We need your help to get the bbPress page reinstated on Wikipedia!

Sadly, the bbPress page was deleted last August:

http://ckon.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/wikipedia-overlords-delete-bbpress-page/

The reasons given for the deletion included this: “Fails WP:RS as sources are self published.”

The “WP:RS” notation is short for “WikiPedia:Reliable Sources”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS

“Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations – see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.”

In other words, most of the references cited were hosted on bbpress.org:

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=BbPress_(deleted_31_Jul_2008_at_00:19)#External_links

I’d like to recreate the bbPress page on WikiPedia, but this time with a bunch of “reliable, third-party, published sources”. I did a bunch of Googling though, and most of the mentions of bbPress were on blogs.

Has anyone seen reviews or mentions of bbPress in non-blog sources? If so, please post a link here… thanks!

[DawormieMember @dawormie 4 years ago]

Non – wordpress / bbpress owned sites I believe.

1: http://www.g-loaded.eu/2007/04/25/bbpress-for-wordpress/

2: http://www.iterating.com/products/bbPress

3: http://adrianshort.co.uk/2008/10/26/246/

Mind you – to get information those 3party sources usually source their information from the original website… go figure!! ^.^

[DawormieMember @dawormie 4 years ago]

Also this one: http://www.g-loaded.eu/2007/04/25/bbpress-for-wordpress/

[johnhilerMember @johnhiler 4 years ago]

Thanks for the links! I’m hopeful we can find non blog sources, but reputable blogs are a close second!

On that note, there are some good articles on bbPress here:

http://www.blogherald.com/tag/bbpress/

[DawormieMember @dawormie 4 years ago]

Problem is, where would you find a site that talks about new software? BLOGS!

Review sites are blogs essentially if you think about it

I mean, I don’t recall seeing phpBB in the news anytime recently..

[johnhilerMember @johnhiler 4 years ago]

I agree! This is Wikipedia’s policy, not my own… they are really conservative when it comes to sources.

WordPress gets a lot of press on tech news sites!

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.cnet.com+wordpress

bbPress really gets almost none though… it’s kinda shocking. Even BuddyPress gets more press!

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/30/buddypress-launches-may-a-thousand-social-networks-bloom/

http://mashable.com/2009/04/30/buddypress-social-networking/

[DawormieMember @dawormie 4 years ago]

Perhaps a submission to cnet about bbPress and it’s VERY easy integration with WordPress?

Also the stupidly simplistic modifications needed to make a WordPress theme work with bbPress?

I’m doing mine at the moment and I’ve changed maybe a total of 10 lines in the CSS (some lines multiple times) to make it convert.

[wiseacreMember @wiseacre 4 years ago]

It isn’t our job to promote unfinished and undeveloped software.

What Automattic’s marketing staff think about missed “reliable souces”?

OK, OK I know – it’s not my job too

[kevinjohngallagherMember @kevinjohngallagher 3 years, 12 months ago]

One of the things BBpress does really well is putting the horse before the cart.

Given that we skipped the last alpha, wrote off all the grand plans that had been coded to for 1.0a7, entirely skipped the beta stages, and released an RC thats not exactly been put through its paces yet… maybe just maybe we should hold off on getting on Wikipedia until, i dunno, the software is ready?

[johnhilerMember @johnhiler 3 years, 12 months ago]

Wikipedia isn’t a promotional brochure… it’s an encyclopedia that captures the state of knowledge on a given subject. We can definitely write up that Automattic skipped the last alpha/beta and moved up the RC… that would just be part of the article.

I agree that Automattic staff should focus on whatever it is that they do. I’m just a user though, and I’d love to see the current state of bbPress captured on Wikipedia (especially since so many other message board apps are on there).

Anyone seen any mainstream articles on bbPress out there? Would love a few more before I resubmit the article… thanks!

[kevinjohngallagherMember @kevinjohngallagher 3 years, 12 months ago]

Ok, let me phrase it another way.

Given BBpress’s track record (alpha’s that fail, lack of communication, wrong communication, skipping of beta’s 2 weeks after telling everyone that you’re skipping alpha7 for beta1, lack of integration, lack of coherance with wordpress, prettey dubious documentation etc); what possible good can come out of having a wikipedia page before the RTM1.0 ?

Also, with RTM1.0, won’t that in itself generate alot of blog/article posts once the automattic “it’s all fine here, these aren’t the droids you’re looking for” marketing; why have ‘bad/negative’ facts written on teh wikipedia page?

[Sam BauersParticipant @sambauers 3 years, 12 months ago]

The deletion from Wikipedia was pretty random and I think a better structured and written page would probably survive. Interestingly the BuddyPress page has only one self-published reference.

I appreciate people’s desire to evangelize bbPress (thanks johnhiler) but I at least agree with kevinjohngallagher’s sentiments about putting the cart before the horse. If there is willingness to write something to promote bbPress, then how about we put some effort into our own site?

If anyone wants to have a go at comprehensive editing and/or rewriting any of the information on bbPress.org I’m happy to help with that process. I think this would be far more valuable to us.

So I guess I’d like to hijack the enthusiasm that some people are showing and direct it closer to home. I can easily create a sandboxed WordPress install that volunteer editors can use to re-work the existing content. Then once we are happy with it, we can migrate it over to the main site.

I also think that a “codex” wiki site for bbPress would be beneficial at this stage but I need some reassurance that it won’t just sit there empty either. So take this poll and we can see if there is traction for that to be created…

http://www.polldaddy.com/p/1650020/

[johnhilerMember @johnhiler 3 years, 12 months ago]

Sure, I’d be glad to help rewrite and edit info on bbPress.org on a separate site – as well as contribute to a codex wiki.

But just to be clear: I’m not attempting to evangelize bbPress on Wikipedia. I think of Wikipedia as an fairly comprehensive encyclopedia, and as such it should have an article on software like bbPress. Some outside references would help on that front, which is where the impetus for this post came from.

Just let us know how we can help with the copy editing and codex writing, and I’d be glad to pitch in!

[DawormieMember @dawormie 3 years, 12 months ago]

I’d be happy to help edit / format and update a wiki. I’m not the best at writing stuff from scratch for tech doco. But happy to help with formating and keeping it clean!

[TheChrisDMember @thechrisd 3 years, 12 months ago]

Page re-instated with a brief history section added.

If anyone has any more relevant information to add to the article, feel free, but please try and make sure that it does have a reliable source, preferably from somewhere on the Internet OTHER than this site.

[_ck_Participant @_ck_ 2 years, 10 months ago]

I just noticed that the wiki page was deleted for a SECOND time in February 2010 (originally deleted in July 2008)

This time I can’t even find an archive of the 2009 version.

As Nightgunner pointed out, Blanket Fort? No problem. bbPress? problem.

February 8, 2010

Removed

* BbPress (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Low-Class (rev · t).