recently created. As for the alleged copyright violation being "not proven", the bulk of the article's first revision was a word-for-word copy of the project's mission statement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point remains: the article could be improved and the administrators have failed to abide by their own guidelines. Uiteoi (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous comment I had provided a link to a blog entry I did about this controversy. And a well-intentioned user, or administrator blanked the link pointing that wikipedia should not be used to get blog hits. This could be reasonable if the post was not relevant to this incident but this just lets me know that Wikipedia is just going closed. Keep killing it!

So where do I send complaints about violations of wikipedia guidelines by its own administrators? Uiteoi (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could try going here, but I don't see anything really actionable about the actions of administrators in this case. They did nothing wrong. Nowhere is it required that someone improve a bad article before tagging it for speedy deletion. But if you want to pursue it, that option is available. S. Dean Jameson 00:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is written in the guidelines for speedy deletion that "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, ...". Don't you think this guideline was violated? Did an administrator consider whether the article could be improved? I am not asking an administrator to improve it, just to consider whether it can be improved, per wikipedia guidelines for speedy deletions. Uiteoi (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to know whether or not they did that. As for myself, I tag CSD sometimes, and I always consider that first. And, yes, seven minutes is plenty of time to do so. Often, less than one minute is enough, if the article is an obvious enough candidate. S. Dean Jameson 00:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a complaint at WP:ANI because I think this really deserves attention and action because overzealous actions by administrators will eventually bring all contributors out. Uiteoi (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on harping on this point? Although the article was deleted once, it was not deleted the second time. The article now exists and is in no danger of deletion. Why don't you just focus your efforts on improving the article? That is what Wikipedia is all about. The rest of it doesn't matter. It's all about the content. Every editor making every edit on this project is a volunteer. Just jump in -- the water's fine! Frank | talk 00:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't count on my contributions until this is resolved. Uiteoi (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What resolution do you want? Somebody's hands slapped? Somebody to be banned because they dared to suggest that your copyright violation should be deleted? Corvus cornix_talk 07:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody needs to be banned or slapped. What needs to happen is that wikipedia administrators, and would be administrators, need to be less hasty at slamming these tags in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. It is way too easy to slam these tags while someone is actually working on a new edit or article. As for the so-called copyright violation, it was maybe an improper citation of an extract of the charter of a public non-profit organization. Instead of slamming these tags, there are other ways, which in many case would be more appropriate, such as writing on the discussion page or to the (non-anonymous) user. You, the administrators, need to work on facilitating the work of contributors, while helping them provide content complying with wikipedia guidelines. --Uiteoi (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "so-called" copyright violation. That the organisation is a non-profit is irrelevant. Instead of lecturing established editors on supposed misapplication of policy, it might be a good idea to read up on it a bit more. Once again, this article is pretty much a model example of how contested deletion is meant to work. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have resumed work on the article though I am still not happy about where wikipedia is headed (check my user page for that). As the organization is still new, I, and hopefully others will make new edits as information comes. The organization is currently working on intellectual property and licensing that they expect to finalize within a few weeks. Discussions are held on a Google group that can be found on their website. Please do not delete or tag this article for deletion as this is a new organization and needs some time to show additional content. I am not a member of this organization although I intend to join. --Uiteoi (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]