Talk:Kiwi Foo Camp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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 redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


The event, organised with the blessing of O'Reilly, had the presence of OSS luminaries, New Zealand policy makers and technology entrepreneurs involved in developing the knowledge economy in the country. It is expected that this event is repeated in the future, like Foo Camp (which gave its name to the event) in the U.S. and Europe.

With time others will fill more content on this page with sessions presented, conclusions and links.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

Just checked out the Foo Camp page...looks pretty much like spam. BTW, as someone who has worked for the NZ Govt and organised ministers' meetings I can assure you that a minister's attendence at a meeting does not mean it is noteworthy.Saganaki- 06:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The main Foo Camp article is the means by which many people - including myself - actually find out what Foo Camp is. If it's to be considered spam because it concerns a non-profit event staged for a general community by a private company then I'm quite surprised. And I feel bound to note that this is, by my count, the fourth reason offered for the deletion of this article. It was deleted while two of us were attempting to respond to the original request for relevance by adding text.Russb10 06:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're a bit off track with the "non-profit event...." If I set up a page designed to let people know about the local Boys Brigade Club it would be probably considered be rightfully considered spam and deleted too. The gold test, is would I expect to read about Kiwi Foo Camp in an encyclopedia? Doesn't seem notworthy enough and the text as offered looks like marketing copy - are you involved in marketing Foo Camp? I'm a bit surprised you keep adding the page back, if Wikipedia Admins have already deleted it. Saganaki- 06:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is appalling. Spam? Spam for what? Justify your accusation!

And Saganaki, whoever you are, I can assure you that the attendance (note spelling) of ministers for this particular meeting was noteworthy in the context presented in the article. The Kiwi Foo Camp only ended yesterday so can we have some time to formulate thoughts and put them into Wikipedia? This is worse than Digg! --Juha 06:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

JuhaSaarinen, appalled or not, and regardless of my or your identity, or my spelling of ministers, Wikipedia is about producing an encylopedia. It's not a journal of record or a device for marketing. There are some guidelines I can point you too if you'd like to know more about editing wikipedia.Saganaki- 06:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Saganaki: Spelling is important, especially for an encyclopaedia. You could spell my name right, and you could read what I wrote properly too before responding. You are anonymous, I am not; that too is important because you could be just an Internet troll vandalising stuff. There is no spamming going on here, only an attempt to establish a public record of an important meeting that matters for New Zealand. You compare this to the Boy Scouts meeting but do you actually understand what went on? Your postings indicate you didn't bother to look in the slightest. What exactly is marketing and spamming here? Can you outline that now, please? --Juha 06:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, the original [Foo] entry would be spam as well?

But wikipedia isn't designed to be a public record of events. It's an encylopedia. Both these policies are relevant here WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:NOT#OR. To me, the original Foo Camp entry looks suspect. It even appears to have been edited by Tim O'Reilly. Saganaki- 07:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Saganaki: Thanks for correcting the spelling of my name and the other mistakes you made in your earlier response. Your objections to the article seem to be based on a dislike of O'Reilly for whatever reason, but I am struggling to understand how the reasons for deletion are going from Spam to "Soapboxing" to the article being an original record to just about whatever pops up. You still haven't explained why the article is spam. If you perceive there's a problem with bias or whatever, please follow the guidelines and edit that out - don't just engage in mindless deletion. Thank you.

Everyone stop![edit]

Firstly, let's stop calling this spam. I'm sure that was not the original author's intention. Secondly, to the author: the argument that the only way that people found out about Kiwi Foo Camp is through Foo Camp is not a valid objection to this being deleted. We are not promoters of anything, instead we are a project that is attempting to build an encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This will be placed on AFD and decided by the community. My suggestion will be to merge with Foo Camp. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am the original author. Declaration: I played an organisational role in the event. My intention was not to "market" or "promote" the event, which is free and not for profit, but simply to create a concise, relevant entry for it. It was tagged for speedy deletion within minutes of creation. The text was deleted while it was being edited to meet the original request for demonstration of relevance; it was then marked for deletion on grounds of containing no text. Since then we have seen a series of different justifications for its deletion, none of which have themselves been adequately justified. Someone has offered that Foo "doesn't seem notworthy [sic] enough". Perhaps it would be better to find out rather than simply speculating. The NZ event was host to two ministers of the crown, the president of Internet New Zealand, several other key figures in the establishment and maintenance of the New Zealand Internet, the adminstrators and proprietors of many significant New Zealand websites, the manager of Google's OSS programme, several lead developers on the Mozilla project, academics, artists and others. Its proceedings are highly likely to have a direct influence on New Zealand legislation and regulatory process. This has already become far more fractious and complex than it needs to be. We are simply seeking to make a concise, relevant entry to Wikipedia. Could you please just let us get on with it?Russb10 08:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand, but an objection to the deletion was that it informed about the event. This is a good thing, but not in itself a valid reason to keep an article. The best thing here is to justify on the AFD page why it is notable, in clear and civil terms. If you can show why it is notable, then the article will most likely be kept. If not, we can always merge it to Foo Camp. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I have nothing to do with Kiwi Foo Camp, I didn't help organise it and I didn't attend. However I would like to make some observations... Whether something is notable or not is a very relative thing that relies on what people are interested in. Personally, I don't find some things that are in 'real' encyclopedias all that notable, never mind Wikipedia. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it is digital allowing millions or billions of pages. 'Real' encyclopeidas are limited in size and therefore someone has to decide what is notable and what is not (or what they believe SHOULD be notable) for the average reader of that encyclopedia. Wikipedia allows us to search through thousands of artists and read about their different albums. A 'real' encyclopedia might have an article about The Beatles but not every single one of their albums. A 'real' encyclopedia might have a entry about a popular TV show but wont list all the episodes along with information about what happened in them and when they were first aired. If something is notable to a group of people, not neccersarily you or a Wikipedia admin, and isn't spam or advertising, then it should be allowed on Wikipeida. If you aren't personally interested in this topic, you don't have to read it. Stop applying old thinking to a new, digital, medium. Peteremcc 12:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, what is or isn't relavant is relavitve thing. I think this is just a case of people reading the title, and thinking some idiot wrote it. It does sound very spam-ish: kiwi "foo" camp.


I suggest that one or two photos be added to this article. Many of the photos uploaded to Flickr are under CC-BY licences, and should be suitable for use on Wikipedia.

Photos of individuals who have Wikipedia articles but no photo would also be welcome. For example, we have no photo of Judith Tizard.-gadfium 20:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This debate is verging on the downright stupid - i.e. people's entries being marked for deletion before the text has had time on the page.

I was at Foo Camp. It was great to be invited. It was also a tough weekend.

First up, 120 peole who have strong opinions turned up to debate some very significant issues around the ongoing health of the new zealand internet.

Of these - some were software guys who were making significant contributions to the next phase of the Internet as a social, econmoic and cultural good.

Others - e.g. ministers or contributors/lobbyists - had very pertinant things to say about the current and future policy regulatory envirnment.

Others still were keen to share their current projects, as well as make linkages to the policy and economic level which might in due course make a real difference to how New Zealanders experience and contribute to the new read/write world of web 2.0

None of the above is said to make people sound important: but to illustrate that this article on wikipedia , if given the space to seed itself and grow, could make a significant contribution to our understanding on the New Zealand internet - past present and future.

If it doesnt - fine - dump it - but in the meantime chill!

In short, can people just take a step back, and give it a chance to breathe! --

    • Thanks gadfium. Yes, pictures would be good, and as you say, there are plenty to choose from. One from minister Cunliffe's session would be relevant. But I don't presently have the skills to add pictures, and I have two events to organise this week, so I'm unlikely to do it in the next few days. I would be most grateful if someone else was to help with it.Russb10 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I'll have a go at putting up some pictures. Juha 23:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Article needs update[edit]

Just read someone pointing out the article is out of date. Needs stuff from 2008, some tenses moved around a some actual outputs. For example I didn't see the minister do much about peering etc - (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of updating, but I don't know who's attending the current event. Someone else would be better placed to update on how promises were followed through.-gadfium 00:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Had a look. The problem is it's really just an intro and a list of attendees. The two concrete things ( copyright and peering ) mentioned as important in that the ministers attention was drawn towards them didn't translate into the real world. Maybe it can be merged into the main article ( which is pretty small too) since there are other spin-off foocamps. The list of attendees feels a bit "world famous in NZ'. - SimonLyall (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I've added a merger proposal with Foo Camp. Due to the generally closed nature of this event there isn't really enough in the public domain to justify a seperate article. I think a section in the main Foo Camp article should do. Also some of the quotes from 2007 about peering etc look really dumb in light of subsequent events. - SimonLyall (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)