Talk:Mambo (software)/Archive 1

TALK

— JIP | Talk 07:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me

Forgive me, but isn't JWebWizard Mambo Development Services just link spam? 测试 -[Unknown] 16:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps not exactly spam but the article is basically just a list of lists. So I moved them to the Wikibook but it even might be an idea to delete them alltogether as this kind of information is there already on the specialised Mambo pages. The feature list should be structured and some of the obvious features removed. The version information has been deleted as this is something constantly changing and people better consult the web site. Hirzel 2 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)

---

Revert issues regarding Mambo

It seems numerous people have been reverting edits regarding the Mambo Foundation issues seen on this CMS for the last month or so.

The text in question currently being reverted is:

It is currently in a strategic alliance with Ansearch Ltd after the attempted sale of the Mambo forums fell through. This remains a developing event.

As I don't want to fall foul of the WP:3RR rule in order to stop verifiable data from being removed from the Wiki, I'd ask either those who maintain 202.169.242.124 as to why verifiable data on Mambo Communities should be removed ? There also seems minor POV pushing in that in an ordered list of forks by release date, the latest one, Joomla! always gets put last. If there is a new fork on the market out of Mambo, something else will take precedence over Joomla, but this just seems like blatant POV pushing.

Notwithstanding that, it seems other people have fallen foul of some revert issues with 202.169.241.3 also removing bits of verifiable content related to the Mambo project ?

Perhaps it would be wise just to put a vandalism lock on the entire page

--El Mariachi 13:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

213.22.126.100 15:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC) This article has been used as a promotion point for other sites not affiliated with the mambo foundation. It has also been serving as a a notice board for controversy surrounding the project. Sections and links not related to mambo software or the mambo foundation have been removed. None of those entries would qualify as objective information about the project.

I've been looking through the history of this page and note a lot of exclusionist based removal of information. The Wikipedia project is meant to provide a NPOV perspective on any topic, and to only limit a particular page to those affiliated with the particular project does suggest significant POV pushing. After all, if you can't document the historical development of where a particular topic is at (e.g Joomla! and it's history, Wordpress and it's historical information) all you may be doing is creating promotional links, which violates the notion that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor it is a place where censorship happens. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not if you need to learn how to contribute effectively to the Wikipedia in that light.

I take it you, 213.22.126.100, are likewise speaking for 202.169.241.3 and 202.169.242.124 in stating that only affiliated information regarding this project should be published (notwithstanding the other attributable references that were deleted by these IPs) ? I'm a little worried in that light. The Mambo project page is currently one of the few CMS pages on the Wiki that I know of that is being excessively deleted when current news or historical information is posted. I still wonder why attributable, relevant historical and current data on the development of the Mambo project should be removed and I'm not the only one to notice attributable information disappearing as other Wikipedians have reverted edits by 202.169.241.3 and 202.169.242.124. Just whom you do represent, 213.22.126.100 ?

Further investigation shows Mambo Guru and Mambo Communities both play significant parts within the Mambo project, as evidenced by the number of attributable links to how they affect the Mambo project and if we are to maintain NPOV, there should be no Undue weight regarding any of the significant parts.

--El Mariachi 07:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The information concerning Mambo Guru and mambo Communities have been removed repeatedly by the maintainers of this listing -- that is representatives of the Mambo Foundation. Why? because neither organization is associated with the Mambo Foundation. The organizations (MG and MC) are separate entities. If you wish to add entries about those organizations, please do them separately, not as part of the Mambo Foundation's listing. Thank you. 213.22.126.100 13:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is not owned by the Mambo Fountdation, and it is not about the Mambo Foundation. It is about the software that the Mambo Foundation releases. You are violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy by removing information from the article that is not about the mambo foundation, thus causing the article to favor the mambo foundation regarding the mambo cms software. I have reverted your edits, and I would like to ask you to stop removing this information. --digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a very sensible idea to put a vandalism lock on the entire page. This page seems to attract a whole lot of vandalism, link spam, and zealots who wish to try to rewrite history by removing references to the Joomla fork. Xerodian 01:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It also seems sensible that Xerodian refrain from removing items of historic significance. Xerodian's removal of certain facts concerning three lead developers tend to favor the Mambo Foundation. Those facts in and of themselves meet the requirement of NPOV. They are significant because they indicate a change in the software's authors. Whether or not they reflect on the Mambo Foundation is inconsequential because the article is about the software and not Mambo Foundation. Xerodian has violated Wikipedia's NPOV policy because the removal of certain historical information tends to favor Mambo Foundation. I have reverted those edits and request that Xerodian refrain from removing historical information.

