Jump to content

Wikipedia:Software notability: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Ihcoyc (talk | contribs)
(19 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Notability essay}}
{{Notability essay}}
{{nutshell|Before it rises to the level of being an encyclopedia subject, software must become actually notable—i.e. receive independent notice outside the business or technical communities it circulates in. If only those communities have heard of it, it needs to be independently recognized as a major player, technically innovative, or historically significant.}}


This is a [[WP:N|notability guideline]] for [[software]], meant to reflect the [[WP:N|notability]] of software by measuring its technical or commercial achievements. For the purpose of this guideline, software includes all code or programming meant to be operated by a computer or dedicated computing device such as a game console.
==Archived Text==
Software applications are products, and fall under [[Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)#Criteria_for_products_and_services|Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)]]. This page gives rough guidelines which Wikipedia editors use to decide if certain software applications should have an article on Wikipedia.


Software applications are products, and fall under [[Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)#Criteria_for_products_and_services|Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)]]. This page gives rough guidelines which Wikipedia editors use to decide if certain software applications should have an article on Wikipedia.
That [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia is not a primary source, nor a free wiki host]], is a long-established fact. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be locations where [[primary source]] documentation for software packages is hosted. [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia is also not a directory]] of all software packages that exist or that have ever existed.


That [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia is not a primary source, nor a free wiki host]], is a long-established fact. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be locations where [[primary source]] documentation for software packages is hosted. [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia is also not a directory]] of all software packages that exist or that have ever existed.
== Criteria ==


===Definitions===
Software is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software's author(s).
* This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, user guides, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews {{fn|2}} ''except'' for the following:
** Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the author or manufacturer talks about the software, and advertising for the software. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary. {{fn|1}}
** Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report version releases without comment, price listings in product catalogues, or listings on software download sites.


For the purpose of this proposal:
If some software doesn't meet or isn't known to meet the above criteria, the following criteria can be used to estimate if the software is notable:
*'''''General interest''''' means independent of, not primarily addressed to, or read by:
**[[business]], [[management]], or [[investment]] communities; or
**[[information technology]] or [[computer programming]] communities.
*Publications that focus on software whose chief purpose is entertainment (i.e. computer and console games) are general interest publications.


*'''''Historical or technical significance''''' means that software verifiably has:
# The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor.
**introduced an important technical innovation; or
# The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as [[Debian]], [[Fedora Core]] or [[FreeBSD]], and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer. Note that some distributions, such as Debian, include a particularly large number of packages. The more packages a distribution includes, the less notability is implied by inclusion in that distribution. Statistics such as the [http://popcon.debian.org/ Debian Popularity Contest] help to estimate the usage of particular packages in a particular distribution.
**has been recognized as significant in the development of a sector
*in such a way that makes that software distinguish itself above its competitors in the field or sector in which it is marketed and sold. Claims of historical or technical significance must be verified in independent, neutral, third party sources; [[WP:SELFPUB|self published]] claims of significance do not meet this standard.


*'''''Published''''' means available in an installed standard version or series of standard versions, whether these versions are:
== Guidelines for writing about software ==
**distributed on electronic media;
**made available for download, or
**installed as part of the operating system on newly built systems.


===Criteria===
{{main|Wikipedia:Autobiography|Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas}}
Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria:


====Criteria requiring general interest sources====
*It has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple [[WP:RS|reliable]] general interest, [[WP:IS|independent]] [[WP:V|secondary sources]];
*It has won a ''recognized'' award that is reported in multiple general interest sources;
*It has been the subject of ''significant'' product reviews circulated in general interest sources;

====Criteria not requiring general interest sources====
*The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities ''or'' post-graduate programs.<ref name="academic">This criterion does not include software written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves. This criterion should not apply to software merely used in instruction.</ref>
*The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals or instruction books written by independent authors and published by independent publishers;
*It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by multiple reliable sources, even if those sources are not general interest sources;

Sources should show how the software is significant and not [[WP:MILL|run-of-the-mill]]. Reviews of consumer products, including software, is routine. Some sources of reviews are quite discriminatory in what they choose to evaluate. Other review sites will print anything they are paid to. The source of a review is as important as what it says in determining notability.

Editors should evaluate various aspects of the coverage: the depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine.

The depth of coverage in the sources should be significant and directly about the software. Coverage of the software in passing, such as being part of a how-to document, do not normally constitute significant coverage but should be evaluated

The duration of coverage in sources should show lasting impact. While [[Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary|notability is not temporary]] a [[WP:NOTNEWS|burst of coverage]] (often around product announcements) does not automatically make a product notable.

Software that has been extensively reported on as the product of a local company in a small region may not be evidence of notability. The source of the reporting is important to evaluating whether the software is only important to a limited geographical scope.

