User:GavriilaDmitriev/FOSS assessment
 | The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. |
Preface
[edit]This proposal agrees and don't aim to conflict with
Current problem
[edit]Currently big articles are getting optimized further from multiple Wiki Projects since all use the same guidelines.
Example: The article Linux is an article interest from 7 different Wiki Projects (including us).
Currently these articles are part of our Top importance list:
I don't think that we are able to contribute a significant effect if we consider those articles as Top priority and work on those further.
Intention of a new FOSS assessment system
[edit]Prioritization based on need, support of FOSS and demand by the community. Bottom-up approach instead of pushing the dinosaurs further.
We should ask ourselves:
- How important is this piece of software current in the FOSS space?
- Does it gets recommended on popular listings as privacytools/privacyguides or so called awesome listings?
- Can we prevent young FOSS articles fall victim Wikipedia:Articles for deletion due to maintainer struggle to find secondary sources or because no one supports them and it ends up in a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
- How can we align our work more with the needs of the FOSS community
- Can we help someone who wants to use FOSS software to make the right decision?
Open Questions
[edit]- How to ensure that all possible topics fall in one of the mentioned criteria?
- How to ensure that articles not regularly fall into multiple criteria? E.g.: Richard Stallman falls into Low (due to well established article) and Mid (Stallman being an important figurehead for the FOSS community)
- How to make publicly clear that this is according to the rules of Wikipedia mentioned in the preface?
- Do we from the FOSS Task Force agree with the additional workload to reevaluate all currently FOSS related articles of almost 3000 articles?
Importance scale
[edit]| Importance | Criteria | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Top | - Handpicked topics by FOSS Task Force | |
| High | - New FOSS projects in recent use but struggle with secondary sources but have a chance to fulfill Wikipedia:Notability
- Lists and comparisons of FOSS |
- Nitter, Freetube, Pixelfed, Invidious
- List of password managers, List of free and open-source software packages |
| Mid | - FOSS in widespread use but superseeded by newer FOSS projects
- Topics which are suited to promote FOSS ideas |
- Zabbix, OpenOffice.org
- Richard Stallman, Chromium (web browser), Android Open Source Project |
| Low | - Well established articles, usually already high or mid quality
- FOSS of mostly historical relevance (includes unmaintained software) or changed to closed source |
- Ubuntu, Copyleft, Plan 9 from Bell Labs |