Talk:SpicyNodes

New article

I posted a new article. There was previous confusion: SpicyNodes is user interface design method. It has multiple implementations, and the design approach is freely available to the public. There is also a like-named software product which a version of this wiki article in 2010 was previously about. I am the lead researcher on the SpicyNodes project. Wxidea (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrade to article

On 29 August 2010, the contents of SpicyNodes were merged with Institute for Dynamic Educational Advancement. Subsequently there has been more use of SpicyNodes, and it is more notable. Moreover, many people use SpicyNodes with no particularly knowledge of the Institute for Dynamic Educational Advancement. The notability of the product and the organization are separate phenomenon.

Conflict of interest

Conflict of interest tag added due to the author's close relation with the subject matter, as can be seen in this solicitation for paid help with the article. Them From Space 03:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response about Conflict of interest

Thank you for your note. The initial author's (my) close involvement was disclosed from the beginning, and I tagged the article as new, and also posted it here. I have endeavored to make the article as NPOV as possible. Please feel free to point out any specific improvements you think would help. Regarding the eLance article which Themfromspace noted, we attempted to hire a writer to help us draft a first version of the article that would be NPOV. We hire writers all the time, for various purposes, and thought it would be helpful to draw someone from outside our organization to help us shape the article with objective NPOV voice. There was nothing untoward. As it turns out, I did not find a good writer, and wrote the article myself. I see from your talk page that you patrol eLance, but you did not discover anything other than a good faith attempt to be NPOV. Wxidea (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks for your openness, it makes everything a lot easier, for you and for us. I guess the first point to make, is whether somebody independent of SpicyNodes would have created the article, and also whether your main aim here is to improve wikipedia, or to advance the awareness of SpicyNodes. I think the answer to the first, is probably not, as there are few sources which could be used to write an article, as I've explained below, there wouldn't be much that I could use to write this article. I'm guessing, but it from your contributions it looks as if you are more interested in promoting SpicyNodes that making the encyclopedia better as a whole. Smartse (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Glad that clears things up a bit. Regarding promotion, SpicyNodes has been in development for 6 years. I have postponed trying to create a wikipedia page until there was a large community of users, and also coverage in various realms. I would like to focus the conversation here on the merits of the new article, not my motivations. I have participated in many wikipedia articles, and genuinely feel that SpicyNodes reached sufficient notability for inclusion.Wxidea (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think both notability and conflict of interest tags are appropriate for now. I am not in a position to definitively assess notability. There does appear to be room for improvement in terms of WP:NPOV. Time and other contributions to the article are needed to iron this out. Be patient. --Kvng (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response about Notability

Regarding the flag about Wikipedia:Notability_(software). Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria:

The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. -- Further: The way the software is distributed. It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, -- The SpicyNodes is primarily a freely available service, and is sponsored by a nonprofit organization. We therefore consider informal sources to be a legitimate sign of notability. Further, SpicyNodes, despite being young, has been cited in scholarly works as well.
The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criteria does not apply to software merely used in instruction. - SpicyNodes has specifically been a subject of instruction in several schools. For example, see course reading for [ECS 272 Information Visualization] from University of California, Davis. It was also taught in [HU 3900: Media Tools & Support] at Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. - I added a [tutorial] (in Spanish). There are also [video reviews]
It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the software is notable. Reviews must be significant, from an reliable source, and/or assert notability. -- does not apply

