Talk:FreeSWITCH

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Suggestions for Improvement

Could use a lot more info, or at least links to related telephony articles. After hearing about FreeSwitch, I came looking to find out what exactly it did, what it competes against/replaces, and how "switches" or whatever they're called fit in the general operations of a telephone service. Maybe I was a bit optimistic, but that might be a useful starting place for improving this, or related telephony articles.Thomas B 16:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this keep getting tagged as an advertisement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.35.171 (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article keeps getting tagged as an advert. I have checked out who has tagged it and they seem very down on any project that isn't Asterisk. I have checked edits on the Asterisk PBX and Callweaver pages which is an asterisk fork and the person that tagged this article an advert marked callweaver for removal also. Not very objective in my opinion.

If you look closely, you'll also see that I had the Digium article removed as well (tagged as advertisement and subsequently merged into Asterisk), so please don't suggest bias here. If an article is written such that it appears to be promoting a product or a project, it should be tagged as an advertisement until its re-written in a neutral fashion. FreeSWITCH is still written in this fashion. If you feel Asterisk is written as such, feel free to tag it as well. Calltech 14:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is listing features, it doesnt say that its better than anything else thus its not promoting it, only providing information about it. I fail to see how saying what it does and what its about is advertising, if that is the case any page that talks about features of a product in any way (ie what that product is) is advertising. Since its your opinion that it is advertising can you quote a sample paragraph of what you feel is advertising, or even a sentence, and then how that same information can be conveyed in a more neutral format.

Tagging it is easy, but if you cant even provide a suggestion other than 'rewrite it' then its nothing more than graffiti on a page so that you can get a warm fuzzy that you are able to spend more hours on wikipedia than anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.134.171 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 September 2007

Please sign your comments here using 4 tildes (~) at the end of your statement. WP is not a forum to promote your project. Simply listing features like a marketing brochure or website is promotional. The article should be encylopedic, providing the reader with historical data and also provide information that lets the reader know why it is noteworthy. It should also provide the project's pros and cons from unbiased third-parties. This needs to come from neutral editors, not Single-purpose accounts who have an affiliation with the project. So far the edits on this talk page all appear to come from such accounts. Calltech 16:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a neutral editor, and I've added a comparison section to place FreeSWITCH wrt other offerings. I don't think the page does read much like an advert, and would suggest that the "this looks like advertising" tag ought to go. Daveknell 08:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First I will not sign comments if I dont feel like it. Second its not a promotion, lets look at what you say is ok to list:

pros and cons
why its noteworthy
by people unaffiliated with the project

pros are a feature list, why its noteworthy is also what makes it what it is, ie features. Unbiased 3rd parties unaffiliated with the project are not likely to know anything about it, as a result unable to write anything meaningful. Cons just help to define it into the area that it is best suited and could be viewed as an advertisement as well.

You were beaten up as a child right? Now you have a mouse and a computer and can exact your revenge upon the world that shunned you. Its all a power trip, you refuse to cite even one example of why you tagged it, or how it can be made better, instead you just repeat the same stuff over and over insisting that you will continue to tag the page until others bow to you. That helps wikipedia how exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.134.171 (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that you read the guidelines for WP before posting comments such as the ones above, particularly WP:NPA. You should also read the warning automatically posted at the top of this page. I am assuming you are very new to Wikipedia. Abusive comments do not win consensus nor support, are not tolerated, and are a sure path to getting your editing privileges revoked along with the articles you are promoting. Calltech 18:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not only did you not address any issue you only made threats. Further, WP:NPA to anyone who has read it talks about attacks, such as making threats that if you cant have your way you will ban me. While its just it to comment on the content and not the author, you have said that anyone who has posted is biased, we are defending that by requesting examples of what is wrong, and pointing out that you are indeed showing a history of bias. I did not make an attack by asking if you were beaten as a child. I did not threaten you, as you did me. So I suggest you go read it. Your entire attempt has failed to delink FreeSWITCH™ from other pages, remove its page, etc has failed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.134.171 (talk)

86.92.134.171 comment

Content intentionally removed (again, but thanks for saying I dont matter as a contributor by readding it and sending me a message implying that I didnt realize I removed it) because it no longer applies to the page its talking about. I thought I made it clear that it was removed for that reason, but aparently saying 'no longer applies' was not clear. So now I am typing a longer paragraph to indicate that I do in fact know that content was deleted, and that the content that was deleted does not appear to be relevant anymore since the 'problem' has ended. As such only new suggestions about be placed here, and not a historical copy of what was a prior suggestion. The determination for why the information was no longer relevant was based on the fact that its not being tagged the way it was thus the comments about tagging it and proof indicating the tagging was biased dont really belong anymore.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.134.171 (talk • contribs)

I have referred the actions of this user to WT:WPSPAM#Newbie briankwest (aka 86.92.134.171) gone wild. His latest removal of the talk page to this article and overide of an admin's revert demonstrate a lack of understanding of Wikipedia and its guidelines. Calltech 17:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not brian, I am not even in the same continent as brian. But feel free to do anything to take down non-asterisk pages. You have repeatedly done that in the past, and appear to continue to do that now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.134.171 (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub?

