You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@pulsar.apache.org by "visortelle (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org> on 2023/11/03 19:20:55 UTC
[I] We still don't have a Wikipedia article about Apache Pulsar. Why? [pulsar]
visortelle opened a new issue, #21514:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/21514
### Search before asking
- [X] I searched in the [issues](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues) and found nothing similar.
### Motivation
I recently noticed that Apache Pulsar doesn’t have an article on Wikipedia.
Apache Pinot, 4.9k stars on GitHub. Has article.
Apache Storm, 6.5k stars on GitHub. Has article.
Apache Pulsar, 13.3k stars on GitHub. No article. :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:
Having such an article would help the project's popularization.
Also, it makes sense to add Pulsar to lists like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_processing
Stream programming libraries and languages
If someone is interested and has experience in content writing let's collaborate. I think someone from the technical writers' team and someone from the SN marketing team would be the best here.
### Solution
_No response_
### Alternatives
_No response_
### Anything else?
_No response_
### Are you willing to submit a PR?
- [ ] I'm willing to submit a PR!
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@pulsar.apache.org.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [I] We still don't have a Wikipedia article about Apache Pulsar. Why? [pulsar]
Posted by "visortelle (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
visortelle commented on issue #21514:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/21514#issuecomment-1801770615
I submitted a draft article for review: https://w.wiki/85mp
If it will be accepted by Wikipedia moderators, I'm going to add some basic illustrations.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@pulsar.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [I] We still don't have a Wikipedia article about Apache Pulsar. Why? [pulsar]
Posted by "jak78 (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
jak78 commented on issue #21514:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/21514#issuecomment-1798828476
Revised thoughts:
As an employee of StreamNative, I recognize that writing a Wikipedia article could constitute a [Conflict of Interest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest), which is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia to ensure the neutrality of its articles. A more appropriate approach would be to seek a volunteer unaffiliated with any vendor to write the article. Naturally, we can offer our support.
Thoughts?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@pulsar.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [I] We still don't have a Wikipedia article about Apache Pulsar. Why? [pulsar]
Posted by "merlimat (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
merlimat closed issue #21514: We still don't have a Wikipedia article about Apache Pulsar. Why?
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/21514
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@pulsar.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [I] We still don't have a Wikipedia article about Apache Pulsar. Why? [pulsar]
Posted by "visortelle (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
visortelle commented on issue #21514:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/21514#issuecomment-1799137607
@jak78 it actually was predictable that there is such a rule. 😆
I'm not an employee of StreamNative and haven't made any money on Pulsar yet.
Will try to write something.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@pulsar.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [I] We still don't have a Wikipedia article about Apache Pulsar. Why? [pulsar]
Posted by "visortelle (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
visortelle commented on issue #21514:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/21514#issuecomment-1805449139
I’m tired of the ineffective ping-pong with Wiki moderators. Perhaps someone else can try creating a Wikipedia article on Apache Pulsar.
> **Disclaimer:** That is my understanding of the situation after spending a few days trying to fulfill all the Wikipedia requirements.
Probably I just had bad luck with the moderators.
By looking at other Wikipedia articles, I don't see that at least half of these requirements are fulfilled.
### Tips for further submitters
Each fact should have refs to sources that are:
- In-depth - I hardly understand how "in-depthness" can be evaluated by people who aren't professionals in the topic.
- Secondary - not the project's documentation or Apache Foundation blog.
- Independent - not a company blog that is interested in Pulsar growth.
- Reliable - peer-to-peer reviewed scientific paper, article to a reputable magazine with a team of professional editors.
Attempting to prove a fact by providing a combination of sources doesn't work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_overkill
Be ready for someone with no competence in software engineering will evaluate the sources you provided.
I was unable to find any Wiki article similar subject that would fulfill all of their requirements.
References to other Wiki articles that have similar gaps in requirements don't work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OSE
Notability: you should prove that Apache Pulsar is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. References to many Wikipedia articles with fewer GitHub stars, community size, ASF PMC members, etc, don't work.
