Search

I have now added Symphony to the List of CMS at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_content_management_systems

In the Wikipedia entry, I noticed that all the links that are referenced to the “Archive” Forum are broken. Do you think that might be why Wikipedia keeps wanting remove Symphony CMS?

When you click on any of the Archive Forum links, the following error comes up…

A fatal, non-recoverable error has occurred

Technical information (for support personel):

Error Message
An error occurred while logging user data.
Affected Elements
WhosOnline.UpdateGuestLastActive();
The error occurred on or near: Table './projects_overture21/LUM_IpHistory' is marked as crashed and should be repaired
For additional support documentation, visit the Lussumo Documentation website at: lussumo.com/docs

==Added to Symphony CMS entry==

  • I added a interviews section. The interview that Nathan Smith (of 960.gs fame) had with Stephen Bau

@Allen and @Alistair, do y’all still have the interview audio that y’all did with Ryan Sims and Brad Smith from Virb on their use of Symphony when building the The Big Noob blog? If so, that might be a great link to add.

They’ve already deleted it from the list that oleae added it to. Unbelievable.

They are marking it up as SPAM, see this revision history. This is ridiculous. Maybe we need to be logged in to add it.

Re-added. I think the original version didn’t point to the existing Wikipedia entry. We’ll see if it lasts.

Fighting the good fight with you Craig. Have also added a “Symphony in Use” section to the entry itself, as many other systems without this issue seem to have this.

Very useful - thanks brendo

Reading through those guidelines reminds me of the summer I spent grading standardized test essays: A bunch of teachers on summer break spending hours a day trying to divine from some Arkansas school board’s asinine rubric whether little Timmy gets a 3/5 or a 4/5.

Except this actually matters.

Does anyone have any bright ideas?

It’s beginning to feel like a bit of a lost cause. They’ve got it in for us it seems…

I think we should keep the plan simple: when they take it down, we put it up.

Eventually we will have garnered enough third party references/reviews/whatever for it to remain.

In the meantime I’ve registered wikipediaisrunbymorons.com

In the meantime I’ve registered wikipediaisrunbymorons.com

That’s funny, but surely won’t solve the problem. It’s not even true, because Wikipedia has become something really great. (Apart from the Symphony entry problem, and a few others – honestly speaking that’s close to nothing, compared to all the great stuff. And I am saying this as one of the biggest fans of Symphony.) True morons are those who once said “Wikipedia will never become serious, it will never become big”. Indeed the Wikipedia has become an unbelievably great, free online resource. This needs many enthusiasts, and even more than that it needs rules.

I don’t really understand what’s the problem with Symphony on Wikipedia. But I am sure it should be solved in a forward-thinking way. Don’t be angry about their rules. Understand that those rules need to be there. Use the rules.

My suggestion is the same one Steve Martin gives to young comedians: “Be so good they can’t ignore you.”

Be so good they can’t ignore you.

That’s nice. This is forward-thinking!

Does a Symphony tutorial at my homepage count as an independent source?

I think the main problem is that they don’t know Symphony from a bar of soap and the burden of proof is on us. Although I don’t like it, I understand where they are coming from. My biggest concern right now is that all this re-posting and arguing has tainted any future submission we might make, and I don’t know that continually posting the article will help our cause in the long run. They might just be so annoyed at us that they disregard any new, and potentially important, changes and delete the article right away purely based on these previous altercations.

My stance is that we should, for now, let it go and concentrate on making Symphony more awesome. The independent and notable sources will arrive eventually, and at that point we can resubmit.

Does a Symphony tutorial at my homepage count as an independent source?

They are looking for something like an independent newspaper, magazine or similar to have substantial coverage of Symphony. Like a dedicated article or interview. Our problem right now is we’ve mostly got passing mentions. Tutorials from community members I doubt will cut it as they typically are seen as not notable or not independent enough.

Yeah, do we all need to write some sort of tutorial/review on our personal sites to make it more “notable?” I’d be happy to participate in the flood posting if it would help.

Just looking at the Textpattern deletion discussion from 2007, I found this:

Keep not the greatest article we have, but this is notable, and the subject of “multiple non-trivial published works”

Why doesn’t the same thing apply to Symphony?

Keep Notable within the web-dev world (speaking from experience of having worked with it and observed the community around it), subject of a forthcoming book from a respected tech publisher

So we need to have a book published? Wouldn’t the book still be written by a member of the community and therefore be disregarded?

Seriously though, not a single reference on the Textpattern page is notable in the slightest. They all link to community based pages.

I’m not trying to pick on Textpattern either, it just happens to be worse than ours, and completely un-moderated.

Yep, it’s a pain, but they will just point you to WP:WAX or WP:ALLORNOTHING.

Create an account or sign in to comment.

Symphony • Open Source XSLT CMS

Server Requirements

  • PHP 5.3-5.6 or 7.0-7.3
  • PHP's LibXML module, with the XSLT extension enabled (--with-xsl)
  • MySQL 5.5 or above
  • An Apache or Litespeed webserver
  • Apache's mod_rewrite module or equivalent

Compatible Hosts

Sign in

Login details