Given the lack of third-party, reliable sources, I think the article should be trimmed back to a stub. --Ronz 17:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of 3rd party sources is largely because when they are present its marked as too many links, when they are missing its marked as no sources. Calltech has attempted to ensure that non-asterisk products are not in wikipedia, such as callweaver (deleted), yate (deleted),OpenSER (deleted) all by calltech saying basically the same thing he is saying here. Prior to doing that he removed links to pages like FreeSWITCH and Yate (both open source telephony apps) from other pages in a 'related software' section. He then attempts to suggest that me and brian are the same person, simple to enforce his 'lets get rid of it' mentality. I am a user of the software in the netherlands, and if I as a user of free open source software am not allowed to post something in wikipedia about the software, what good is wikipedia?

People aparently not allowed to talk about things in wikipedia appear to include

 * users of the software
 * developers of the software
 * anyone who heard of the software

What does this leave? Other than no one with any information of value able to contribute to articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.134.171 (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying there are no third party sources out there? That would seem to support Ronz's statement, would it not? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No what he is saying is that when 3rd parties are linked (see the article list below that I posted) they are promptly removed as spam or "self promotion".--Silik0nJesus 20:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an open source community project - not spam

I'm a freeswitch contributor and am surprised this page is getting flagged as potential spam. Its an open source project under the MPL. Anyone can use the product on an unlimited basis, totally gratis. Its almost like saying the MediaWiki software page is spam. This comment is hereby licensed under a dual GFDL and FUYW license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.43.117 (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why the malice?

Yes FreeSWITCH exists, yes there are multiple people that have contributed to it. No its not commercial as such the current banner

 The creator of or main contributor to this page may have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article.
 Due to issues of maintaining neutrality and avoiding promotional articles, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly advise 
 that editors do not directly edit articles on topics where they have a close personal or business connection. If this applies to your 
 edits, you are advised to collaborate with independent editors via the article's talk page.

is placed by someone with an aparent conflict of interest. Namely calltech has sought to remove any VoIP related articles that are not asterisk. OpenSER, Yate, and Callweaver all were deleted after his actions to mark them for deletion. The constant war of tagging the page that he is engaged in, when its clear he is showing a bias towards one open source product over another is a clear conflict of interest.

Now lets look at this for just a second. FreeSWITCH is open source, its free there is nothing to sell. As such promotion other than stating its features (what defines FreeSWITCH) is not really being done, because it cant. Second, there isnt a business connection since again its free. This leaves a "close personal connection" to the software. I find it insane that anyone would suggest that users and the occasional developer cannot comment on the software. If they are excluded who is left to actually say what something is and what it does, and why that matters.

If you look at historical people, those that know anything about them would have some personal connection since they would have to if they spent all that time researching that persons life to be able to comment on it. Virtually any subject there is some type of close personal connection to the content generated or the content has absolutely no meaning since it was written by someone totally uninformed about what they are writing on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.134.171 (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

others who havent posted here (afaik) have posted on related things

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenH323 http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAX http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softswitch

Those are in languages which arent spoken by myself or brian. I actually dont know who added those references, but it does go to show that someone else is listing the software - granted there isnt a language specific version yet for those languages, but they are in some sense a 3rd party not affiliated with this discussion listing FreeSWITCH™

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mellentm/YATE links to FreeSWITCH™ and that is from a YATE person, aparently they are only allowed to have content about YATE after the 2 deletions on a user page. As you will see that user is not one that has done anything on the FreeSWITCH™ page but is in a different open source project.

For these reasons I dont think a stub entry is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.134.171 (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this subject pass WP:N?