Your submission may be rejected because volunteering for Apache Foundation by
contributing to any Pulsar-related project before submitting the article. This can be considered a “conflict of interest”.
One of the moderators told me that Wikipedia is “by lay people for lay people”, but I unlikely can imagine that the aunty from next door would write an article about Pulsar.
---
<details>
<summary>Post-draft-rejection conversation log</summary>
Need help with an article about Apache Pulsar @331dot written: > To pass the submission process, the draft needs to be much less about the technical information and features, and needs to discuss what independent sources say is important about this platform. That's my opinion, feel free to ask others at the AFC Help
I looked a lot. Spent the whole day on it.
Eventually, I asked the Pulsar community for help in finding good references. Hoping for any good recommendations. https://lists.apache.org/thread/vh8v8wch5drt7w6d4sozstpvhdcqn6gx
I don't see any independent, in-depth, and reliable at the same time sources here. Most of the in-depth sources are from the project documentation, StreamNative blog, or DataStax blog.
There are some articles by some bloggers on Medium and similar resources, but I can't they are "reliable".
Half a year ago I made a list of articles about Pulsar: https://github.com/tealtools/awesome-apache-pulsar#articles
Maybe something from this list is suitable?
There are two books on Apache Pulsar. One of the books is written by StreamNative employee, so its not "independent". Unlikely I can cite the second book several times in the article.
What is the concrete threshold of refs per section/per paragraph/per sentence or any other clear metric to article be considered valid for publishing?
I see the same similar situation in the list of [Apache_Kafka](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Kafka) and [RabbitMQ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RabbitMQ) references list. At least half of the references are from "dependent" sources.
[Visortelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visortelle) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Visortelle)) 20:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
[Visortelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visortelle) I fixed your post for proper display of a link to your draft(you had what I think you intended as a section title where the draft title should have been) [331dot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:331dot) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:331dot)) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
@[Visortelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visortelle) You asked about thresholds. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple [secondary sources](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SECONDARY) which are [WP:RS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS) please. See [WP:42](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:42). Please also see [WP:PRIMARY](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARY) which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and [WP:SELFPUB](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELFPUB) which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
That is what we need. How many? That depends upon how many facts you state that are susceptible to challenge (as opposed to simple facts, like "Chalk is white")
I suspect you have answered your own question. No (useful) references = no article. 🇺🇦 [FiddleTimtrent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timtrent) [FaddleTalk to me](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timtrent) 🇺🇦 20:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I can't spend a lot of time on attempts and combinatorics. Can we go this way?:
I'll provide multiple sources for each fact. Each of them separately most likely won't be "independent", "secondary" and "in-depth", but in combination, these requirements will be completed.
They will complement each other and not contradict each other. You'll be able to remove some of them. [Visortelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visortelle) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Visortelle)) 03:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
@[Visortelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visortelle) No. Spend the time or don't spend it. Multiple references for a fact is [WP:CITEKILL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CITEKILL), and will lead to a decline, perhaps rejection. If you want the draft to be an article, please see [WP:BURDEN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BURDEN). Wikipedia woudl like articles. but does not need them 🇺🇦 [FiddleTimtrent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timtrent) [FaddleTalk to me](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timtrent) 🇺🇦 10:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
@[Visortelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visortelle) Seems it was rejected. Shame. Never mind. 🇺🇦 [FiddleTimtrent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timtrent) [FaddleTalk to me](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timtrent) 🇺🇦 10:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
That's now how citations work here- putting multiple citations and saying they only work together would be [original research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR). [331dot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:331dot) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:331dot)) 10:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I just offer a choice for the reviewer. Feel free to leave refs you think is suitable and remove what you think isn't suitable.
The review process seems a subjective assessment. Is there any automated ref quality checker or something like that?
For now, it looks to me that reviewers even don't read the content of refs and just reject it for fun. [Visortelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visortelle) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Visortelle)) 14:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I provided:
Refs to two books from O'Reilly Media - the very reputable publisher.
Refs to articles on independent blogs.
Refs to an article in pdf by Intel.
What's wrong here? [Visortelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visortelle) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Visortelle)) 14:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
@ 331dot Keeping the discussion in the existing section.
Is the article at inforworld.com a good article? [Visortelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visortelle) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Visortelle)) 14:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not good for establishing notability. It's a comparison between two products and describes their features, it does not provide coverage indicating what makes it [notable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N).. Blogs(which you refer to) are not generally considered [reliable sources](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS) as they usually lack editorial control and fact checking. [331dot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:331dot) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:331dot)) 14:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
What about books? [Visortelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visortelle) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Visortelle)) 15:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Most books are fine as sources(unless they are self-published). I haven't read the books you refer to so I can't comment beyond that. [331dot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:331dot) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:331dot)) 15:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
What exactly is wrong with the references in this article?
I'm looking on another Wikipedia articles on related technologies an quality of references isn't better in any way.
Maybe this is a suitable source to refer to? https://www.infoworld.com/article/3379120/apache-kafka-vs-apache-pulsar-how-to-choose.html [Visortelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visortelle) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Visortelle)) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
[Visortelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visortelle) Please keep the discussion to this existing section. [331dot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:331dot) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:331dot)) 14:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Again, comparisons to other articles are not usually useful, see [WP:OSE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OSE)- unless those articles are classified as [good articles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GOODARTICLE). [331dot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:331dot) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:331dot)) 14:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
@[Visortelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visortelle):, let's review the sources listed to see if there is enough independent, significant coverage:
1. Not independent or significant coverage.
2. Not independent. "At the time we started"
3. Not independent or significant coverage.
4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16. Those sources are okay but they are kind of just random websites. There isn't really any broader newspaper or magazine coverage of this.
6 and 17. I'm not sure specialist how-to books count towards significant coverage.
7. I doubt Powerpoints count towards significant coverage.
8. Interview, not really fully independent.
12. Interview, not fully independent.
13. Company website, not independent.
15. I'm not sure that pdf essay counts towards significant coverage.
Honestly, this is borderline but I'm not sure if it's enough to support a stand-alone Wikipedia article. [WikiOriginal-9](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WikiOriginal-9) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiOriginal-9)) 15:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding "this is borderline". If from start the moderators' feedback would contain at least a short per/source review as you provided, it would be smoother and much faster. [Visortelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visortelle) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Visortelle)) 15:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the more specific answer.
1. It's not a source, but rather a metadata. It has been added using Wikidata which has a special field for articles about software projects whose source is publicly available. How can it be viewed as a source? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1324
3. Same - metadata about this kind of projects.
4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16. - should I keep them?
6 and 17 (books) - they cover the subject quite well. The documentation on the official site of course is more up-to-date, but both books have a good introduction into the problems that Pulsar intended to solve, it's history, it's architecture.
The publisher is [O'Reilly Media](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Reilly_Media). It's a reputable publisher with editor team.
Rest points: Apache Pulsar isn't a scientific research project. It doesn't imply writing scientific papers, same as many other software projects which have articles on the Wikipedia.
Also its unlikely New York Times, Washington Post, or any other magazine will publish anything about it.
Both books contain all the little amount of information mentioned in this article. [Visortelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visortelle) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Visortelle)) 15:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't saying you should remove those sources. I was just evaluating them on whether they contributed towards [notability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability). You can still use sources that don't count towards notability as references for other facts. [WikiOriginal-9](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WikiOriginal-9) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiOriginal-9)) 15:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Whats next?
Do books count?
Should I remove some sources? Something else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_ActiveMQ - most sources are links to the project's documentation or documentation of other Apache Foundation projects. When I did the same for Apache Pulsar, wiki moderators told me I can't use it because it's not a secondary source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RabbitMQ - same. Either articles on company sites that are interested in project, or the project site itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Kafka - same. Even Quora in sources list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATS_Messaging - company blog, random websites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Qpid - only single source in the list on how to install it.