==Promotion==
Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be ''someone else'' writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]] for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people ''independent'' of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

== Guidelines for writing about software ==
{{main|Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas}}
Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged. It is indeed easy for an author to overestimate the notability of their work. If such work is notable, someone else will eventually start an article about it.
Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged. It is indeed easy for an author to overestimate the notability of their work. If such work is notable, someone else will eventually start an article about it.


Software that can be proved to have a consistent number of users (beside the creator(s) and their friends) but do not meet the above criteria may be merged into the article describing their main functionality (for example, an article about a random disk editor may be merged into a section of [[disk editor]].)
Software that can be proved to have a consistent number of users (beside the creator(s) and their friends) but do not meet the above criteria may be merged into the article describing their main functionality (for example, an article about a random disk editor may be merged into a section of [[disk editor]].)


Once notability is established, [[WP:PRIMARY|primary sources]] may be used to verify some of the article's content.
== Notes ==

Acceptable secondary sources do not include:
* Press releases; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself&mdash;whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be ''someone else'' writing about the company, corporation, club, organization, product, or service. A primary test of notability is whether people ''independent'' of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Material that is [[WP:SPS|self-published]], or published at the direction of the subject of the article, would be a [[WP:PSTS|primary source]] and falls under different policies.
* Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for example) appearances in download directories or listings of available software, records of trade show appearances by vendors, and similar listings or directories.


== Footnotes ==
* {{fnb|1}} Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be ''someone else'' writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]] for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people ''independent'' of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
{{reflist}}
* {{fnb|2}} Some examples: [[PC Tools]] satisfies this criterion because it was the subject of a full-length magazine review in the October 1991 edition of ''Compute!''. [[grep]], [[awk]], and [[sed]] satisfy this criterion because they have been the main subjects of entire books.


[[ru:Википедия:Критерии значимости программ]]
[[ru:Википедия:Критерии значимости программ]]

Revision as of 16:17, 7 December 2009

This is a notability guideline for software, meant to reflect the notability of software by measuring its technical or commercial achievements. For the purpose of this guideline, software includes all code or programming meant to be operated by a computer or dedicated computing device such as a game console.

Software applications are products, and fall under Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). This page gives rough guidelines which Wikipedia editors use to decide if certain software applications should have an article on Wikipedia.

That Wikipedia is not a primary source, nor a free wiki host, is a long-established fact. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be locations where primary source documentation for software packages is hosted. Wikipedia is also not a directory of all software packages that exist or that have ever existed.

Definitions

For the purpose of this proposal:

  • Historical or technical significance means that software verifiably has:
    • introduced an important technical innovation; or
    • has been recognized as significant in the development of a sector
  • in such a way that makes that software distinguish itself above its competitors in the field or sector in which it is marketed and sold. Claims of historical or technical significance must be verified in independent, neutral, third party sources; self published claims of significance do not meet this standard.
  • Published means available in an installed standard version or series of standard versions, whether these versions are:
    • distributed on electronic media;
    • made available for download, or
    • installed as part of the operating system on newly built systems.

Criteria

Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria:

Criteria requiring general interest sources

  • It has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable general interest, independent secondary sources;
  • It has won a recognized award that is reported in multiple general interest sources;
  • It has been the subject of significant product reviews circulated in general interest sources;

Criteria not requiring general interest sources

  • The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs.[1]
  • The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals or instruction books written by independent authors and published by independent publishers;
  • It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by multiple reliable sources, even if those sources are not general interest sources;

Sources should show how the software is significant and not run-of-the-mill. Reviews of consumer products, including software, is routine. Some sources of reviews are quite discriminatory in what they choose to evaluate. Other review sites will print anything they are paid to. The source of a review is as important as what it says in determining notability.

Editors should evaluate various aspects of the coverage: the depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine.

The depth of coverage in the sources should be significant and directly about the software. Coverage of the software in passing, such as being part of a how-to document, do not normally constitute significant coverage but should be evaluated

The duration of coverage in sources should show lasting impact. While notability is not temporary a burst of coverage (often around product announcements) does not automatically make a product notable.

Software that has been extensively reported on as the product of a local company in a small region may not be evidence of notability. The source of the reporting is important to evaluating whether the software is only important to a limited geographical scope.

Promotion

Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

Guidelines for writing about software

Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged. It is indeed easy for an author to overestimate the notability of their work. If such work is notable, someone else will eventually start an article about it.

Software that can be proved to have a consistent number of users (beside the creator(s) and their friends) but do not meet the above criteria may be merged into the article describing their main functionality (for example, an article about a random disk editor may be merged into a section of disk editor.)

Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.

Acceptable secondary sources do not include:

  • Press releases; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, club, organization, product, or service. A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Material that is self-published, or published at the direction of the subject of the article, would be a primary source and falls under different policies.
  • Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for example) appearances in download directories or listings of available software, records of trade show appearances by vendors, and similar listings or directories.

Footnotes

  1. ^ This criterion does not include software written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves. This criterion should not apply to software merely used in instruction.