6 ms·

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability - all you need to show is that Apache Arrow has receiv

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability - all you need to show is that Apache Arrow has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So: find conference papers/talks by people not affiliated with Apache or the Apache Arrow project and that discuss Apache Arrow. Figure out how to incorporate the tidbits about Arrow from those papers into the article text. Add sources in footnotes. Done.

dajohnson89 7y ago
And to be clear -- this is the job of the article author, not the editor who rejects the article without doing a little bit of homework first?
- tetromino_ 7y ago
  Of course. Similarly, when you are submitting a PR to an open source project or a manuscript to an academic journal, it's your job as the author to take note of contributor guidelines.
- skywhopper 7y ago
  Yes. The author is supposed to cite the sources.
- wolfgang42 7y ago
  Yes; Wikipedia's expectation is that authors have researched the topic about which they are writing, and therefore they are in the best position to provide the sources from which they got their information. The editors' job is to ensure that Wikipedia's standards are met, not to re-do the research that the author should already have performed. If the case is that no research was performed because the author is already an expert in the area, they are still expected to provide citations so that the same standard can be applied to all authors.
sb057 7y ago
A version which was rejected included the following (non-Apache-affiliated [afaik]) references: https://www.xenonstack.com/insights/what-is-apache-arrow/ https://www.xenonstack.com/insights/what-is-apache-arrow/ https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4842-1311-7_5 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4842-1311-... https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/08/23/071092.full.pdf https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/08/23/071... http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/3110000/3103003/p138-Maas.pdf http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/3110000/3103003/p138-Maas.pd... https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/17/apache_arrow_toplevel_project/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/17/apache_arrow_toplev... https://www.cio.com/article/3034279/big-data-gets-a-new-open-source-project-apache-arrow.html https://www.cio.com/article/3034279/big-data-gets-a-new-open... https://www.infoworld.com/article/3033446/hadoop/apache-arrow-aims-to-speed-access-to-big-data.html https://www.infoworld.com/article/3033446/hadoop/apache-arro... https://sdtimes.com/apache/guest-view-first-release-apache-arrow/ https://sdtimes.com/apache/guest-view-first-release-apache-a... https://www.infoq.com/news/2016/12/le-dem-apache-arrow/ https://www.infoq.com/news/2016/12/le-dem-apache-arrow/ http://dbmsmusings.blogspot.com/2017/10/apache-arrow-vs-parquet-and-orc-do-we.html http://dbmsmusings.blogspot.com/2017/10/apache-arrow-vs-parq... https://dbmsmusings.blogspot.com/2017/10/apache-arrow-vs-parquet-and-orc-do-we.html https://dbmsmusings.blogspot.com/2017/10/apache-arrow-vs-par...
- chubot 7y ago
  The blog post should have included these citations because I was left wondering what they did to support their claims. It sounds like they probably should have an article but that they also have misunderstandings of Wikipedia.
- tptacek 7y ago
  The 1st source is a blog post on a consulting company website. The 2nd mentions Arrow only in passing, after several pages of coverage of Spark; Arrow is covered only in relation to Spark. It's a reliable source but doesn't clearly establish notability. The 3rd mentions Arrow hardly at all; it's an implementation detail, mentioned just once, in a paper about something else. I can't fetch the 4th. The 5th, a story in The Register, is reliable and probably does go towards notability, though it seems to sort of argue against it (the gist of the article is that it's surprising that Arrow has been made a top-level project at all). The 6th, in CIO, is a recap of a press release. Trade press PR recaps shouldn't be WP:RS, but WP will often accept them, or would when I was patrolling AfD; it's luck-of-the-draw. The admins who shot down Arrow's page were smart enough not to accept it. The 7th, in InfoWorld, is promotional as well, but it's at least written in some depth. It's a straightforward notability claim. The Arrow article should draw more clearly from it, in the opening paragraph. The 8th, in SDTimes, is written by someone affiliated with the project itself; it's citable, but WP probably won't accept it independently as grounds for notability. Same, in effect, for the 9th, which is just a recap of an interview with the project author. The 10th and 11th are just blog posts. They're citable if they're not contentious, but they usually won't be acceptable as WP:RS for notability.

dajohnson89 7y ago

And to be clear -- this is the job of the article author, not the editor who rejects the article without doing a little bit of homework first?

tetromino_ 7y ago
Of course. Similarly, when you are submitting a PR to an open source project or a manuscript to an academic journal, it's your job as the author to take note of contributor guidelines.
skywhopper 7y ago
Yes. The author is supposed to cite the sources.
wolfgang42 7y ago
Yes; Wikipedia's expectation is that authors have researched the topic about which they are writing, and therefore they are in the best position to provide the sources from which they got their information. The editors' job is to ensure that Wikipedia's standards are met, not to re-do the research that the author should already have performed. If the case is that no research was performed because the author is already an expert in the area, they are still expected to provide citations so that the same standard can be applied to all authors.

sb057 7y ago

A version which was rejected included the following (non-Apache-affiliated [afaik]) references: https://www.xenonstack.com/insights/what-is-apache-arrow/ https://www.xenonstack.com/insights/what-is-apache-arrow/ https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4842-1311-7_5 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4842-1311-... https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/08/23/071092.full.pdf https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/08/23/071... http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/3110000/3103003/p138-Maas.pdf http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/3110000/3103003/p138-Maas.pd... https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/17/apache_arrow_toplevel_project/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/17/apache_arrow_toplev... https://www.cio.com/article/3034279/big-data-gets-a-new-open-source-project-apache-arrow.html https://www.cio.com/article/3034279/big-data-gets-a-new-open... https://www.infoworld.com/article/3033446/hadoop/apache-arrow-aims-to-speed-access-to-big-data.html https://www.infoworld.com/article/3033446/hadoop/apache-arro... https://sdtimes.com/apache/guest-view-first-release-apache-arrow/ https://sdtimes.com/apache/guest-view-first-release-apache-a... https://www.infoq.com/news/2016/12/le-dem-apache-arrow/ https://www.infoq.com/news/2016/12/le-dem-apache-arrow/ http://dbmsmusings.blogspot.com/2017/10/apache-arrow-vs-parquet-and-orc-do-we.html http://dbmsmusings.blogspot.com/2017/10/apache-arrow-vs-parq... https://dbmsmusings.blogspot.com/2017/10/apache-arrow-vs-parquet-and-orc-do-we.html https://dbmsmusings.blogspot.com/2017/10/apache-arrow-vs-par...

chubot 7y ago
The blog post should have included these citations because I was left wondering what they did to support their claims. It sounds like they probably should have an article but that they also have misunderstandings of Wikipedia.
tptacek 7y ago
The 1st source is a blog post on a consulting company website. The 2nd mentions Arrow only in passing, after several pages of coverage of Spark; Arrow is covered only in relation to Spark. It's a reliable source but doesn't clearly establish notability. The 3rd mentions Arrow hardly at all; it's an implementation detail, mentioned just once, in a paper about something else. I can't fetch the 4th. The 5th, a story in The Register, is reliable and probably does go towards notability, though it seems to sort of argue against it (the gist of the article is that it's surprising that Arrow has been made a top-level project at all). The 6th, in CIO, is a recap of a press release. Trade press PR recaps shouldn't be WP:RS, but WP will often accept them, or would when I was patrolling AfD; it's luck-of-the-draw. The admins who shot down Arrow's page were smart enough not to accept it. The 7th, in InfoWorld, is promotional as well, but it's at least written in some depth. It's a straightforward notability claim. The Arrow article should draw more clearly from it, in the opening paragraph. The 8th, in SDTimes, is written by someone affiliated with the project itself; it's citable, but WP probably won't accept it independently as grounds for notability. Same, in effect, for the 9th, which is just a recap of an interview with the project author. The 10th and 11th are just blog posts. They're citable if they're not contentious, but they usually won't be acceptable as WP:RS for notability.