Talk:Chakra (operating system)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linux (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

Regarding notability tag...[edit]

I came across the "Chakra (operating system)" article via Google Search. I'd seen it (Chakra Linux) referred to in a Facebook thread.

I often will look at the Wikipedia article for a Linux distro before going to the 'official' site as the Wikipedia article will generally present a clear concise summary upfront whereas the 'official' sites generally have self promotion—and/or specifics which assume familiarity—on the site's homepage requiring one to delve into sub-pages to get to similar details as presented upfront in a Wikipedia article.

The point being I for one found the article useful and relevant. If a more well known distro had been referred to I wouldn't have had to look it up in the first place.

I initially came to this talk page expecting some explanation as to why it had recently received a notability tag. None such explanation was present.

As a quick Google search returned a plethora of hits — which, IMHO, seem to support notability — I'm going to go ahead and remove the undocumented notability template.

Note:

Deletion is not clean up. Do not use this tag merely because the page requires significant work. Notability requires only that appropriate sources have been published about the subject. It does not require that any editor has already named these sources, followed the neutral, encyclopedic style, or otherwise written a good article.

The above is quoted from Template:Notability#Usage. Italics added for emphasis.

My thanks goes out to those who've contributed to the article. I found it helpful and appreciate your time and effort.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

p.s.— I also find it valuable to take in the information heading this talk page which states that the article is already within the scope of both WikiProject Linux and WikiProject Free Software and that a previous discussion about deletion reached a consensus decision to keep the article. This seems to me to imply that arbitrary unilateral tagging may be unwarranted as the article has already received collective attention.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
A few brief reviews are all I'm seeing from that Google search, not enough to show notability. The previous AfD from 2011 is full of irrelevant rationales that wouldn't hold any weight in an AfD today. The article was not tagged "arbitrarily", it was tagged because it doesn't show any evidence of notability, and if that issue is not resolved then it is likely to be sent to AfD and deleted, hence the tag is there so that can be avoided if possible. Removing the tag without making any attempt to resolve the issue only hurts the article. - Aoidh (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Last I checked a new nomination requires new arguments. Missing notability was already claimed and dismissed. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
An article can still lack notability even if it was kept at AfD, so that it was kept in 2011 doesn't mean much, especially because notability was not shown through that AfD; other than SF007's comment not a single rationale even tried to address that issue. That Distrowatch is not a reliable source is a relatively new consensus on Wikipedia as far as I can tell, so if you believe "new" arguments are required, there is one, but to claim that the lack of notability was "claimed and dismissed" is incorrect if that AfD is all you're referring to. That AfD was also from 2011; not only have notability guidelines have changed and (for the most part) become more strict on what is required to show notability, this article appears to fail WP:GNG and doesn't even come close to meeting WP:NSOFT, and an article scraping by an AfD doesn't mean it is exempt from Wikipedia's notability requirements. - Aoidh (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever. You deletionists can't be happy until every single article in WP has been deleted. And no, it's not a consensus when others are against it. Whatever you claim the consensus is: It's not. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
When you have to resort to personal attacks, it only highlights that you have nothing useful to say. You are also more than welcome to re-read WP:CONSENSUS if you believe that a consensus must be unanimous. - Aoidh (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Aoidh, did you even bother to glance at this talk page before you tagged the article?

Might I suggest "Oops, sorry, didn't realize the history..." might perhaps be more appropriate than retrospective justifications.

I feel that my removing a tag — AFTER reviewing the notices on the talk page — which was placed contrary to previous history and also placed without the courtesy of an explanation as to why it was placed... I feel/think that removing the tag was and is justifiable.

KAMiKAZOW seems to concur.

