Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative terms for free software

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, a suggestion was made to rename the page which can be discussed on the talk page. Rx StrangeLove 03:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative terms for free software

This is just a thinly veiled attempt to merge a series of FOSS articles without consensus. It's a duplicate of content that already exists in the other articles. One reason cited to create the article was that the other articles were POV, but that's not a valid reason to create a new article. The title of the article itself is POV, as many would disagree that one is necessarily an alterntive term for the other. Nathan J. Yoder 16:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Nathan J. Yoder 16:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I beg others to check what Njyoder is saying. The talk page for the article never says anything about other articles being POV. The Talk page says that this article is a consolidation of other articles, so yes it currently duplicates info on those articles. The reason for creating this page is that the other pages duplicate a lot of information (sometimes with inaccuracies, and those differ from article to article), and a secondary issue is that quality of the other pages seems to suggest that have few wikipedians caring for them (and this is a situation which has not been changing over the years) - merging to one article would combine their efforts. I plan to suggest a merge of the articles in question, when I've finished making this page. On the issue of POV, which has not been raised by me, but since it has been raised by the person requesting deletion of this page, combined efforts will bring more eyeballs to this page and more eyeballs should lead to less POV.

The articles which I've suggested merging into this article are libre software, FLOSS, FOSS, and OSS/FS. There may also exist others (of lesser size / of less known terms). Each is an alternative name for free software. Some can be thought of as an alternative name for "both free software and open source software", but, "open source software" is, by definition, an alternative name for "free software" [1]. So I maintain that this page and it's name are accurate and would be an improvemet over the current situation. Finally, I would like to note that I only started this article a few minutes before it was suggested for delection, and I have commented that it's not yet ready, and I have continued to improve it since. It is therefore a work in progress (although a good one, IMO) and can of course me modified by anyone. Gronky 17:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You said: " Current pages for such terms are fairly thin, and go through phases of being biased." Correct me if I'm wrong, but 'biased' means POV. You've conceded that you've done a unilateral merge without consensus. The names "open source" and "free software" are associated with philosophies and movements as well, they're not just definitions for licenses, so it's misleading to classify them as that. Nathan J. Yoder 17:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

They go through phase of containing POV. POV isn't a persistant problem, but consistancy is a persistant problem. It appears that not many people are caring for these pages, and when edits are made it's by one person and it an go weeks or months without review. Also, I have not done any merge - not unilateral or multilateral. I have made a page which I hope will reach (or has already reached) a quality and usefulness where I can propose it for a merge. The philosophies put forward by FSF and OSI are indeed different, but this does not make FLOSS different from free software. Gronky 17:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

So you admit you brought up POV then. You did merge the content, you took it from the articles and you stuck it in this one. That's called merging, it seems like the only means you have to counter my argument is some very weird semantic argument using a bizzare version of English that only you speak. And the philosophies are different, which means the associations between the terms are different, which means you can't just blindly substitute one for another as an "alternative." Meanings of words go beyond just what they are formally defined as. For example, the dictionary definition of "propaganda" is benign, but anyone who speaks the language knows it has an obvious negative connatation/meaning attached to it. And the idea that some of the terms are alternatives to others implies a certain inferiority as well. Nathan J. Yoder 01:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

"Merge" is a wikipedia term, as well you know. It means, approximately, to stick on a tag that suggests replacing many articles with 1. My page is not a merge. On the word "Alternatives", I've already agreed to remove the word. And you know this too. To steer clear of philosophical implications, in the article I try to talk about software "that is covered by the names discussed in this article". I can't think of a fairer method than that, and now that you've advertised this on the open-source software Talk page, that one side of the debate can contribute to the article if they feel there's misrepresentation. It's a wiki, the community can fix it. Gronky 10:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

