User talk:Mbartosch

Welcome!

Hello, Mbartosch, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as OpenXPKI, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
How to write a great article
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Anton.bersh (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of OpenXPKI

The article OpenXPKI has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. I could find a couple documentation pages provided by the project itself, package manager pages, etc. but no in-depth coverage.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Anton.bersh (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About OpenXPKI

Hi, I saw that you recently edited OpenXPKI article and wondered if you could nelp improve the article further. Currently, the article reads like a review or advertisement. point to sources (third-party coverage like news articles, professional books, etc.). Or at least any sources that would help to make article verifiable as described in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have no idea if this is the right spot to answer to this message. I am not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia and I am not very familiar with the procedures involved authoring articles.

I would like to declare a conflict of interest regarding OpenXPKI. I am one of the founders of the project, I wrote the original design paper and I am involved with the commercial company that currently primarily develops and supports the Open Source variant of OpenXPKI as well as a commercial variant which is sold by our company.

However, I wrote the Wikipedia article on OpenXPKI on request of a person in the academic community. I wrote the article in good faith and accurately describe the capabilities of the PKI software OpenXPKI.

Although I know that OpenXPKI is actually widely used in organizations around the world I cannot point to any third party coverage on the software. The reason is probably that the PKI technology in itself is a niche market on which very little third party documentation and coverage exists.

If my conflict of interest of the fact that no third party coverage exists warrants deletion - go ahead. Mbartosch

@Mbartosch: Thanks for declaring your conflict of interest; doing so is good practice and proof that you're editing in good faith. While we generally discourage people from writing about themselves or their work, it's not prohibited. The fact that you have a conflict of interest should not influence the decision to delete or retain the article, either. It's the presence, or lack, of third-party coverage that will determine its fate.

A common misconception is that Wikipedia accepts articles on anything that exists, but this is not the case. Wikipedia is selective about the topics it includes. They must be notable - that is, of interest to the world at large and over a period of time. We look for evidence in reliable, third-party sources to gauge this interest. If a topic has received in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources, then it is considered worthy of inclusion. Conversely, if a topic lacks a sufficient quantity and quality of coverage, it won't be considered worthy of inclusion.

The project's website is a primary source of information; although it is permitted as a source for basic facts and figures, it won't count to establishing notability. Primary sources should be used sparingly, while the bulk of article content should be paraphrased summaries of third-party sources.

Therein lies the peril of editing about a topic where you have a conflict of interest. Because you have a vested interest in this software, it's difficult for you to be an objective judge of its notability, write about it from the perspective of a dispassionate outside observer, and only use information from independent sources. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Hello again. I regret to say that your last edit actually made the article much worse, because the article became largely a copy of the page http://www.openxpki.org/features.html. According to the copyright violation detection tool, it was an 86.7% match. I had to revert the article back to the version before this edit.

You cannot post copyrighted material on Wikipedia - even if you are the copyright holder - unless the material has been released for use by the verified copyright owner into the public domain or under a license compatible with Wikipedia. These licenses allow anyone — not just Wikipedia — to share, distribute, transmit, and adapt your work, free of charge and in perpetuity, provided that you are attributed as the author. Also, because some derivative works may be commercial, we cannot accept materials that are licensed only for educational use or even for general non-commercial use. Releasing the material is both permanent and irrevocable.

I'm sorry that this message was not more favourable. However, for policy and legal reasons, unreleased copyrighted material cannot exist on Wikipedia, even for a short time. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the allegation of a copyright violation.

@Drm310: I am the author of the article on http://www.openxpki.org/features.html so I own the copyright of this text.