It doesn't appear that this project is notable. Unless some reliable secondary sources are found in the near future I can't see this article surviving a WP:articles for deletion debate. Has FreeSWITCH been covered by any media in a non-trivial way? Maybe a newspaper article or magazine article about FreeSWITCH? If not, I will be nominating the article for deletion in a few days. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This his been covered by several articles as Anthony Minessale is one of most well know Asterisk Contributor that is not employed by Digium

There are several others as well

--Silik0nJesus 19:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- if you look in the history addition of such things results in a spam tag, so they were removed. Its hard to list much of those without stating its a link and what the subject matter is. As a result its spam or not cited. Now by the self admitted "co-owner of a small telecommunications firm" it has additional problems, although it seems that the not-cited ones are coming back.86.92.134.171 19:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- It would be really sad if WikiPedia was not able to appreciate the notability of an up-and-coming bit of software in a very exciting industry. This content is as relevant and noteworthy as many other things that are on WikiPedia, and deleting it would only serve to erode the credibility of WikiPedia; it would certainly not benefit the WikiPedia community in any way. -- Jim Van Meggelen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimvanm (talk • contribs) 21:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—— Jim, thanks for your input. BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed TFOT - thanks for writing it. I'm hoping that those who are concerned about 'notability' will consider your input. If the co-author of a best-seller about the Asterisk PBX isn't 'notable' then I guess nothing is... Mscollins1 22:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Thanks for the kind words. The challenge here is whether FreeSwitch is "notable" or not. If the only measure is how much traditional press it has received, then I suppose it might be in a tight spot. But if other "notable" factors, such as the growth of its community, the accolades it receives, and the places where it is used are also factored in, there is something very notable indeed going on here. Having rules and being rigid about them is no doubt important to Wikipedia because they need to establish credibility (I am not sure how many schools allow their students to cite Wikipedia as a source, but if Wikipedia can be consistently proven to be unbiased and accurate, I'll bet that in 10 years that won't be nearly as much as an issue), so there is value in this exercise, but it also seems very risky, in that it really seems to take things too far in applying the rules, without considering the value of the information that is being presented. Sometimes one has to go with a gut feeling, and to my mind, wiping out all of these-up-and-coming emerging telecom projects is difficult to understand. Who benefits? Jim Van Meggelen

As for the above sources... a bit weak. Oreillynet is reliable, but it's primary source and not secondary. I'm not sure how reliable voip-news.com is, but it has the same problem in that since it's an interview it's a primary source an not secondary. VIOPNOW is a trivial mention. And lastly, DIGG is not a reliable source of news. So out of all that we have two interviews and one of unknown (to me) reliability.

Our basic notability guideline doesn't necessarily require secondary sources, just reliable, independent ones. —Cryptic 01:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent sources. "Independent" = secondary source. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we use traditional media as a measure of notability. Yes, we regularly delete articles that don't satisfy our inclusion criteria. The reason why we enforce our requirements is that if we didn't we would be buried in a massive piles of nonsense. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's anouther minor mention: Infoworld.com ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---FYI, here are two articles from O'Reilly that mention FreeSWITCH in a positive light. In both cases the authors highlight some of the things that FS can do, things that either only FS can do or things for which FS will be the catalyst. This adds weight to the 'worthy of note' argument. These guys know VoIP and open source telephony very well; their opinions should be given at least a modest amount of weight:

Mscollins1 07:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 5 cites listed:

Beyond Asterisk, The Future of Telephony. What's Next?. O'Reilly Media (2006-01-25).

Truphone (June 5, 2007). Truphone Selects FreeSWITCH and TelcoBridges to Enable VoIP Calls over WiFi on Mobile Phones. Press release.

Gaboogie Embraces Open Source For New Mobile Group Calling and Conference Calling Solution. Gaboogie (2007-08-03).

FreeSWITCH Multi-Platform Telephony Application Nears First Release. Asterisk VoIP News (May 15, 2007).

An Interview with the Creator of FreeSWITCH. O'Reilly Media (July 25, 2006).

There are 2 press releases, issued by the respective companies discussing their decision to use FreeSWITCH for different applications. There is an inteview from O'Reilly which directly satisfied a {cn} request, A O'Reilly page about a conference they did in 2006, and an anouncement about the beta status - which I dont think anyone seriously questions, but if you do, www.freeswitch.org has an article that states it went into beta1 status to confirm that article. Does this now address the concerns of notability?86.92.134.171 06:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spam and nutrality dispute

The comment by cryptic that I refused to let people fix it is not true, infact several contributions from the 10 or so people that have edited the page this evening have been preserved. I have been trying however to keep cites intact since those are what is being removed as part of the 'fixing' process, which causes the notability to come into question and triggers a speedy deletion. So I will remove the 2 tags added by cryptic who refuses to use the talk page to say why things were done, and I will then leave it for tonight and see if anything is done. I find it odd that 'fixing' means simply removing cites and little else.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.134.171 (talk • contribs)

Fighting like school-children

 This effective food-fight is disappointing.

