- YaBB (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Yet another Bulletin Board was started in 2000 by a 16-year old. It served as the first flat file, non-threaded, free, and open-source bulletin board / forum system ever. It was also one of the few openly developed projects by team members from around the world at the time. It is written in the Perl language and is still being developed today. Developers of YaBB have gone on to found and develop Ikonboard, Invision Power Board, E-Blah, and Simple Machines Forum. For its first couple years, it was the most used forum system out. It is referenced in several books and in many interviews of software companies and developers, many whom worked with YaBB in the past. It was essentially the grandfather of most forums out today and is still a large competitor. It has a rightful place in history due to these reasons and is well known by name in the Internet website world.
YaBB had an article on Wikipedia for many years. It was unjustifiably deleted by Wikipedia in February 2010 for incorrect facts and biased promotional opinions of the editors. The article was painstakingly recreated this week. An editor on Wikipedia essentially attacked me this week by referring me to the apparent deletion review process then removing all of my arguments, marking the article as spam, reverting hours of work I spent on updating the article for no reason, then marking it for speedy deletion. I discussed this with him and was told my arguments for keeping it were invalid. He also stated the article was promotional in nature, when in fact it was written in a very historical manner (I'm not sure how the originally deleted article was written but it was no more historical than the new). After I and others replied on the discussion page to explain why it should not be removed, all of these discussions were completely deleted. The old discussions which were on the incorrectly spelled "Yabb" page were then moved from there to the deletion discussion on the newly created "YaBB" page. I also explained to him that many other competing software such as Ikonboard, Invision Power Board, ProBoards and Simple Machines Forum also have Wikipedia articles and are much more promotional than YaBB's was. The newly created article had a long section of history, which was most of the article, links to interviews of other software founders that came from and/or referred to YaBB, links to many external reference sites, and links to books.Corey (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some example external links with information related to the article.
http://www.yabbforum.com
https://sourceforge.net/projects/yabb/
http://cgi.resourceindex.com/detail/04955.html
http://www.forum-software.org/yabb/review
http://www.theadminzone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14252
http://www.theadminzone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10949
http://articles.sitepoint.com/article/matt-mecham-ibforums
http://www.boardmod.org
http://www.yabbtoolbar.com
http://www.yabbworld.com/
http://www.yabbdirectory.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software_(other)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProBoards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Machines_Forum
http://www.facebook.com/pages/YaBB/175303075097#!/pages/YaBB/175303075097
http://www.abbreviations.com/b1.aspx?KEY=232812
http://www.amazon.com/YaBB-Lambert-M-Surhone/dp/6130401248/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1286515157&sr=8-5
http://books.google.com/books?id=8G_P6AkUT8EC&pg=PA324&dq=%22YaBB%22+-inpublisher&hl=en&ei=NEWuTL--JsufnAflh-X8BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22YaBB%22%20-inpublisher&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=WTl_7H5HUZAC&pg=PA157&dq=%22YaBB%22+-inpublisher&hl=en&ei=NEWuTL--JsufnAflh-X8BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22YaBB%22%20-inpublisher&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=FaTiGmOLVF4C&pg=PA7&dq=%22YaBB%22+-inpublisher&hl=en&ei=NEWuTL--JsufnAflh-X8BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22YaBB%22%20-inpublisher&f=false
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ic0PTG3dhc&feature=related
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review
Corey (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)]</ref>[reply]
- temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not finding much terribly convincing so far. Anything with "yabb" in the URL is going to regarded as a primary source, other wikipedia articles can't be used to establish notability, neither can fan sources (e.g. facebook). Haven't looked at all the rest yet, but the amazon link to to what appears to be the book form of a (perhaps this?) wiki article, and the first google book link just used a YaBB script as an example of an install. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- *Reply - I don't know what you expect to find for a piece of software and what would convince you.... For future knowledge in how to better wite "historical" articles that are not full of what you call useless references, then please explain to me how Simple Machines Forum and all the other forum software deserve a wikipedia article and YaBB does not? I'm not saying they don't, but if that is your reason for deleting it recall: YaBB's article had much more references from other sources than the others. In fact, SMF's only has 2 links that are not links to their own website; the YaBB article only had a couple links that WERE to their own website. Seem fishy to you? Certainly makes me uncomfortable with the whole premise of Wikipedia and its apparent attempt to be a non-promotional but educational tool. I don't understand how you do not see the connection in the history section and in the links to the various interviews from other well-known software developers and their roots with YaBB. Also, the fact that it is referenced in COUNTLESS books - I only listed a few should add to that. The books I happened to list were some that discuss various software and particularly reference YaBB, its history, what it is, and in some cases how to install it. YaBB has a place in history for giving birth to the non-threaded forum world, paving the way for open source forums, and for being the proving ground for the developers and founders of countless other systems and companies. What have the others done other than writing a piece of software