SpicyNodes is new software. While has existed in various forms for several years, and we feel it has reached a point of maturity that it is now notable. We will continue to add new sources as further indicators of notability become available. Notability is ever evolving, and we feel SpicyNodes better meets the notability criteria than other similar software (despite Wikipedia:OSE) which is listed in Wikipedia, which is less notable. I will add some additional references. Wxidea (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big notice at the top of Wikipedia:Notability_(software) saying " This is not a wikipedia policy and should not be used as a basis for article inclusion". Because of this it's probably better to look at the general notability guideline (If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article) and see if it meets that. Regarding it's scholarly use, all I can find are these, of which the first six are authored by the same person, who works at IDEA and is therefore not "independent of the subject". This is the only coverage of SpicyNodes that I can find in the press, and as a trivial mention in a local newspaper, it is not enough to demonstrate that it's received "Significant coverage". Blogs, like reference 2 are not deemed to be "reliable" and cannot be used to demonstrate notability. Based on all of this, I'd say that at present, the software is not notable enough for inclusion. Smartse (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has edited a variety of wikipedia pages, but is nowhere near an administrator in edit volume, I find notability and Wikipedia:OSE to be frustrating -- but I am an inclusionist, not a deletionist. Notability in the realm of software, particularly free software, seems to be largely in the eye of the beholder. For example, Wikipedia:Notability_(software) is not formal policy, but is nevertheless a good faith effort on behalf of its authors to bring some formal thought to the question of notability. I personally often turn to Wikipedia for information about software projects, including small projects. So I think that all the projects on this list and others, should be included. Wxidea (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly not the first to find notability confusing. I don't really consider myself an inclusionist or a deletionist though - I look at each article by itself to work out whether it is notable per our policies. If it isn't then I try to think of what the best way of solving the problem is. Linking to list of concept mapping software is a pretty classic case of other stuff exists though - obviously you are more interested in software than me so you would be more likely to argue for inclusion, in the same way I might do for something I find interesting. This is the exact point of having something like the general notability guideline though so that our own views aren't too important either way. Smartse (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I agree about WP:GNG. As someone with well under 1000 edits on Wikipedia, I am still learning the balance when it comes to notablity. As you note, notability is largely in the eye of the reader. Personally, I am totally baffled by thousands of esoteric wikipedia articles, and yet frustrated when topics (e.g., software projects) that I think are important ways for people to share and communicate, are flagged with notability flags. The open question is whether my new SpicyNodes page is considered sufficiently notable to remove the "notability" flag. I am hoping SpicyNodes does not get flagged for deletion, and in the meantime, I will continue to add references to blog posts or other articles to demonstrate notability over the coming weeks/months. I think informal sources like blog posts are sufficient for a free software project from a nonprofit. -- Of course, I invite you to remove the notability flag if you think I have explained enough. Wxidea (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no! (sorry) Blogs cannot be used as references for anything - have a read of WP:IRS and in particular this section. Articles can be about very esoteric subjects, like toilet paper orientation, but that's what makes wikipedia better than paper encyclopedias. Like I said we judge notability based on the sources we find, not on our preheld thoughts on what is notable. Smartse (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response about Yi paper

The [Yi paper] was removed. I thought it was a relevant, peer reviewed secondary source. The user who removed it was not logged into Wikipedia. (Ji Soo Yi. "Implications of Individual Differences on Evaluating Information Visualization Techniques". BELIV ’10 Atlanta, GA, USA) Wxidea (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove tags

Please consider if the above responses are satisfactory to remove the "coi" or "notability" tags.

