Ejabberd threatened English wikipedia article

    The other day, passions thundered over the hubr about the removal of an article about QutIM on the English-language Wikipedia ( habrahabr.ru/blogs/im/78756 ). Then came an article explaining why, in terms of rules, Wikipedia moderators are right ( habrahabr.ru/blogs/wikipedia/78789 ).

    However, this is far from the end, as strange things continue to happen. Next in turn is an open source jabber server written in erlang. In an article about him more than seventy! links to sources of information. However, the same character (someone Miami33139 claims that the article is about an undeserving product).

    Ejabbered - a jabber server written in the erlang language. They are used by Nokia, LiveJournal, Yandex and Facebook.
    Gathered to delete it for
    • insignificance
      This is a minor product. The provided links contain only information from the official site about its new versions. Miami33139
    • too narrow specialization
      There is every chance that a person who does not professionally do these things will not even know what it is
    • unverifiable
      blogs, facebook pages, more blogs - this is not what we had in mind, requiring the provision of reliable sources from independent individuals

    It is written here that the English-language Wikipedia performs global cleaning of all Jabber-oriented content
    Pages about some XMPP programs have already been deleted (Coccinella (he did not know about QutIM)) and it seems that the rest will be deleted in the near future (Exodus, Gajim, ejabberd)

    I want to add one more thing. The English-language Wikipedia page on the rules for posting information Reliable sources (English) says the following

    This document is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow, but it’s best to do it using common sense.

    It is unfortunate that moderators consider themselves entitled to ignore the common sense of other Wikipedia participants.

    Threat. I don’t give a link to the article about removal - think well before writing anything - there are already written a lot of correct comments about why the article should be left. Arrivals and exclamations "Yes, you are completely foolish there," we will not achieve anything. I propose to act deliberately. I don’t know how yet, but I think we’ll decide together.

    upd: track13 suggested that at the time the article was posted for deletion, it contained only links to the project developers themselves.

    Also popular now: