Talk:ObjectDatabase++
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
Dear Daryl Mitchell (User:DRM310)
This is the second time you have seen fit to label these accusations at this page so this time I feel the need to respond more formally.
The first point I would like to make is that this page is one of a category of pages (products conforming to Category:Database_management_systems) and each of these pages will equally share exactly the same criticisms, as many of these "me to" products offer no increase to the world body of knowledge or novel technology. Your focus on singling out this page itself and not all the pages within the same category, in our opinion establishes a bias on your behalf.
The first issue you raise is that of "close connection" with the subject. I cannot deny the fact that we have written this page a have also participated in the products development. We would argue that it is this closeness that has given us the knowledge of the history and fine workings, to be the leading authority on the subject that enabled us to accurately state the correct facts. That is to say in order to be an expert on the subject matter you need the proximity, giving access to the accurate source of information. We also point out that other pages within the category such as Db4o and ZODB have all obviously been written by people in close proximity to the subject and would likely cite the same argument, that while there are other database experts, they are not expert enough on their product to accurately state the facts.
Additionally as an implied issue to that of closeness, is that of objectivity and neutrality of the article. To this we would like to point out that we have not mentioned any of like products or companies, preventing any comparisons that could be misleading or seen as overly favourable. We have only talked about abstract ideas and the solutions the product applies with the pros and cons connected there with. We have deliberately focused on stating the facts without making any assertions of what is or is not better than any other available product.
The second issue you raise is that of "notability for products and services", and to this assertion we would firstly respond in questioning your definition of notability, as it seems solely based in the market domination of a good or service. This definition would itself be unlawful under free market principles that exist in most first world countries, such as the USA where there are strong anti-trust law that prohibit the denial of small competitor’s right to exist. Additionally you claim to be a web developer, so you would be aware of the industry leading databases and would realise that many of the DBMS listed are not industry leading.
It is our belief that notability goes beyond that of market position and includes the novelty of ideas represented by the article. That is to say that a student researching the area of DBMS would in reading Wikipedia would be introduced to all the ideas within that field. This article points out that there are issues with the transaction control process deployed many of the current DBMS and detailed how ODBPP has implemented a different transaction control targeted at maintaining database and index integrity in a multiple-process/multiple-thread environment.
Furthermore there is an implicit allegation of self-promotion and we would like to point out that we currently have numerous products and services commercially available and we have only sought to maintain a page on Wikipedia for the products that are free for at least personal use. We saw fit to do so because many of the competing products already have a page and saw no reason why should we be denied similar listing on a site that has become the de facto first port of call for students researching on a subject.
Your singling out of this page and not the entire category of pages it belongs, seem to be more focused on the fact that we are not an academic institution, as you belong to and I would point out that Jimmy Wales did not create Wikipedia for the exclusive domain of academia. And the irony of that is recently finishing my Master's degree, we were told that referencing Wikipedia was not acceptable in academic work.
Start a discussion about improving the ObjectDatabase++ page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "ObjectDatabase++" page.