For a proof of this claim see the change log of said web site: https://github.com/openxpki/openxpki.github.com/commits/master/features.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbartosch (talk • contribs)

@Mbartosch: A statement on this talk page is not sufficient proof of your ownership of copyright. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the proper procedure to donate copyrighted materials and provided copyright holder verification. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drm310: As you can see in the LICENSE file on the Github repository of the file containing the original information the entire OpenXPKI website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License. If this is not sufficent please let me know and I will add an additional licensing to the repository. 05:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I am confused. The license link [1] to me looks as if it applies to just the site's Jekyll theme, not its contents. As well, the OpenXPKI website has a footer stating "©2020 OpenXPKI", which to me suggests copyrighted content.

I'm not an experienced user with copyright questions, so if you agree, I'm willing to ask for a second opinion at the Wikipedia:Copyright problems noticeboard where more experienced users can respond. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drm310: The OpenXPKI web page is based on the Jekyll framework, in Git terms it was originally forked from https://github.com/scotte/jekyll-clean - including the original license which fit our goals. It is common practice to state a project's license in the LICENSE file in the top directory of a repository. Github takes licensing information of a procect from this file as well. In case of Jekyll the LICENSE file in the original already included the desired license, the Creative Commons License. Hence there was no need for us to modify it after forking from the original project. In my understanding the entire repository including the OpenXPKI website contents are published under the conditions of the original LICENSE. 14:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is the correct palce for OpenXPKI article

Please consider this:

1. Wikipedia is not a cratle of original thought, it a remarkable collection of layman knowledge. Most of the information on Wikipedia is written for a non-professional audience, so it typically covers only the base concepts and ideas. Detais of PKI architecture and info about particular implementations are probably too advanced for Wikipedia audience.

2. Existence or absence of an article does not assert anything about the worth of its subject. I understand the desire to "show and tell" the world everything about a thing you created or contributed to, but Wikipedia is not the place for it.

4. Incorrect information is worse than no information at all. I noticed that articles on such niche and advanced topics eventually become inaccurate. Unless someone knowledgeable makes a point to subscribe to notifications about every change to this article and review them regularly, this is almost unavoidable. I actually saw how a misconception written on a page about a niche technology actually harmed people trying to deploy this technology. (I don't know whether Wikipedia was the only/primary spreader of that misconception, but that seems likely.)

The project's site probably would be a better place for that article. https://www.openxpki.org/ actually ranks higher than Wikipedia article.

Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton.bersh: Then I would suggest to go ahead and delete the OpenXPKI page. On the same account one could argue the same applies to a multitude of other Open Source software projects I found on Wikipedia or deeply scientific topics which are surely not understandable by layman. Mbartosch (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably quite correct in that assessment. Plenty of articles exist that probably should not and should also be deleted, but nobody has noticed them and listed them for deletion yet. With over 6.2 million articles, some unsuitable ones will inevitably slip in, and possibly exist for years without anyone aware of it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbartosch: Could you list pages that appear to be non-notable? Also, note that you can propose deletion yourself via WP:PROD and WP:AfD. FYI, some articles are stubs, which were created by bots a long time ago to establish naming convention and allow non-registered users to contribute. Articles should be deleted if their topic is not notable. Anton.bersh (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbartosch: For a reference what it takes to create a "good" article on a "technical" subject on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Good articles/Engineering and technology shows articles about "technology"-related deemed "good". While many are really non-technical, there are a few in-depth ones. For example, DNS Certification Authority Authorization is one of them. Here is how it looked at the time of the review. You probably can see that writing and sourcing all that takes a significant ammount of time.

I'd be glad to help you improve OpenXPKI (may be not to the "Good Article" level), if you have the time to find sources for it. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of OpenXPKI for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article OpenXPKI is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenXPKI until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Anton.bersh (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Userfication as an alternative to deletion

At this point it's clear that OpenXPKI shouldn't stay up at its present place, but it does not have to be deleted. The article can be "userficated", basically moved to a different URL, for example User:Mbartosc/OpenXPKI. That would allow you and anyone connected with the project edit it without violating WP:COI rules. Then, once the article has objective encyclopedic coverage and decent number of sources it can be moved to "official" place. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:OpenXPKI

Hello, Mbartosch. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "OpenXPKI".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]