 I'd have expected more from the community that has created the most impressive
 library of free information on the entire internet.

 Looking at the Asterisk (PBX) page, whats different?  It looks like an advertisement
 exactly as you folks are claiming the FreeSWITCH page does.  It mentions specific names
 and companies, (which, btw, FreeSWITCH isn't associated with a specific company, and
 nobody stands to gain anything monetary from any of this, unless someone has placed bets as
 to how long this idiotic crap-flinging festival will go on before it stabilizes..) and has
 only 1 external citation (the FreeSWITCH page ha*d* the SAME source), then a link promoting
 the project's page.

 Please correct me if I'm wrong.  I've been very deep in the Asterisk (PBX) source code
 and it doesn't strike me as the world's most credible source.

 PS. I'm a hobbyist, and I use both projects (and many others) at work.  We rely on every
 single one of them or we don't operate at full capacity.  My home phone?  a SNOM handset
 registered to a FreeSWITCH box.. Why?  Because it hasn't misbehaved once and I consider them
 credible.  I'm surely not the only one, as there is a whole mess of people editing these
 pages.  Isn't wikipedia the community's information source?  If the community considers the
 information credible and keeps re-adding it, what's happening here?

Jontow 22:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! Thanks for your input. Perhaps we can get back to the issue at hand now: getting the FreeSWITCH wiki page up to acceptable standards. A lot has changed today, and I believe the NPOV requirement has been satisfied. A number of Asterisk users, my self included, have made comments on the value of FreeSWITCH. Also, Jim van Meggelen (of TFOT authorship) called FreeSWITCH a very exciting piece of software. I hope this helps with the notability requirement. To all I ask: what else, if anything, needs immediate attention to make the FreeSWITCH wikipedia entry fully compliant with the wikipedia criteria? As a neutral party, experienced PBX technician, and amateur author I will be happy to add/remove/change/update content as needed. Mscollins1 23:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Conflict of Interests" does not require anyone to benefit financially to be COI.

No, unfortunately Jim van Meggelen's comments do not help with the notability requirements.

What else needs to be done? Well, a clearer case that FreeSWITCH satisfies WP:N needs to be made. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.S., is it safe to say that the COI, NPOV, and Advert have been resolved? I don't see anything in the article that suggests core FS developers or anyone with a vested interest in FS has contributed to the updated content. With your permission I'd like to remove the COI, Advert, and NPOV tags since these have been addressed. In their place I'd recommend the tag for the one issue that's really outstanding - WP:N. Is this acceptable right now? Mscollins1 06:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please note that 2 of the tags were added and the only discussion was

{pov} and {advert} content disclaimers, as our friendly anon declines to let us fix the article directly

the 'declining' action was (according to the commit logs) rewording and reworking some of the content that was being deleted, namely

some but not all citations, as well as additional citations.

since it seems that there are those intent on removing citations at all costs (to the point of banning people to prevent them from

adding anything further) notability may always be a problem. At the time of this writing the citations are in, in a reworded reworked

fashion (yet again), can you revist this and see if it makes you happy as far as being notable?86.92.134.171 05:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think the worries over COI, NPOV and Advertising have been entirely addressed. The article still somewhat appears to be promotional in nature.

No one has reverted discussion about notability on this talk page and you have yet to establish a strong case here. Stop blaming other people and start addressing the issue that might get this article deleted - sourcing and notability. Your massive lack of civility here is disruptive and I will not tolerate it forever. Treat people with respect and don't scream conspiracy every time someone disagrees with you.

I would like everyone here to please review WP:SOCK. Creating new accounts to support you in a debate is not acceptable. Inviting your buddies to create new accounts and support you in a debate is not acceptable. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we are trying to find out is a) What denotes Notability? No One has yet to explicitly state that. that is a very subjective thing. Several people interested in this have asked for clarification here... I'm still looking for clarification here... b) several people are being accused of being SP's and I for one take offense to this. Just because one asshat (censor it if you feel the need) wants to single handedly start a war over this, you want to accuse everyone that is chipping in and trying to make the article worthy of you're benchmark (whatever that is) of being a SP... Those that have possible NPOV issues have made the decision to abstain from editing the freeswitch page. I for one since I inserted myself in this discussion as an interested party, have chosen to not edit the the page, however those such as Jim, and mscollins have provided edits. Jim is a professional writer that actually Authored the Asterisk book "The Future of Telephony" so please address the above issues... --Silik0nJesus 08:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requirements are outlined in "WP:N" as I have linked too above. More specific guidelines that are geared to products and companies can be found here: WP:CORP. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