What do other editors think?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If the references currently in the article represent the best sources available, then the subject very clearly fails to pass our threshold for notability. Most of the sources are primary (i.e., from the Chakra project itself) and therefore cannot be used to establish notability. The only two third-party reviews presented are from self-published blogs, which are not considered reliable sources. This leaves the DistroWatch references, which do not in and of themselves establish notability, because DistroWatch lists pretty much every GNU/Linux distribution, no matter how small and insignificant. The distribution and release entries there are also user-submitted with little or no editorial oversight, making them also primary sources. As it's been a couple years since the last AfD, can anyone find any reviews of Chakra published in reliable sources? If so, they should be added to the article so that the notability tag can be removed. If not, I am inclined towards making a second nomination of the article for deletion. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
@Kevjonesin: Please don't assume I didn't review the history; I did. The notability tag was added to avoid having the article sent to AfD, because unless the article can be improved in that regard, it isn't likely to remain on Wikipedia. The tag was introduced into the article so that sources could be added if a reader or editor has access to sources that might have been overlooked. The tag was added to help the article, not to hinder it in some way. - Aoidh (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Right on. Aoidh, sorry for the assumption. I suppose I've become rather cynical. But please do give some consideration to how it appears to others when an editor takes it upon themselves to individually tag an article contrary to a previous group decision without offering any explanation to fellow editors. No talk page entry and your edit summary merely summarized your actions.

(Added {{notability}} and {{unreliable sources}} tags to article (TW)) [1]

That the summary tags the edit as having been done via a 'bot' (WP:TWINKLE) further suggests that an urge towards efficiency may have overtaken care for accuracy—and consideration for others.
[I've dealt with previous instances where such was clearly the case and must confess that's it's now a bit of a sore point. In the past I've run into editors who repeatedly (cluelessly, IMHO) cited their personal target of edits per day as justification for breaking things and leaving it to others to clean up after. But I may be digressing into excuses, please pardon my ranting...]
I will confess that—left with no hints to shape my perception—I did assume that the {{notability}} tag was intended as a move towards deletion rather than a plea for improvement. In fact, I initially assumed that the tag had automatically initiated some sort of listing or countdown for WP:AfD. And I think I let this first impression tinge my interpretations even after reading the template docs—which don't make mention of such. The template itself does state "If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged,redirected, or deleted.". Perhaps this contributed to my impression.
So the long-and-short-of-it at this point seems to be that someone needs to give the references some attention. I'd largely forsworn editing over the last few months but seem to have stuck my nose in it this time haven't I?
I'll go back to my Google search and see if the "plethora of hits" are as fruitful as they appear. Eventually, someone's gotta' bell-the-cat. Seems to be my turn...
:  }
--Kevjonesin (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Psychonaut, for what it's worth, please note that the guidelines for Template:Notability—as quoted in my initial post—specifically state that notability is determined by what is available, not what has been implemented. Viewed in this light, the question is of the quality of the links in the Google Search results I linked and not in the existing cited references. Note that I chose only to remove the {{notability}} tag and not the {{unreliable sources}} tag.
Of course at this point, such is likely just de jure WikiLawyering as it's de facto clear that at least a coupla' editors feel the references need improvement to help clarify notability.
p.s.— Psychonaut, Upon rereading your comment I took note of the fact that your observations were qualified with "If...". I'm a bit grumbly. Probably need more fiber. ;-)
--Kevjonesin (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


Anyone care to help? Or perhaps more importantly, before I actually invest effort in research... does anyone else see intrinsic value in having articles on smaller/less popular* Linux distros in general?
My concern is that if y'all have set predilections to delete in the first place I'll only be setting myself up for rationalization and pettifog... err... preordained disappointment if I invest effort into this. As Linux distributions in general aren't exactly leading topics in mainstream pop-culture.
So what I'm asking is are you, Aoidh and Psychonaut, willing to judge the notability of references I may find as notable within the scope of WikiProject Linux and WikiProject Free Software? Or will you insist on a global metric of notability which puts them up against Miley Cyrus, U.S.-war-in-Syria, and Time Magazine?
Anyway, getting back to salient points immediately relevant to the Chakra_(operating_system) article...
I plead of you, if you've already decided that you'd prefer not to see the article in the Wiki please, please, I beg you, tell me now and save me from the trouble and disappointment of investing myself further.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
*[i.e. distros other than 'top ten' distros like Debian, Ubuntu, Red Hat, Fedora, and such.]
If you think that anyone is talking about the article as if they'd "prefer not to see the article in the Wiki" please re-read this entire discussion; it's not about personal preference or whether editors "like" the subject or not, it's about whether sufficient third-party sources exist to warrant an article. Without third-party sources, all we have to go by are things like primary sources which of course would make the subject seem like the best thing ever, so such sources are hardly neutral. If an article cannot be written from a neutral point of view that's a serious problem and completely contrary to both the ideal and consensus on Wikipedia, that is why articles need such sources. - Aoidh (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Kevjonesin, of course I see value in covering (GNU/)Linux distributions on Wikipedia, irrespective of how big or small or popular or unpopular they may be, so long as we have reliable sources to summarize. If you have any sources for Chakra, then I and other editors (if not here, then at the reliable sources noticeboard) would be happy to help you determine whether they're reliable. I've already given my own assessment above that the ones already in the article are not sufficient to establish the notability of this distribution, so if you have found others, by all means please add them to the article or list them here on the talk page.
Regarding your "extended rant", please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia; our main criterion for including something isn't whether or not that information is "useful" but whether it is reflected in multiple published sources which have editorial oversight and which are independent of the subject. There are many undeniably useful pieces of information which nevertheless don't belong in an encyclopedia. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe the following establish notability: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I'm removing the notability tag. ~KvnG 14:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It would have been nice if you had read through and participated in the above discussions rather than short-circuiting the consensus-building process. The reliability of the first three sources you list has been disputed and so far no one, including you, has offered any counterargument explaining why they meet WP:RS. The last link you give is to a blank page. I will grant, however, that the Linux User article seems to be reliable and gives evidence of Chakra's notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I've restored it because your list doesn't show notability at all. Blogspot blogs are not even reliable sources, let alone ones that show notability. DistroWatch also does not show notability, and the LinuxUser piece is a brief review, not enough to show notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zorin OS (2nd nomination), for example, which shows that distros with only brief reviews as reliable sources is very unlikely to survive an AfD). The article doesn't meet WP:GNG and doesn't even come close to meeting WP:NSOFT, and if these are the best that can be found, it's probably best to go ahead and send this article to AfD. - Aoidh (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, let's see know... if we count Psychonaut's "I will grant, however, that the Linux User article seems to be reliable and gives evidence of Chakra's notability." as an endorsement of notability, that would make a total of four editors (Kevjonesin, KAMiKAZOW, KvnG, Psychonaut)—so far—thatAoidh has single-handedly overruled. [Plus everyone involved in the previous AfD-notability decision of course. 23:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)]
I'm beginning to wonder how many common editors it takes to equal one exceptional Aoidh?
p.s.— A bit of WikiLaw for the WikiLawyers... "The article doesn't meet WP:GNG and doesn't even come close to meeting WP:NSOFT" ...Technically, an article does not have to meet such criteria... It is the topic/subject of an article which is held to such standards. As previously noted, it is the availability of sources—not their present state of implementation in an article—which (de jure) establishes the notability of a Wikipedia article.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
No, we can't take Psychonaut's previous comment on Linux User as an endorsement of Chakra's notability. I said only that it is reliable evidence of notability; an article like this is necessary but not sufficient. As KvnG notes below, we need multiple reliable sources, not just one. He provides a couple more sources, one of which is less than stellar (Muktware, despite advertising itself as an "online magazine", is too new and obscure to have developed a reputation as anything other than a one-man blog) and the other adequate (LinuxInsider has been around for about 15 years and is regularly cited here and elsewhere). Together the LinuxInsider and Linux User articles are enough for me to support removal of the notability tag, and were the article to be nominated for deletion I'd probably !vote weak keep. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I was terse. I thought it was better to do research than talk about research. We need significant coverage in two or more reliable sources to establish notability. I present [7], [8] and for good measure [9]. In light of even more sources presented and a growing consensus here, I have removed the {{notability}} tag again. If you honestly don't think we have significant coverage by two or more reliable sources for this subject, please don't bother trying to restore the tag, just nominate it for deletion. ~KvnG
I apologize, I somehow didn't see this comment before just now. I certainly can't fault you for trying to solve a problem as opposed to merely commenting on it, but I had restored the tag because most of the sources didn't show notability at all (being the blogs and DistroWatch). Looking at the discussion, I concede that consensus seems to be to remove the tag and have reverted it, though I'm still not convinced that the subject warrants a separate article on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
THANK YOU --  :  }  --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Indications of notability[edit]

  • Chakra has been a featured distro on Jupiter Broadcasting's 'The Linux Action Show'...
http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/13308/arch-made-easy-las-s19e03/
jupiterbroadcasting.com site metrics (42,693 monthly visits):
http://urlm.co/www.jupiterbroadcasting.com
  • While merely being listed on DistroWatch may not be considered noteworthy, perhaps Chakra's ranking in the top 10–20% over the last year might be?
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity
  • Chakra on LinuxInsider
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/77685.html
A bit about LinuxInsider:
http://www.linkedin.com/company/ect-news-network/linuxinsider-1547323/product
  • Chakra on LinuxUser & Developer:
http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/reviews/chakra-linux-review-kde-and-arch-make-for-a-winning-combination
About Linux User & Developer:
http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/about
  • Chakra on LinuxBSDos.com:
http://www.linuxbsdos.com/2013/02/19/chakra-2013-02-benz-review/
About LinuxBSDos.com:
http://www.linuxbsdos.com/about/
LinuxBSDos.com site metrics (75,304 monthly visits):
http://urlm.co/www.linuxbsdos.com
  • Chakra on Muktware:
http://www.muktware.com/articles/3165/chakra-review-arch-fork-mortals
About Muktware:
http://www.muktware.com/4647/about-us
Muktware site metrics (64,402 monthly visits):
http://urlm.co/www.muktware.com
  • That Chakra gets referred to multiple times on StackExchange seems to indicate that the distro is notable within the Linux/Computer tech community:
http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/61481/what-does-chakra-optimize-about-kde
http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/5668/chakra-overriding-arch-is-this-possible
http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/88064/add-chakra-os-benz-to-grub-1-99
http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/5628/chakra-project-or-netinstall-arch-linux-installation
http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/4572/linux-distribution-that-offers-a-good-kde-experience
About StackExchange:
http://stackexchange.com/about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_Exchange_Network
  • Here's one of the many reviews found using Google Search. InfinitelyGalactic's youtube channel—which focuses on reviewing Linux distros—has a review of Chakra which has received—as of today—21,848 views:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmbjx1Nz8Bc#t=60

While any one Linux/tech blog or youtube channel may not by itself establish notability, I think the fact that many such make mention of Chakra does add to notability when viewed collectively. In fact, I would say that if many people are feeling a need to make mention of something, then that 'something' is by definition notable (de facto). It seems to me that a reasonable person would be able to apply 'common sense' and infer/surmise such. Regardless of how a limited reading of guidelines might be rationalized in isolation, as 'context and common sense trumps rules/WikiLawyering/pettifog' is put forth as a basic tenant of en.Wikipedia.*

* If some editors feel that this is an antiquated bit of fluffy idealism and prefer to pretend that the guidelines (themselves open to dynamic peer editing) are somehow sacrosanct, 'written in stone', not to be questioned, I'd suggest that they 'be bold' and move to remove Ignore All Rules and other such sentiments from the Wiki so as to quit misleading the rest of us.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that ranking on DistroWatch and being mentioned in a few reviews in indicative of notability, you are welcome to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zorin OS (2nd nomination), which is well above this distro on DistroWatch and had similar reviews; not a single person thought it belonged because it quite simply did not belong. You are grasping at straws and resorting to snarky comments to try to make up for your shortcomings; that does you no favors and if the links listed here are the best that can be done then this subject (your wikilawyering also does not help you) does not belong on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
First off, we are discussing Chakra (operating system) not Zorin OS (WP:OTHERCRAP).
Secondly, I don't consider references that would seem to a reasonable person to fall within the guidelines you yourself have WikiLinked (i.e. WP:NSOFT) to be "grasping at straws". Specifically:
Wikipedia:NSOFT#Inclusion

"Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria: ...The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field... ...The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews..."

Wikipedia:NSOFT#Reliability_and_significance_of_sources

"Common sense and an awareness of historical context should be used in determining whether coverage in sources found for software is in fact reliable and significant... ...It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software..."