similarly and selling it? What do you not get? I want to prove my case to you and want to ensure that this piece of history is not lost. Please tell me what you are looking for to prove this, and I'll find it. Please also tell me what I can do to better preserve the information in an article that meets the guidelines you are trying to enforce because I cannot figure it out by reading other articles. Corey (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:INN, WP:SEWAGE etc. The fact that other articles exist which may not meet the standards in their current form is not a free pass for everything else. The expectation is that this article meets the standards. The basic inclusion criteria is notability which roughly speaking does the world at large beleive this is significant such that reliable sources will write in detail about it. The general notability guidline calls for non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. Hence the sourcing to blogs/forums posts etc. fails the reliable sources part (I can go out and create loads of posts all over the internet about my favourite topic, it means nothing, worse still I can make crap up). Those which are the the originators, sourceforge etc. are primary sources and fail the independant part (again I can go out and write lots and lots about my product, doesn't make it interesting to the rest of the world etc.) , reliable sourcing eliminates many including those which are based on wikipedia content, wikipedia isn't a reliable source. And non-trivial coverage precludes directory entries passing mentions etc. Your statement "I want to prove my case to you and want to ensure that this piece of history is not lost." suggests to me the fundamental problem, you want wikipedia to be the source for the piece of history, something wikipedia is rather expressly not, wikipedia should never be the primary source of anything. If the history is important per notability the world at large will believe so and will have written about it, any wikipedia article has to be based on that, not the other way around. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for providing me with an educational, useful, and respectful reply, as others in these discussions and deletions have not done so to date. I understand your points and agree with most of them. Of course, I agree that links to the project's own sites do not count as sources of providing importance due to not being independent. However, being Internet software, most of the sources are going to be online references such as forums on others' sites. Interviews nowadays are often posted on forums as were the ones referenced. If you doubt their reliability, you can contact the interviewers or simply see that they are the administrators/founders of the major sites they are posted on. If it would make you feel better, I could publish them all in a printed book. And seeing as the world is now an online social media consumer, historical articles and public opinion about a topic are going to be discussed online, which in turn become the main method we can use to verify the importance (to the people) of said topic. Of course "crap" could be made up, but that is the risk we take with the Internet. I have to rely on electronic documentation at work without knowing that the work was truly done or by the person listed. One day, this may be all we have. And this still doesn't account for the physical paper books that do exist. I agree that Wikipedia cannot be assumed as 100% factual and correct. However, fact is Wikipedia is used as a research tool by teachers, students, and employees because of the way it has positioned itself. You and all the Wikipedia researchers/administrators are tasked with protecting this. Of course, sound research must be backed up by other sources. The general notability guidline also states "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." YaBB definitely had more sources to prove its notability several years ago, which is why it had a Wikipedia article for years (edited by many people) until February 2010. Suddenly deleting it is not following your own policies. That being said, if the information presented to date is not sufficient and based on your reply, the free pass you have given me is to request review for deletion of every other web software, especially forums and especially those (most) which have no external references. And no, this would not be to make a point WP:POINT, it would be to help Wikipedia's editors in keeping it the great source it's meant to be. Corey (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other articles which don't (and can't) meet the standard can of course be nominated for deletion. Be cautious however of "Before nominating an article for deletion" and WP:POINT. Regarding the reliability of forums etc. by wikipedia standards they generally aren't, we don't need to take a risk, if a source can't be evaluated or doesn't meet the standards we don't use it. I have some sympathy on the prelevance of electrronic media perhaps not fitting the model well in establishing notability, however it's a tough nut to crack it is pretty easy to gain a very broad web presence, run astroturfing campaigns etc. This is however a far broader problem and issue than just this article and something which has been discussed on numerous occasions with no concensus to change things, it isn't within DRVs remit to just ignore and overrule the community. Regarding wikipedia "as a research tool by teachers, students, and employees because of the way it has positioned itself.", then not really again wikpedia is qutie clear it isn't a primary source on these things, it's why the insistance on verifiability, no one should be citing wikipedia as a source they should always be going to the underlying wikipedia sources. Indeed many in the academic world are critical of students etc referencing wikipedia. (See Citing_Wikipedia#A_caution_before_citing_Wikipedia) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm struggling to figure out what sources are considered valid for making the case of Internet forum software. I can continue to quote physical paper books though. In addition to the several books with information about YaBB, there are hundreds if not thousands that have URLs to forums for sources cited in the books that are using YaBB (easily found because YaBB.pl or YaBB.cgi is in the URL). I am reviewing the WP:Reliable Sources guideline.
- http://books.google.com/books?id=yYztT8dwTyoC&pg=PA433&dq=YaBB&hl=en&ei=lZivTMfXOZGlnQfggfWhBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=YaBB&f=false
- http://books.google.com/books?id=vPP_qJeeGgsC&pg=PA538&dq=YaBB&hl=en&ei=sZivTPaTGsbcngfA56iPBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwADge#v=onepage&q=YaBB&f=false
- http://books.google.com/books?id=TzsqA_hrjTcC&pg=PA100&dq=YaBB&hl=en&ei=-JyvTM-hCsyfnAfuvsmiBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwADhG#v=onepage&q=YaBB&f=false
- http://books.google.com/books?id=KgryRaX2xzAC&pg=PA6&dq=Perl+YaBB&hl=en&ei=P6CvTOSfNIernQfDxtztBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Perl%20YaBB&f=false
- http://books.google.com/books?id=_7jvXpB_NBMC&pg=PA135&dq=Perl+YaBB&hl=en&ei=P6CvTOSfNIernQfDxtztBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=YaBB&f=false
- Corey (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote: "The fact that other articles exist which may not meet the standards in their current form is not a free pass for everything else. The expectation is that this article meets the standards. The basic inclusion criteria is notability which roughly speaking does the world at large beleive this is significant such that reliable sources will write in detail about it. The general notability guidline calls for non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources."
- It is hard to equate an article to fit the standards by viewing other wiki articles if they might not meet the standards and are not marked for deletion.
- If the qualification is notability certainly the results of Google, Ask, and other search engines should heavily influence the decision of an article about YaBB. Simply the letters YaBB deserves definition and description (history) of a freelance endeavor that still exists and flourishes 10 years after appearing on the international web. Noting past programmers, the Perl language use and even the growth of such a project still being carried forward. Usage by thousands making yabb.pl return 3,910,000 hits when a single search made should be evident that YaBB should be included in Wikipedia.
- Cjohn323 (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Cjohn323[reply]
- If number of google hits show it's important, again then you'd expect the world at large to have noticed (talen note, notability) and written about this. Notablity guidlines are WP:N and general notability guidlines neither mention number of google hits as indicating notability, they do mention non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. See WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:GOOGLE (particularlty Wikipedia:GOOGLE#Notability) for more on this. Of the book extracts I've seen above they don't appear to pass the bar of non-trivial coverage, they are passing mentions or directory style listings, what is needed is coverage which addresses the subject directly and in detail. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Main categories: Technology and Applied sciences
Computing: Artificial intelligence • Classes of computers • Companies • Computer architecture • Computer model • Computer science • Computer security • Computing and society • Data • Embedded systems • Free software • Human-computer interaction • Information systems • Internet • Mobile Web • Languages • Multimedia • Networks • Industrial Networks • Operating systems • Platforms • Product lifecycle management • Programming • Real-time computing • Software • Software engineering • Unsolved problems in computer science • More...
Category:Free software
This is a category of articles relating to software that meets The Free Software Definition. That is to say that users can freely use, study, copy, redistribute, modify, and publish modified versions of the software, making it "free software" or "open-source software". In practical terms, this means either software whose source code has been released into the public domain, or software which is distributed with a free software license, including, but not limited to, the list of FSF approved software licenses, and whose source code is available to anyone who receives a copy of the software.
Category:Software
Category:Perl software
Category:Free software programmed in Perl
Category:Computing and society
Category:Computer-mediated communication
Pages in category "Bulletin board systems"
As a Bulletin Board software written in open-source Perl, YaBB definetly is noteable still being developed after 10 years. Bulletin boards themselves have been around before the popularity and availability of the interent. As Open-source software it is rare to not have been commericalized. As a remote communications media to bring together users around the world it is the fore runner of blogs and social networks. Notability it has in many of the Catergories. Quote: "you'd expect the world at large to have noticed" It has !