This best fits into the {{RfCsci}} region, as it also includes technology. Also, this would be my first time posting an RfC, so please tell me if I've done something incorrectly. James Sugrono_{Contributions} 22:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- the dispute appears to be that it was marked in what appears a malicious way simply because multiple people were editing the page at the same time. As one user cryptic was removing citations they were being reworded and worked in other places (some not all). In addition some new citations were added. This appears to have upset cryptic who then stated in his commit message that he did this because of my additions instead of 'letting him fix the page'. Since the tags were added out of what appears to be malice and there was nothing added to the discussion page, the only basis for that determination was the commit log, which isnt a real reason. There was the flip flopping back and forth until cryptic banned me to ensure that if he cant edit the page by himself, he can tag it however he wants, and ban anyone who disagrees. 86.92.134.171 05:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- This is true, as I was one of the ones doing the editing at the same time as Cryptic. It was purely coincidental. I edited the Design section while Cryptic, I believe, added the History section. Anyway, my apologies if I messed up anything... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscollins1 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- there were 10 people editing the page last night (guess it was more than 3 though). I added the history section (you removed it, but its back now :) I know at the time cryptic added the tags because I wouldnt let him and only him "fix" things you were there about then too. He still has failed to use the talk page to discuss the reasons why (although I did notice that he addressed other non-tagged issues on this page) which indicates to me that it should be removed. Either say why or dont tag it. The excuse of 'someone else was editing at the same time' shouldnt be tolerated.86.92.134.171 06:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, if it has arisen over edit conflicts, then this really should never have happened. The page has been semi-protected, so 86.92.134.171, you will have to register for an account to continue editing this page. If there's an edit conflict when I edit, what I generally do is just take what I was going to put it, and add it at the end. There's no need to copy and paste the entire lower box into the top - doing so ommits the changes that were made while you were editing. James Sugrono_{Contributions} 14:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

detracting statements

It has been suggested somewhere that by listing limitations or negatives of a project can be better than comparing it to other projects. I am readding the limitations section that was deleted. Deleting them also makes it look more biased which is something the article aparently needs to avoid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trixter ie (talk • contribs) 13:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would need sources and would need to avoid synthesis of primary sources as well. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Limitations section should go; it doesn't add anything - the comparison section tells you that you need to write your own Voicemail app; the bit about some people finding XML hard is neither here nor there. That leaves the lack of a GUI, which hardly warrants a section on its own.Daveknell 16:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some others that have listed some limitations, I suggest it stay at least for a little while to give people time (it hasnt even been there for 24 hours) to add to it.Trixter ie 17:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

durova - why did you lock this page?

Durova, you locked the page a few hours ago, and looking at the last 10-15 edits I dont see a problem personally. The last 10 prior were by an unregistered user, but they were not problematic, simple formatting changes mostly. Its been 4 hours since the page was locked and you havent explained why. It's generally good policy to explain why you took some action, especially one that inhibits addition of content. Trixter ie 13:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss that revert war? And the massive number of throwaway sockspuppets? (funny how you show up right after several months of inactivity, now that the page is semiprotected) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not funny at all, I believe brian said that I was someone different when calltech insisted and demanded that we were the same people, brian said that I was trixter. I never denied that. Yeah I dont log in all the time, yeah my IP changes (gee I got this account when I lived in Ireland now I live in the Netherlands, there must be an IP change somewhere in there). The revert war was because the tags were admittedly placed out of malice not beucase of the content - per the commit log and refusal to say different. I dont see how editing without logging in is automatically a socket puppet. I do however see you attacking the posters and not the content which is a WP violation. Yes multiple people are posting, there is discussion on mailing lists, irc, and even people to whom have no affiliation to the project (such as Jim - thanks for the editing help Jim) all of whom are addressed as sock puppets merely because they are editing the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trixter ie (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, lets get this all straight now. You are trixter (aka 86.92.134.171). And looking at the authors link that you provided on an earlier revision, you would be the trixter listed there as one of the FreeSWITCH authors with the job description of "Documentation creation, maintainence, and organization, bug fixes, features, constant feedback and input". BTW, please indicate where Brian ever said you were trixter? Brian's comment on my talk page was that he was fully aware of his conflict of interest and that he and the top three developers would not contribute here because of the conflict. I guess that means you are not a member of that top three but it was OK to have his documentation expert make contributions. He also admitted to using an anon IP as you have. Concealing your identities here has created more than confusion and hiding your association with this project diminishes your credibility and neutrality. Calltech 18:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that his contribution of documentation gives him license to add content to this page as his experience with the software makes him knowledgeable on the topic and since the software is not for profit the issue of neutrality is less important that the issue of accuracy. I can attest that trixter has personally asked me several questions about the behavior of FreeSWITCH that he used for the purpose of documentation. He has little to gain from this endeavor and simply has volunteered his efforts in documenting the software which is why he has been given mention in our authors file as we will do with any and all contributors to any aspect of the project. His input is offered over the internet via email exchange and irc conversations and he has no direct affiliation with me apart from his own willingness to put up with me. Anthony.minessale 23:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, I don't just label people "sockpuppets" because they are editing the same page. Thats a ridicules strawman. However, when several accounts appear out of nowhere all at the same time and none of them have any (or very little) previous editing history on the project it is fairly safe to assume that they are sock puppets and/or meat puppets. I'm an admin - I could have blocked a dozen of the accounts that have shown up at this page and I would be supported by the community. Why haven't I? Because I want there to be an article for FreeSWITCH. I really support the open-source movement and I would love to see FreeSWITCH and every well done open source project get all the support they can. However, Wikipedia has a goal. I believe in Wikipedia's goal. While I'm editing here I edit from the context of supporting wikipedia's goal. All of wikipedia's rules are there to support or promote that goal. One of our rules is that subjects must pass a particular bar to qualify for an article. Can you imagine how useless wikipedia would be if we didn't set some minimum? It would be impossible to patrol wikipedia. It would be impossible to maintain any kind of quality standards. We would have never gotten to where we are today: the ninth or tenth most visited website on the planet.

Please, for the love of god, read some of wikipedia's policies. It's very hard to discuss this with the people who have shown up on this page when they have a very limited understanding of how our policies work. I've seen so many bad arguments on this page it's giving me a headache. So much time would be saved if everyone who is new here could please go read WP:COI, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move on

So, how do we move forward from here? I'd very much like to see the three orange boxes removed from the top of this article. What needs to change for that to happen? kmccoy (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this page still is the subject of an open complaint at WP:COIN, it would be helpful if all the Wikipedia editors who are also developers or 'community members' of FreeSWITCH would agree to hold off on any edits to the article itself. Let them offer their contributions here on the Talk page and let others decide what material is appropriate for the article. Since I haven't noticed any proposal for blocks to be issued, I hope that we don't have to dig into the entire edit history to determine who did what that was improper. Let's just agree that there has been COI editing and assume that it will now stop.

There is a serious practical issue, of how to obtain sources for this article that pass Wikipedia's sourcing criteria. A number of people have tried fairly hard, but the results are (to me) not very satisfying. I hope that others will comment on the adequacy of the sources. EdJohnston 04:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two links that should be considered as sources for the article

In this posting, editor Matt Vile offered two new links that appear to be reliable sources. He admits to having a COI, and asked me to post them here for your consideration: a Globe and Mail story from a year ago and an Information Week story.

They are both reliable sources and they do mention FreeSWITCH. Unless I hear objections, I will go ahead and add them to the article. EdJohnston 20:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Outline What Is Needed

I am the author of FreeSWITCH, I did not create this page but I have edited it in the past when I discovered some of the information was incorrect. I can see why you have a policy against conflicts of interest and I very much want to receive the validation of having my project listed in wikipedia because I put a lot of hard work into my software and it deserves to be acknowledged along with any other software documented on this site. I am more than happy to avoid editing the page to reduce potential bias but I would like to start from this point by getting some specific answers to the following questions.

1) How do people with no interest in telephony judge what sources are notable or not?
2) Why is the press something you consider notable when we know most press releases are contrived?
3) Since we are free we have no income and therefore we only grow popular from word-of-mouth so why are endorsements of notable individuals such as Jim Van Meggelen, who is a published author in the arena of voice over ip software, not considered to be a credible source?
4) Why is there not a distinct set of rules when pertaining to the description of software to avoid this sort of problem?

Here are a few examples of other software entries:
Mediawiki - This is the software we are using now to communicate. It's page looks like an advert as much as any other software page.
Apache_webserver - This is possibly the web server your site may be using.
Mysql - Here is the database that you can use with the above 2 examples to make your own wiki.
Asterisk_(PBX) - Here is a project in the same arena as mine that is allowed to exist.

It's a chicken or the egg issue if you are only willing to allow something to exist here if it is popular when being on your site may very well help make it popular by educating people about it. I understand the need to make sure the information is accurate. But we are talking about software which was written much in the way that a book was written which I think gives me, the author, license to be considered a notable source for weather or not the information is true. I believe you should draft a set of separate guidelines for entries that specifically pertain to software or books and enforce them equally on all entries of the like. I contend that it would be more biased to allow arbitrary individuals to decide if we are a valid software project than it would be to allow it's author to confirm it's notability.