He left out that he also suggested merging open source software as well. Nathan J. Yoder 17:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not suggest merging open source software. I said "Ideally, open source software should also be merged into this, but if the maintainers of that page want to continue as a seperate page, that's what'll happen." - i.e. I will not do a merge of open source software, and I may not even suggest it, but I will mention this page on the Talk page of open source software, and if they want to merge in, that would probably be good (but it's up to them, and I say "probably" because that debate is not for today and I don't have a firm stance on it) Gronky 17:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That was obviously a suggestion, stop trying to back out of it by arguing semantics. Nathan J. Yoder 01:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, regarding the nomination, I just noticed another false criticism. This is not duplicate content. It contains some duplicate content, but if you read the article there is plent of new stuff in there. (Stuff that would be silly to put in each terms page since that would be more duplication, and stuff that can't fit in each term's page because it deals with how the terms relate to eachother.) Gronky 19:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What content ISN'T a duplication? Nathan J. Yoder 01:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The Definitions and meanings section and the Licenses section are both new. Other new bits are included throughout the article. And I'm still working on the article (although slower than I had hoped - due to being busy). Gronky 03:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

They're new sections with duplicated content from other sections. The types of licenses covered, the history of the definitions/terms, the attempted registering of the trademark and so forth are all covered by the other articles. You're still using semantics to twist things. It's disingenuous to suggest that because other articles haven't used those specific headers that the content in those sections is new. I also noticed that you're already POVifying the article, trying to portray the term "free software" as if all they did was co-opt the term and renamed it (like they were just some copy cat movement), ignoring any kind of philosophical and pragmatic disagrements. Nathan J. Yoder 04:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Those sections are not duplicate content. Read them. Some other articles might have sections with the same section title, but the analysis and comparison and the facts were researched by me. Gronky 10:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I have read them, I'm asking which part of them is new content, please quote something. Nathan J. Yoder 19:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel I'm being set up here - as if you're asking me to pick one sentence so that you can pick at it and ridicule it. Well here's one anyway. You asked to be shown "new content", so please, evaluate the newness only of this - I'm not saying every word is perfect, it's not a finished article:

While the term "free software" is mostly associated with FSF's definition, and the term "open-source software" is mostly associated with OSI's definition, the other terms have not been claimed by any group in particular. This, however, has not lead to confusion since the definitions published by FSF and OSI are practically the same.

The bit up to the first comma is probably mentioned in an article somewhere, as is the bit between the first and second commas. The bit between the 2nd comma and the first full stop is new. The last sentence is also new, as far as I know. But, more than the newness of individual words, phrases, or sentences (and even if I'm not correct about the above, at least under the scrutiny you've been tracking me with of late), the arrangement of this information is new - rather than it being spread across multiple articles, each one with a different wording - here it is consolidated. It is undeniable that a non-zero amount of newness exists there - and you asked only for newness - so I think this is the conclusion on this issue. Gronky 21:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

