Talk:CenterLine Software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Deletion

Centerline is a real software vendor that initially was dealing in Unix software. They had a pretty good line-up of product, including the first real GUI software dev tool in Unix. It's likely that this article can be improved to meet notability guidelines. "Centerline Software" on google news yields over 100 hits. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks AliveFreeHappy. I'm really struggling to adapt to the Wikipedia culture. As someone who enjoys design, it's disappointing to see something as valuable as Wikipedia so inhospitable to small contributions (that can add up to be massive). I've been trying to understand companies like CenterLine and Pure Software related to a paper I'm writing. Because the heyday of these companies was largely pre-Internet, there's a dearth of information out there on them. A couple times now I've tried to create articles to supplement what I've found to be a dearth of information in Wikipedia, only to find my work deleted. Granted, my work has not been Pulitzer-worthy, but I do not know enough about these topics to fill out all details. Rather, I want to create a stub that can be improved on by others who know more. Folks seem to be a little trigger-happy about deleting. It would be nice if instead the article was put in some sort of draft status where I, or others, could come back to improve it over time until the trigger-fingers find the article worthy. It's extremely frustrating to spend hours gathering tid bits from various web pages only to find all your work has been destroyed, rather than simply hidden from public view. --NatR (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to create stub articles, it's important to properly establish notability using reliable third-party sources that discuss the topic of the article. Then you won't have issues with deletion. If you have questions, please ask. Out of curiousity, what is the paper you're writing, if you don't mind sharing? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But, that's my point: if Wikipedia aims to accommodate small contributors, the design cannot require casual contributors to read lengthy commentaries on the meaning of "notability" and "reliable third-party sources." The value of small contributors' time outweighs the value (to others) of their small contributions. Through a design requiring an orientation process before people understand how to participate in the Wikipedia process, Wikipedia puts up a fairly significant threshold to many contributors and their contributions. Instead, newcomers like myself are left miffed about having their work deleted (rather than hidden from public view). I spent some time looking for an alternative. I'm sure the solution I seek is not trivial, but I do feel there's a better solution for collaborative organization of information by a broad group. Maybe each user could have a staging area for articles in development that could be viewed by others interested in the same topic. Rather than a deletion process, the articles could go through an approval process (is not every new article being reviewed as is?). If the reviewer finds certain aspects unacceptable, the article would remain in the staging area until someone improved the article's quality. The real lesson for me has been that the design of Wikipedia may not care about small contributors (contrary to public perception of Wikipedia being a place where anyone is welcome to participate). I'm writing on patents as they relate to startups. As part of my research I interviewed Reed Hastings, the founder of Pure Software and Netflix, on his various experiences with patents in the context of starting two companies, including a suit against CenterLine for patent infringement while he was running Pure Software. I had intended to include some basic facts in Wikipedia so others could benefit from all the time I spent researching. I found a Wikipedia entry on ObjectCenter. In an attempt to fill a hole, I created an entry for CodeCenter, ObjectCenter's predecessor, only to have it deleted. It was upsetting, to say the least. It left me feeling disrespected, as if the deleter placed no value on the hours I had spent gathering information. I understand there are reasons for Wikipedia's current design, but telling people not to be upset about having their work destroyed is no substitute for finding a way not to upset them in the first place. I would love to tinker with a friendlier design for collaborative organization of information. If only there were more time in the day... My griping aside, I do appreciate your support. --NatR (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, if you have issues with Wikipedia overall, this particular article isn't the place. Wikipedia has a set of guidelines, if you follow them you'll have very little trouble. If you don't like them, they're the result of group consensus and therefore open to change. Get involved and discuss such things on the relevant policy pages, and you may be surprised at what you can accomplish. If you don't know where to go, let me know and I'll point you to some places to start. In the meantime, put an article together in your own sandbox and no one will try to delete it. When it's ready, then post it under the appropriate title. If you need assistance with that, let me know. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)