I am hereby confirming, as the author who has written in excess of one hundred and fifty thousand lines of code pertaining to this project over the last two years, that it indeed exists and is worthy of inclusion on this site. I also contend that, as a major contributor to Asterisk_(PBX) and holder of copyright on many files in it's source distribution, that FreeSWITCH should be categorized in a similar context as Asterisk_(PBX) which I reference as a precedence on this site for entries about such applications.

I call for all disputes on this page to be removed and for any and all software written for public use to have a fair and equal representation on this reputable site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony.minessale (talk • contribs) 20:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Anthony.minessale 21:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough for software to be written for public use. It also has to have obtained recognition from reliable sources, as described at WP:RS. We consider the mainstream press, including the trade press, to be reliable sources. It is possible that FreeSWITCH will one day become very popular. If so it will certainly receive more press attention, and in turn that will justify coverage in Wikipedia.

It seems that some kind of an outside campaign is being waged on the Internet to ensure that FreeSWITCH has a Wikipedia article. There is a tendency within Wikipedia to regard that kind of a campaign as meddling. Give us your reliable sources and your good arguments, and that will justify an article. We are not going to be the first to cover a new topic area that is not yet recognized by the conventional press.

I don't understand your above comment asking for 'disputes on this page to be removed.' People are entitled to have their words remain on the Talk page as written, unless they are personal attacks. EdJohnston 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Anthony wrote this reply to EdJ's first comment, about the 'outside campaign':)

You are mistaken that there is an outside campaign being waged. I am simply visiting the wikipedia page about my software and reacting to what I am reading here. Anyone else who is defending FreeSWITCH is doing so on their own free will and should be also considered a sign that FreeSWITCH is a notable project. O'Reilly is a company who writes computer books for every known software free and commercial so I would consider them to be rather mainstream. The other 2 articles cited in the section above were actually created without my knowledge and I was only informed of their existence after they were posted. I also submit http://www.voipnow.org/2007/04/74_open_source_.html also done without my knowledge where FreeSWITCH appears first on a list of 74 applications. Please believe me that I am not simply here to argue with you. I ask that you use your objectivity to compare information about FreeSWITCH with that of other open source telephony applications. I submit myself as an expert in the field of voice over ip and telecom as described in WP:RS Where I can comment on the notability of several telephony software projects including my own. I can also put you in touch with the industry leaders of this field who all can individually verify the notability of FreeSWITCH. This includes the authors and developers of separate projects and executives of industry leading organizations. Again, please assume no malice in my comments under accordance with [[WP::AGF]] Anthony.minessale 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Anthony wrote this reply to Ed's second comment, about 'disputes on this page to be removed'.)

I apologize for the confusion, I was referring to the tags on the article that appear at the top claiming that the article is biased and or and advertisement because I clearly can see no evidence of it. I provided several examples of other software including the one you use for this site which have entires with similar examples of non bias I can also attest that the current text on the article appears to be unique on the internet and was apparently hand drafted by someone for the sake of this site. 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Anthony.minessale 22:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FreeSWITCH is mentioned in the press, as upcoming project: http://www.informationweek.com/industries/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=191504283&pgno=3&queryText= first page, last paragraph. What do you think? --Kgfleischmann 21:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article also from the same news site is actually about FreeSWITCH and was written more than a year and a half ago. http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=PEDDWZFP3RMFAQSNDLPSKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=190500835&queryText=freeswitch

Anthony.minessale 16:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Source

The following article, written by me and published in the premier issue of open source telephony magazine which is run by the same individual who is employed by Digium, a vendor of telephony hardware, explains my motivation for starting the project.

To comply with the guidelines, rather than post the article directly, I would ask someone to please read it and use it for information on the FreeSWITCH article.

http://www.freeswitch.org/node/60

Anthony.minessale 21:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of tags

I plan to remove the three orange boxes at the top of this article in a little while. I've read the article, and while it's certainly not the finest example of a Wikipedia article, I don't think it's as bad as those warnings imply. If people disagree, could you please show here what you think needs to be changed? Thank you. kmccoy (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with their removal. Daveknell 07:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limitations Adjustment