I think the best solution is to merge some of the content into the Institute for Dynamic Educational Advancement based on the problems noted above. Smartse (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to wait, or move to my user space - Moving SpicyNodes into the Institute for Dynamic Educational Advancement (IDEA) is a creative solution, but I do not think it is a good solution. People can be interested in SpicyNodes completely regardless of IDEA, and it has much broader application beyond people who might care about IDEA. (For example, the file formats which you proposed removing, on snf and mm, are both useful for people who care about file formats for representing acyclic trees.) I anticipate more press coverage in the coming months. I therefore request that either the article be left as-is for the time being (to see if more sources pop up), or that it be moved into my user space, and I will try to re-add it in the future when there are more sources. But again, after looking over various other free software projects in wikipedia, I think SpicyNodes definitely has sufficient coverage to be considered notable. (But maybe it will take a blog post by the New York Times to prove that.) Wxidea (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I suggested merging is because it is a project of IDEAs and if there isn't enough information for a stand alone article, merging is a good idea. We can leave a redirect from here to the relevant section of the IDEA article. You need to do more than think it is notable though - you need to show it is. Saying it will be one day is a poor argument (see WP:CRYSTAL). If you want to move it userspace for the moment then please do, I'd be happy to review it again at a later date if it receives more coverage. Smartse (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think SpicyNodes is sufficiently notable now. I only mention the future as context, not as rationalle. Let's maybe do two things: (a) Move SpicyNodes to within IDEA with a redirect, and (b) also move SpicyNodes into my userspace. Then, later when there are more third party articles, I will try to re-establish an article. However, for the record, I disagree with this. I think SpicyNodes is sufficiently notable now. And while I know that Wikipedia:Notability_(software) is not formal WP policy, it's a useful mental framework. I will try to comply with Wikipedia:CORP. --- I should point out that currently SpicyNodes has mention in one peer-reviewed review article, an academic secondary source. I think this is an important example of notability. It was [removed] by an [un-signed in user]. This is the paper: [[1]]. Please take a look at that peer-reviewed paper, and see if it helps with notability, and should be re-added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 16:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me on my talk page to reply here to your concerns. Basically I agree with what Smartse has said in his replies to the notability and conflict of interest concerns. I'm not totally convinced that this tool is notable and it is always a concerning issue when pages are created through conflicts of interest. I agree that a limited merge to Institute for Dynamic Educational Advancement is the best way to procede. This article appears to be unnecessary and the detail it goes into isn't reflected by what reliable sources have to say about the product. Them From Space 01:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen it before (think it must be newish) but there is a WP:PRODUCT guideline and that supports the view that the content should be merged to IDEA. Smartse (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to consider precedent for similar articles

According to Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists, there are a mixture of principles, essentially case law, that can help guide notability:

That other similar articles exist is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions and will typically be dismissed while still assuming good faith.
When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain.
Wikipedia has, unintentionally, set a precedent for inclusion or exclusion when notability is contested (for example, high schools or geographic features), and in these situations this type of argument may be worth introducing.

Not withstanding a desire not to add sewage to the already polluted pond, while the existance of other concept mapping, mind mapping, an tree-relateed software exists does not directly legitimize others, it is relevant.

Please do take a look at some other, notable, related tools, which also have relatively informal sources and references. For example: Freeplane, Pimki, NovaMind, PersonalBrain, Solution_Language_Tool, VUE_(Visual_Understanding_Environment), XMIND. These tools, especially those which have freely available parts, have diverse userbases, and are useful to include despite relatively informal references. See also a related discussion about notability for XMIND, which has parallels to this discussion. These tools are widely used, especially in education, but without large marketing budgets, they are unlikely to get major media coverage. They are still notable.Wxidea (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Per my reasoning above, I suggest that this be merged with into being a section of Institute for Dynamic Educational Advancement. There has not been enough significant coverage of this in reliable sources to justify a stand alone article. Per WP:PRODUCT it is best to deal with products of a company (charity in this case) in the same article as the company, rather than a separate article. Smartse (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following my article, and your ongoing suggestions. Today, I significantly increased the number of references, with the hopes that this meets a threshold of notability -- and therefore does not require merging with the IDEA page. Wxidea (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed --- SpicyNodes has been recognized by BBC as a way to be creative and "get your ideas moving,"^[1] --- Perhaps you can add it back later in the paragraph with a more explicit statement? SpicyNodes is listed as one of a number of "websites and software packages for more ways to get your ideas moving" ? That is both TRUE, and not misleading. Wxidea (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is on a list of many websites on a BBC website does not indicate notability, if it was an article about SpicyNodes that discussed it it would be different. The link is a fairly classic example of trivial coverage (maybe even less than trivial) which is not enough for it to be included. You've tried to demonstrate notability but even after creating a whole section in the article it's still clear that it doesn't meet our general notability guideline. Either the article is merged or it needs to go to a deletion discussion, this seems like an easier and less stressful way to do it. Smartse (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ BBC. "PinBall: Other ideas: Getting ideas out".

[1] BBC. "PinBall: Other ideas: Getting ideas out".

[1]