So the entirety of the newness is you saying "the other terms haven't been claimed by anyone"? The last sentence isn't new, the other articles discuss similarity between the formal definitions. It seems to me that you'rearguing that it's new content based on the fact that you've rephrased and reordered some sentences, even though the information remains the same. Nathan J. Yoder 22:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Your first sentence (up to the question mark) implies that you agree there is something new. You asked for something new, I've shown you something new. The rest of your comment just confirms my stated suspician that you asked me the question for the purpose of ridiculing whatever sentence I chose. Gronky 04:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Gronky 17:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  Could you clarify? The nominator is clearly recommending deletion. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry "per nom" removed, I was refering to that I was also the poster of the above comment, that that connection was broken when someone replied to it. Gronky 17:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, a discussion of the various terms is useful, and it's nice to keep the discussion in one place. However, the nom is correct in that the title is POV, so perhaps rename to Free Software terminology (or something else avoiding the word "alternative"). — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to a change of name. I don't see "altenative" as being POV - but that could be just me. I think "Free Software terminology" changes the scope greatly. "terms for free software" would be good though. (the difference being that the latter says what the terminology is for, while the former says what it's about - which a hard to define relationship.) Another title I thought of was "suggested replacements for free software" - but FLOSS, FOSS, and OSS/FS weren't suggested as replacements, they were just suggested. "other names for free software"? Just "names for free software"? or "terms for free software"? Other suggestions welcome. Gronky 18:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but proably change the name. `Trollderella 19:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Gator1 19:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because Richard Stallman will kick our asses if we don't per nom. This really belongs on free software, if anywhere. Lord Bob 21:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  I agree that the information belongs together in one article, but I will ask you to reconsider your vote because I think this article contains too much information to fit in a subsection of another page. Keep in mind that it was proposed for deletion only minutes after I started making it, so it's not yet as complete as it will be. For example, I hadn't written the Licenses section when this was proposed for deletion, but I think that's a good section now and it doesn't completely fit under the topic of free software. Gronky 22:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  I certainly see that this article, as is, can hardly be put verbatim into free software because it's just too long. However, I personally believe that, if it belongs anywhere, a very much more concise list in free software would be best. We'd have to be pretty concise about it, but I think it would be best. Lord Bob 23:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  Ok, I see where you're coming from. The list of terms can certainly be made more concise, and this is something that I plan to do (I just didn't get time to do this before an Afd suddenly appeared). I did the list first because it's the easiest, but I think the more important things are the bits I'm working on now such as the "Definitions and meanings" and the "Licenses" sections. If this article was just/mostly a list of names and blurbs about each, I'd agree that it should be merged - but please check back in a day or two and see where the article has developed to. One other thing, although of secondary importance, is that if this is put in the free software page, it will be maintained by the maintainers of that page - which wouldn't be as good for neutrality as a seperate article would be. Gronky 23:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  Check back in a day or two? I will certainly be happy to do so and reconsider my vote in that context when the time comes. Lord Bob 00:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, my wikipedia time has been almost completely exausted by this Afd. Although I haven't been able to show the purpose of the page by writing it, information of my plans is in this here discussion, as well as the one on Talk:Open-source_software, and the one on Talk:Alternative terms for free software. Gronky 04:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge everything into, or at least direct traffic from: Geek naming controversies or similar category -- List_of_disputed_F/OSS_terminology, FLOSS, FOSS, Libre Software, Open_source_vs._free_software, GNU/Linux naming controversy... Talk page indicates that is the goal. I'll stay out of it. have fun ∴ here…♠ 22:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Talk page was not meant to indicate that. The page is not supposed to have anything about the "GNU/Linux" naming stuff, and it shouldn't have Anything Vs. Otherthing. It's not about controvercy or disputes. This is the history of the names that have appeared, the reasons for each name, the meaning and associations of each name, and other factual stuff. Emotional stuff is for another article. Pages such as List of disputed F/OSS terminology are terrible. Gronky 22:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a great article. Perhaps history of free software terminology would be a perfect name. I'll abstain as this is much larger (and heated) than I am willing to dismantle. ∴ here…♠ 22:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: This AFD has now been advertised on the Talk page for open-source software (by Njyoder). I feel this may bias the sample of Wikipedians that enter this debate. (However, I will not retaliate/escalate this by adding similar advertisements to other articles.) Gronky 03:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

So add it to other articles, this needs to be voted on by people in all the relevent articles. Nathan J. Yoder 04:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

No, merges need to be voted on by people of all relevent articles. This isn't a merge, it's just a page. It will probably form the proposal for a merge when it's ready, but it itself is still just a page - and it would be nice if I could have gotten the proposal ready before it was thrown into AFD trials. Gronky 10:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, you're right, AfDs shouldn't be voted on by the people who best understand the subject matter. You could have avoided this all by asking for permission first, don't complain about getting proposals ready when you move ahead with something without permission. Nathan J. Yoder 19:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You could claim that you notified "the people who best understand" if you had notified all related articles, or even two or three of the most related articles, but you notified one. Ask for permission? For what? From who? This is getting crazy. Gronky 21:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I inserted it into free software after you complained too. You need to ask for permission from your fellow Wikipedians, because Wikipedia acts on this principle of consensus. When merging content, you start a discussion to ask if it's a good idea or not. Nathan J. Yoder 22:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't merged anything. I had not added any merge tags to any articles, and I had not opened a dialogue on any Talk pages about merging. I wanted to try something out, and if it went well, I would probably propose it for a merge. Gronky 03:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.