Regarding the notability - amount of stars on GitHub is a good metric for open-source projects popularity.
Only Apache Kafka from this list is more popular than Pulsar.
Most of top-level (not incubating) Apache Foundation projects are notable enough for people interested in this area. https://projects.apache.org/projects.html?number Many Apache projects with less number of committers and PMC members have an article on Wikipedia: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Cassandra - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_RocketMQ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_CouchDB - ... many others.
Pulsar has a Slack community with more than 10,000 users - also more that many projects of this kind that have an article on Wikipedia. This kind of software is used in many enterprise companies. Pulsar isn't something that has been released this month, it's a mature project with hundreds of contributors: https://pulsar.apache.org/blog/2023/02/03/apache-pulsar-hits-its-600th-contributor/#:~:text=The%20Apache%20Pulsar%20community%20embraced,contributed%20to%20this%20remarkable%20achievement. If I'll add refs to the community size statistics, Apache PMC members count, would it contribute to notability? Maybe some ref to a good article with the explanation of why this kind of software is important for the industry? Actually, the only direct competitor with similar amount of features here is Apache Kafka.
If anyone from moderators would provide a good reference article on a same kind of software (message brokers) with good sources list, I would be very grateful.
@[331dot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:331dot) WDYT? [Visortelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visortelle) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Visortelle)) 05:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
cc @[Timtrent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timtrent) @[WikiOriginal-9](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WikiOriginal-9) [Visortelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visortelle) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Visortelle)) 07:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
As I believe I've said previously, it is [usually not a good idea to cite other articles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OSE) in comparison to yours, as they could have problems that you are unaware of. In this case, the ones you are citing indeed have the same problems as your draft. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those [classified as good articles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GOODARTICLE). [331dot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:331dot) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:331dot)) 08:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand why your OSE argument is valid. I would understand it if there would be one, two, three articles on similar topics. But there are tens of such articles on very similar subjects. I can't find any good article. Can you?
Its completely unfair in relation to the project. People who unlikely can understand and evaluate any info written in the sources, trying to make some conclusions.
I scanned the "good articles" list yesterday and didn't find anything similar to the kind of software I'm talking about.
I looked for an open-source project that is:
Relatively new - not 30 years old something used by everyone, or something that is already dead and notable only as a historical fact.
Not something super-popular that runs on a lot of consumer-market devices, but rather a project used by professional engineers, that "normal people" wouldn't talk about.
By the way, Wikipedia itself uses this kind of software (Kafka): https://grafana.wikimedia.org/d/O_OXJyTVk/home-w-wiki-status?orgId=1&refresh=30s&search=open&tag=kafka
I removed most of the content of the original article, including what has been evaluated as promotional in first edits.
Now the draft contain only very short list of facts.
I suppose, the article content can be added by others Pulsar community members over time.
All these facts are mentioned in the referenced books by very reputable publisher.
Isn't it's enough?
Maybe Wikipedia or any of it's moderators personally interested in not adding this specific project? I can't find any other explanation. [Visortelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visortelle) ([talk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Visortelle)) 09:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
</details>
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@pulsar.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [I] We still don't have a Wikipedia article about Apache Pulsar. Why? [pulsar]
Posted by "jak78 (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
jak78 commented on issue #21514:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/21514#issuecomment-1793219143
Good catch @visortelle! I'll write a first proposal this week and submit it to the community.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@pulsar.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
Re: [I] We still don't have a Wikipedia article about Apache Pulsar. Why? [pulsar]
Posted by "merlimat (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
merlimat commented on issue #21514:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/21514#issuecomment-6388784674
Thanks @visortelle for the effort and for writing down what you learned, and @jak78 for the conflict-of-interest pointer. A Wikipedia article isn't something the project can deliver through this issue tracker: under Wikipedia's rules it has to come from independent editors, using independent secondary sources. So I'm closing this as not planned here. Anyone outside the project who wants to take it on can start from the notes in this thread.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@pulsar.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org