Cjohn323 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would help if you would actually read the guidlines notability and the general notability guidelines rather than just trying to fit anything and everything to your view point. The existance of a category for something doesn't mean anything which could fit that category is notable - neitherWP:N nor WP:GNG say that is the case. My crappy garage band is a band, and we have categories for bands, it doesn't make my crappy garage band notable. The concept of a bulletin board may indeed be notable (and indeed we have an article on the concept), but that doesn't automatically make everything which could be described as such is notable. Merely asserting "it has!" says nothing, once again the requirememt is for that to be demonstrated by it being written about in a non-trivial way by multiple independant reliable sources, not some random wikipedia editor saying "it has!". Unless you can produce those then this discussion is pointless. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Overturn Put simply, I do not see a consensus to delete in the discussion. It would help, though if someone experienced in our guidelines helped in the writing and sourcing. (My own view is that computer programs from this period are notable as long as there is evidence of sufficiently major use. We have to be realistic in terms of the possibilities for sourcing.) DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you reading the same discussion. 8 opinions, 5 opine to delete 3 to keep (one weak) the 4 of the deletes bring up the lack of suitable sources/references one is a weaker bald assertion of non-notability. The three keeps, one "weak" addresses the sourcing, the other two basically the weaker bald assertions of notability. In terms of the standards of rough consensus which are applied I can't see how a consensus wasn't reached. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "from this period" What is so unique about ten years ago that it should be specially treated? BBS software from the era of 300 baud modems might be hard to source but 2000 web based BBS, no. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Endorse deletion The closer's reading of consensus was correct, particularly as the first 'keep' was 'weak keep' (a very weak keep in my view) and the other two did not address policy or guideline reasons for keeping the article at all. Jon 217.43.240.23 (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse 2000 is not so long ago, it is still well within popular internet time, and obvious lasting influence of this thing should be plainly evident without going to primary sources and fan pages. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- 2000 is almost 11 years ago, which is a pretty long time, especially when you consider that the "modern" Internet did not become popular until the late 90's. This means YaBB's inception was remarkable for its time in days when telnet BBS systems still thrived and were only just dying as the primary means of remote "online" communication to be replaced by E-Mail which homes then still barely had. Also, several other sources have been cited in this discussion other than just primary sources and fan pages. Here's another to add to the list: http://www.pcw.co.uk/computeractive/features/2158240/add-forum-website . YaBB had a feature article in this British magazine and was featured in several other magazines, books, and CDs over the years. Don't try to tell me again that minor publishers don't count because this was a very popular mainstream magazine that existed for 31 years and just stopped publishing last year. If it was "not notable" why would such a large publication write an article? I can also provide you with a dozen sites with YaBB reviews on them, some of them being full product reviews by the site rather than just member-edited or user comments. Here's one of them http://www.forum-software.org/yabb/review which has several pages in the article written by an independent administrator on that site - no ties to YaBB and no request for this - done on their own. Do you honestly expect to find a web URL to all sources that you personally feel make it notable? Not everything is accessible on the Internet as much as you'd like to think - things are sometimes not posted online and things do "expire" online. Books, magazines, and newspapers still exist. People still make speeches using their mouths. There are still physical museums and memorials that you can touch. I couldn't provide you with a citing online for all of those things, so then you might say "it's a you said so then, which means it can't exist." If we had this discussion a couple years ago we could have pointed more quickly found sources out, but the fact that they are not all readily available today via the Internet does not mean it's not notable. By Wikipedia guidelines, if it was once notable, it is forever - it cannot become "unnotable". YaBB had the article for years, which means it was notable - it would not have been "missed" by all the editors for that long. Additionally, as I said, in its hayday (not that it isn't still very popular) there was more that I could readily cite on the Internet - we're having this discussion too late. You cannot ignore the independent interviews, reviews, and several book references that have been provided above, and you are. These are not "fan pages" OR "primary sources" point blank. I know of someone who is actually trying to find a copy of a magazine that has an article about YaBB in it to scan as a printed proof. You can buy the books above if you'd feel more cozy. Corey (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Corey, the thing to do with these sources of yours is to set up a wiki over at Wikia dedicated to bulletin boards or whatever, where you can use whatever sources you like. Alternatively, build up an article on YaBB in your user space using good quality sources that talk about the subject in detail (not yabb, forums, fan sites, wikipedia, trivial mentions) and check with an experienced editor whether it meets the inclusion criteria for an article in Wikipedia before moving it into article space. As it stands, the deletion was correct. Jon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.240.23 (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When I re-created the article this month, my goal was to write it in a better manner and I feel I did that. Granted, it was far from complete and lacked some sources and information, but I noted that in the article that there were things to be completed. My hope was that we would receive guidance and time for others to contribute. I can certainly write the article somewhere else, but where would I find guidelines on how to properly write the article and what would be the process for getting someone at Wikipedia.org to review it to see if it could be included here? 99.190.107.115 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
