From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fair use rationale for Image:Yale andrews curves.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Yale andrews curves.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, this image was added/contributed to Wikipedia by the RapidMiner/YALE developers themselves. (RK, January 24th, 2009)

Why is this an advertisement?[edit]

There is a notice on the article that "this article is written like an advertisement", and that the reader can find out more on the talk page. I don't see any discussion about this, and I'm wondering specifically why this is labeled as being like an advertisement. (Also, I'm wondering if I'm using the talk page correctly) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klinebottle (talkcontribs) 18:18, 2 July 2010

The body of the article reads like an advertisment, and the article has no independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The article definitely is written like an advertisement, and in such a bad shape that IMHO it should best be killed and started completely new (plus it might actually be a copy of some official rapidminer advertisement and thus a copy right violation!). The extensions should be listed on the rapidminer webpage, no need to copy the links into Wikipedia. I do however consider the product itself notable, so I would not file a deletion request. It should just be rewritten completely from someone independent from rapidminer to not contain any advertisment wording. --Chire (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

List of RapidMiner extensions considered a link farm?[edit]

2011-02-08: Why should a list of RapidMiner extension demonstrating the wide applicability of RapidMiner be considered a link farm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The relevant policies/guidelines include WP:EL, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTLINK.
The section had no independent sources, just links to the extensions themselves. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The main purpose of the Wikipedia I believe should be to be a source of information and knowledge. I am afraid that deleting extension links (that most probably will be of interest many of RM users) is contra-productive and a step against visitors interested in Rapidminer tool.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:33, 9 February 2011
If no one is interested in addressing the relevant policies/guidelines, the discussion probably won't get very far. However, there are other alternatives to try, described in WP:DR. The most relevant approach would be to start a discussion at WP:ELN. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
My opinion is that we go against common sense and against the interest of most readers of this page. On the other hand, I respect your opinion and the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I think it is very unfortunate that this very part of the site was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
My idea is - is there anyone epxerienced, who can give some suggestion, how to provide RM extensions to readers in respect to WIKI rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Have someone add the extensions to the --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Mention the extensions here in the wiki without the corresponding links. If anyone interested, he/she can use a search engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand that in case of some general issue (e.g. digital processing) would not be a good idea to give links to third party sites. However in case the RapidMiner is an open-source tool and anzone reading this page is interested in this tool, therefore according to common sense would be to give links to its extensions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

RapidMiner server version developed by the founding RapidMiner team not considered notable?[edit]

2011-02-08: Why should one consider RapidAnalytics, the server version of RapidMiner, i.e. open source data mining server solution provided by the same development team that initiated and developed RapidMiner (Rapid-I) not notable?

The notability of this article isn't clear, nor sourced. I've tagged the article to indicated this. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I've found a reliable source that shows notability. It's also covered by the linked article at Stanford, where they link to a peer-reviewed paper at ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Diego Moya (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure those are enough to meet WP:N. We've no independent sources with any significant coverage of RapidMiner at all. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Those are not difficult to find, though. [1][2][3][4] Maybe they're not a review in a big-public magazine, but there are Wikipedia articles with references much worse than these. (Also, "recognized peer reviewed publications" are independent sources of evidence per Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence. Diego Moya (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe any of those would be considered reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
They are independent sources with significant coverage, though. Also remember that Notability is a guideline, not a policy. I think the KDnuggets' annual polls and the published papers are enough to establish notability, and that the abundant corpus of third party commentary can be used applying common sense to fill-in the details. You can't reasonably expect a specialized tool for an obscure area to have mass-media coverage. But not being popular doesn't make it non-notable, and this software seems to be broadly adopted by people in the know. Diego Moya (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I do agree. The question is - would it improve or impair the content of this wiki page? From my point point of the answer is clear and therefore is according to common sense (BTW - the page is currently not at very good condition).
I would recommend to use common sense before a blind following of rules. Many visitors of this page are interested in this. I'm afraid you're going against the interests of visitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:42, 9 February 2011
RapidAnalytics and the various extensions can be found on the RapidMiner homepage. That is enough. Wikipedia is not an internet directory. The server version is just another variant of rapidminer and at most worth half a sentence in this article. (which needs to be rewritten from scratch by someone not working at rapidminer - it currently is just an awful advertisment text!) --Chire (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Attention needed[edit]

  • Reads like an advert  Done
  • Header fixes  Done
  • Remove spam. fluff, puffery etc.  Done
  • Check refs  Done
  • check factual accuracy
  • refs - fixes and add some

Chaosdruid (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone against stubbing down it to just the introduction? --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd just remove the advertisment sections, i.e. "What is", "Software Versions" and "Who uses". The next sections are acceptable. --Chire (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I am going to do the headers to start with, then a copyedit run.  Done Chaosdruid (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Nice work. Now if we can find some refs... --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)