Johnny A. Solbu a écrit :
On Saturday 19 May 2012 14:24, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
The guy (or gal) who decided about notable or not must be either a
very bad researcher or did not try at all
That's not the issiue. it mus be apparent from the article itself why it is
notable. If it is not apparent from the article why it is notable, then it is
not notable. It really is that simple.
even if you look with half an eye only you can't miss
international reactions and notablility of Mageia.
That is of no help if neither is used as sources for what's written in the
article.
It can be compared to what happens in court. It's not what you know, but what
you can prove in the court.
Of course wikipedia pages in other languages
must be very hard to find for this person.
You can't use another wikipedia article as source. That is original research.
If one could one culd write an article about X and use the article about Y as
source, and in teh Y article use X as source. Then you have the circular
argument problem.
A part of the problem is that "notable" is not well defined in Wikipedia.
In the context of Linux or open source, it is obvious to anyone
implicated in these areas that Mageia is notable. But for
computer-field ignorant, that doesn't mean anything.
Most scientific articles that I have read in Wikipedia do not qualify as
"notable" by the definition given in Wikipedia, so "notable" is not
applied in a coherant manner.
So what is really needed is correcting the definition of notable in
Wikipedia, or at least correcting it's domain of application.
Of course, we can always do some manipulation to make Mageia qualify,
but that doesn't correct the considerable weakness in Wikipedia.
--
André
