----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joe Brockmeier" <j...@zonker.net> > To: cloudstack-marketing@incubator.apache.org > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:33:50 AM > Subject: Re: Elevator Pitch / Top N Features > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Musayev, Ilya wrote: > > I see your point, on the other hand, if you mention what is true, > > you > > don't overstate or beat your competitor, I don't believe we should > > have > > an issue. > > > > We are only mentioning the facts. In addition, many of us are not > > affiliated with Citrix, though we are affiliated with the project > > this is > > still community lead effort. > > Not sure what a Citrix affiliation would have to do with Apache > CloudStack. ;-) > > Being community led doesn't make a difference, IMHO, from the vantage > of > a Wikipedia "editor" who is looking at contributions coming in with > an > eye for bias/gaming the page. > > > I don't believe we should just let Wikipedia page stay outdated and > > wait > > for someone else to do it - as it may never happen - or happen with > > considerable amount of delay (I.e. we are on version 4.1 and > > article > > mentions 3.x). Lots of things have changed since then and the > > person who > > updates the wiki may not have enough expertise to write about > > something > > he does not know about. > > Totally agree with this. If the wikipedia article says "current > release > is 3.x" then I think we're empowered to change that. > > For instance, looking at the page I noticed the stable release info > was > outdated - so I edited that. Purely factual, I can't imagine anyone > can > complain about that edit. > > On the other hand, coordinating on the list to discuss how to > *promote* > ACS via Wikipedia may well be viewed unfavorably. > > > If we stay ethically correct, state only facts, don't down play on > > competitors and this comes from the community, my humble opinion, > > we > > should be ok. > > > > Thoughts? > > See above - but "comes from the community" won't necessarily be > viewed > as a "defense" if it looks like we're editing the page impartially. > > I think we should take an active interest in making sure the page is > accurate and current, and any community member can do that. I start > to > worry when it comes to talking about using promotional text from our > Web > site on Wikipedia. That would probably be viewed unfavorably.
Perhaps it would be useful to have a release-day marketing task list, where a few kind volunteers can take care of various updates that need to be done - including perhaps updating the current basics of release information on wikipedia? I think there's a subtle difference between "promotional text" and "just the basics" - when it comes to things like feature descriptions, I think there's certainly room for various interpretations that all have their own benefits, thought obviously it's a matter of who's willing to do the work, let alone do it in multiple ways :) The "just the facts" vs. "SHINY AND COMPELLING things you MUST HAVE!" marketing version is one way to look at it - wikipedia would obviously benefit more from "just the facts." In the past, in Fedora (sorry, the only example I have) we've done Talking Points, which were intended for the purposes of letting the good people who help promote Fedora have a concise, human-readable (ie: not amazingly-detailed engineering-heavy) version of highlighted release features. Note that there are extended details, as well as a bulletpoint-type "bottom line" description, the latter being something that might be more easily extended to drop into wikipedia (IMO). https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_14_talking_points -robyn > > Best, > > jzb > -- > Joe Brockmeier > j...@zonker.net > Twitter: @jzb > http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ >
