User talk:Lesser Cartographies
|This is Lesser Cartographies's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Lesser Cartographies.|
A page you started (The News Letter of the LXIVmos) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating The News Letter of the LXIVmos, Lesser Cartographies!
Wikipedia editor Slashme just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
To reply, leave a comment on Slashme's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
I'm not really frustrated about the article deletion itself even if I spent quite some time on it those last days. But I'm frustrated with the fact that we don't question the notability of Picasa that has been heavily promoted by Google and we want to ignore alternative solutions that don't have the same marketing power. It feels like we're fashion victims and that marketing wins. Now if consider "whether it is worthy of being included in the pantheon of human knowledge", I would say that nor HTTPhotos nor Picasa are worthy being included in the pantheon as well as all other software. FromSpace (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- @FromSpace:, my Ph.D. is in computer science, so I expect my personal preferences for notability are a bit different from yours. But for notability here, we needed some easy-to-understand rule that can be evaluated by non-experts in a given field, and WP:RS does that pretty well. Yes, Google can probably get the requisite three-in-depth-articles just because people like reading about google (and so journalists will write about google). On the other hand, three-in-depth-articles is a pretty low bar, and plenty of free software programs have had no trouble meeting it (bash, R, gcc, byobu, ssh, LaTeX, BibTeX.... and those are just the ones I'll be using this morning). It's a compromise, and if I was in charge I would have drawn the line elsewhere, but as William Burroughs once observed: "If you cannot be just, be arbitrary." Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- You say that "Google can probably get the requisite three-in-depth-articles" and I'm pretty sure it can. Now, I must say that a reference like PCWorld doesn't really look like an "in depth article" on Picasa, not to mention they don't look reliable when they state "Google's Picasa is the best free piece of photo managing and editing software you can find". I can't really tell New York Times makes an in-depth reference as well as it only gives a brief description of Picasa and IPhoto. See, even for a notable software, good sources are difficult to find. Unfortunately, we can't really add Picasa to the list of Comparison_of_photo_gallery_software because Picasa allows viewing, organizing and upload, but no gallery creation features like jAlbum or HTTPhotos. We can update this page to remove the link to HTTPhotos page, so someone who check this page will only be aware of the jAlbum shareware.