Wikipedia:NSOFT#Exceptions

"As with other essays and guidelines, this article is not intended to consider all circumstances. If in doubt, remember that rules are principles intended to guide decisions and that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy..."

[Yes, obviously I'm cherry-picking the aspects I prefer to emphasize, but please note that I'm only able to do so because they exist!]
Thirdly, as to "...resorting to snarky comments to try to make up for your shortcomings...", I think my having fallen into a snarky tone exposes my short comings rather than makes up for them. It should be readily apparent by now that I've developed a general sense of distrust towards en.Wikipedia editorial culture. And a specific distrust of you, Aoidh. Stemming in large part by the fact that you chose not to provide any explanation for your fellow editors when you first tagged the article. And have remained completely unapologetic even when attention has been drawn to such. Since you have not deemed such worthy of comment, what am I to presume other than that you simply do not care?
Fourth, that you assume to dismiss a list of reference links carte blanche — along with links to references for the references — with "...if the links listed here are the best that can be done..." without making an effort to specify the merits (or lack thereof) of specific links further leads me to question your insistence upon keeping the tag.
Can you see how this all might add up to giving someone not privy to the inner workings of your psyche the impression that you are acting arbitrarily and independently? As if you were unilaterally defending YOUR tag against the opinions of multiple other editors?
'Assume good faith' is noted as having reasonable limits.
sigh...
--Kevjonesin (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
If you're going to cite WP:OTHERCRAP, read WP:OSE. The reasons you gave for asserting that this article is notable also applied to that article, and there was a unanimous consensus to delete it; this article's subject is even less notable. The reason for the tag is self-evident, why do you think an article would have a notability tag? Then you asked for an explanation; one was given. Any reasonable person would move on from there, not to look for any excuse to be offended that it didn't happen in the order they wanted. Trying to argue about the exact wording of various guidelines is wikilawyering, which is quite hypocritical coming someone complaining about WP:IAR. - Aoidh (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please remove the notability tag[edit]

Aoidh, if a spark in the above scribblings — written by the merest worm of a lowly mortal editor — should be so blessed as to inspire the light of your grace and wisdom, could you please find it within your mighty and benevolent heart to stoop to honoring your fellow editors by turning your fearsome hand to the task of removing your imperious ...err... imperial ...notability tag? -Kevjonesin (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I hope this isn't your idea of starting a serious discussion. When you are able to edit with a shred of civility towards others I'd be more than happy to discuss this further, but this discussion would be less than productive. - Aoidh (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, Aoidh. The above was blatantly sarcastic, bordering on ad hominem, and likely not very productive. [But damn, it felt good...] One of my many human failings is a tendency to retreat into sarcasm when I feel confronted/affronted by what I perceive to be arrogance and arbitrary authority. It's plausible, perhaps likely, that what I perceive as such may often be in actuality simple indifference and insensitivity.
Aoidh, please remove the notability tag.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Already done, see above. - Aoidh (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Something to consider...[edit]

I just came across User:Stalwart111's musings on notability in context. I think the essay may provide food-for-thought, a source of reflection (...and additional WikiLinks).

"Editors should be aware of context and understand that context can often make the difference between notable and not-notable. Simply citing a rigid policy for the purposes of ending an argument doesn't feel like a particularly fulfilling way of making your point and there's a reason - it's not. All things have context and without context, value is diminished." User:Stalwart111/Notability in context

Thanks Stalwart,
--Kevjonesin (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

AfD result was Keep.[edit]

"The result was Keep. Outside of the nominator, there are no calls for the article's deletion.The consideration of the article's notability by those who joined the discussion offers an affirmation of the article's notability, as per Wikipedia guidelines. Any perceived shortcoming can be addressed with editorial input and referencing; removing the article from the website appears to be an extreme solution. A non-admin disclosure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)" — [Italics added for emphasis]

--Kevjonesin (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding third party / reliable tag...[edit]

I removed the third party / reliable tag, as I see no reasons in the page nor given (here) on the talk page. Wikiinger (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The tags are in place because all references currently used in the article are either to blogs, to the Chakra website, or to Distrowatch, none of which count as reliable third-party sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)