According to http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/Mod_voicemail , the statement that FreeSWITCH does not have voicemail under limitations should be modified, as this module has been added. Vile2007 17:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Additionally, there is now a young GUI available for configuration of FreeSWITCH. Please see http://www.wikipbx.org and http://wikipbx.subwiki.com/wikipbx/index.php/FreeSWITCH. I recommend updating the limitations section to read something like this: "The voicemail application is relatively new and is still being tested." Also, "A new GUI application has been created by a 3rd party, called WikiPBX. (http://www.wikipbx.org)" Since I have volunteered to assist the FS community with the documentation project I will be submitting all WP update suggestions here in the discussion page so as to avoid COI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscollins1 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--I dont know what the state of wikipbx is, but did add that one is under development and cited the url to that. I also removed the limitation to there not being any voicemail, since its been 11 days since 'vile2007's comment about it existing, yet the page stated it didnt, which would make the page inaccurate. It may be new, but I do not know that 'new' code or even untested code falls into a limitation. I see limitations as an inability to do something (clear by the previous content saying that it didnt exist). If every project had to list bugs (even if unknown, as the case of new software) as a limitation it would create chaos on the WP system.Trixter ie 14:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Requested

Someone at one point marked everything requiring a citation, although there was some mod disputes over that and one mod did remove some of them, short of linking to a document that flat out says this, which would be a project created document, its hard to cite this 'FreeSWITCH is a modular application, where modules can extend the functionality of FreeSWITCH but the abstraction layer prevents inter-module dependency. The goal is to ensure that one module is not required to load another.'

If desired such a link can be provided, although excessive citations on what something is just becomes silly and detracts from the content itself. For example is a citation required that Jeep makes vehicles that contain an engine? A simple statement that a Jeep contains an engine should suffice.

So please let me now if some mod really wants a link that states that, otherwise I request that the citation needed be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trixter ie (talk • contribs) 16:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a line between what needs to be cited and what doesn't need to be cited. Simple well-known facts such as "Cars contain engines" wouldn't need to be cited... but a claim such as "Car X contains an hybrid engine" would. I'm not sure where the sentence were talking about would fall on the "obvious" scale, but it seems to me that not all programs are written in a modular format and it wouldn't be obvious to anyone who just looked at the software. However, this is open to discussion, and the fact is fairly noncontroversial. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, from this perspective then, its a fact which can be evidenced by the modules that exist. Without going into the code itself, which I dont think would be appropriate here, its hard to 'prove' that there are modules which interface through an abstraction layer. There was a cite that was removed by someone at one point which was the main author (Anthony) giving a lecture at a conference (video link) and I dont recall the exact reason (the reason was not where the video was more along the lines of a lecture by the main author is a COI violation or something). So would it be acceptable to repost the link to the lecture which would clear that citation needed flag? The link is:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4613750174577358330&q=anthony+minesalle&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

This might remove the last of the citations needed flags on the page, until something new is added of course :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.225.40 (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Information

I am posting this here first, to avoid any COI claims, however, there is an ISO distribution of FreeSWITCH which shows alternate sources for the project, or something. Dunno how yet it would be worked in, but wanted to get feedback on whether stuff like this should be here. http://www.trixswitch.org - I have absolutely no affiliation with them of trixbox (the asterisk version they do) I had my name first. Trixter ie 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does not look like a reliable source by Wikipedia standards; the site appears to be anonymous. Not sure how you were planning to make use of this site. Under some conditions web sources are OK; see WP:WEB. This usually happens when the site is already famous or widely recommended. EdJohnston 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know exactly how either which would be a prerequisite. On the surface it would seem like advertising, however the intent was to show that there is more notability with the FreeSWITCH project since others are taking it and extending it and shaping it into different things. There is a distributions section on the asterisk page, although it has no references to anything and I did not see any discussion over that in their talk page, and I dont really feel like sifting through years worth of edits in the history to see if there ever were any. I am only bringing that up since it has been deemed a 'good page'. So to continue, and still just musing about the idea right now, would it be acceptable to create a distributions section, similar to the asterisk one, and if so would it further be acceptable to list which ones actually exist? The biggest point with that would be to say if people are taking the base software and making a distribution out of it, or using it as the core communication system in some other project, it does go to add to notability, since they wouldnt bother if there wasnt something they saw in the project. To counter the argument that they are an anonymous webpage, the point isnt so much 'hey there is this group' but rather that the iso exists, and that its done by a seperate group, which is available for download on their page, anonymous or not. If that makes sense.80.57.225.40 16:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia-SIP is part of FreeSWITCH, don't remove references to it.

The links below clearly show that freeswitch uses the sofia sip library. Do not remove this content from the page. Thanks.

IRC Link

FreeSWITCH's IRC-link may be import for FreeSWITCH, but definitively not necessary to explain this article. As Wikipedia is no directory (see WP:DIRECTORY), the link could be seen as spam here. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on FreeSWITCH. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]