--70.234.210.207 (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

From an outside look in, it would seem that your edits, whilst retaining some manner of historical record, remain unverified. Verified, citable reference material is valuable to Wiki as it increases the strength of an article. In this way, I would hazard a guess Xerodian's edits were simply removing uncited material. Furthermore, looking through your own edit history on Wiki, I saw comments left by you which would suggest your edits are pushing Wiki towards a soapbox for your own CMS. Please make sure the Mambo article reflects verifiability and notability. Thanks. El Mariachi (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

--70.234.210.207 (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The page is about a software product, not the myriad of contributors. Nor is it about the Mambo Foundation. Wikipedia is useful to everyone only as long as accurate, verifiable material is used. Before reverting your edits I checked the web sites for the Mambo project and its Foundation. I edited to add citations to verified material. None of your other edits could be verified. Xerodian (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not suprising considering. If you're going to adhere to strict verifiable citations, I suggest you further edit the page to remove all unverified content. There is quite a bit. I suppose I could revert your changes and add my own verifiable citations. Would that be appropriate?

Let me ask you this, Xerodian. It's a simple yes or no question. Do you have personal knowledge that the information you removed was true and factually correct? 70.234.210.207 (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, from an outside look in, do you have verifiable, citable references for the information you added ? If not, it should not be added, especially under the auspices of soapboxing your own CMS into Wiki. It's not Xerodian's fault that the information you supplied doesn't conform to the Wiki Manual of Style. That's something you are going to have to resolve - either verify the sources of your information or don't include it. El Mariachi (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

In all fairness, this is an article about a "Software product". Not a comuunity building project. If one were to include community building sites surrounding the project, then it would be fair to include other community sites surrounding the project. This would obviously corrupt this entry as a "Software product" entry. As I mentioned previously. Those entries are designed to promote themselves using the "Software"'s entry. As there has been much controversy around this CMS since the Joomla fork last year. We believe it is only fair that the CMS have an entry similar to that of Joomla, Wordpress and Others. I consider anything else besides that as Spam. Until this issue is resolved I will mark this article as under dispute. 213.22.126.100 18:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the advert tags, because those sections really don't read like adverts. They do, however, need to be organized differently. How about something like:

Related Companies

Mambo Communities

I'm not sure about using "Related Companies", so if anyone can come up with a different heading, please do.--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 19:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If we must include community sites and note that Mambo Foundation is NOT a community site, it is the entity that governs the software, then probably a compromise solution would be to have a section "Communities around Mambo" or something to that effect. Mambo Communities and Mambo Guru are not the only ones and there are many more. I don't think that each community site should have a section on it's own because such a listing can be expected to grow. 213.22.126.100 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Mambo Communities and Mambo Guru are the significant ones as those two sites help flesh out the history and development of the Mambo project since the Joomla! split. This is where I think you misunderstand what Wikipedia remains about as well as the scope of my edits to revert back to something attributable. Page blanking of the nature that has been done by representatives of the Mambo Foundation is still vandalism as this page on the Wiki has been repeatedly pushed as a POV view by the Foundation, likewise explaining the ongoing history of Joomla ending up at the wrong end of a historical list of forks. Both Joomla and Wordpress openly document the history of their respective projects, even if that historical record includes controversy. Yet because supposed representatives of the Foundation want to maintain this page, there is next to no historical record available. This makes no sense and comes across as vandalism. --El Mariachi 23:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note, however, that I do not think that adding such a section would be providing Neutral Information about the software and could possibly be misused as an advertisement farm. 213.22.126.100 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral information about Mambo includes its historical development since the Joomla split and the place that this record can be found is through Mambo Guru and Mambo Communities. As such, it remains Neutral because it has documented how the project has changed over time, even if your Foundation representatives seek to continue blanking attributable history. --El Mariachi 23:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with El Mariachi in saying that the MC and MC entries are part of the history of the project. The entries about MC and MG in this revision (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mambo_%28CMS%29&oldid=63628415) are clearly talking about 'current events'. As far as I know, current events are not history. Further, they relate to current events involving those entities and not Mambo (CMS) nor the Mambo Foundation. I do, however, agree that this article is lacking in historical information and suggest that a 'History' section be written with the history of the project since its inception in 2000 or 2001 up to the present date. If there is so much concern about the history of the project, I'm surprised it hasn't been done already. I must say that in light of what can be seen in this discussion, El Mariachi seems to be biased towards the controversial 'current' events instead of an actual objective historical record. 213.22.126.47 10:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Similar developing events are seen in Joomla!, Wordpress and other pages throughout the Wiki. Whilst the only credible information I can find, even within the version history of the Mambo_(CMS) page, is relating to developments in the last few months, those controversial events now some part of the historical record of the project. In that way, it's NPOV, even if it remains slightly controversial. After all, Joomla! itself links to significantly controversial attributable data within its history and we don't see any page blanking on their part. --El Mariachi 00:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, It seems that this discussion is getting nowhere. El Mariachi does not seem to want to enter into a compromise, choosing instead to justify his POVs'.

El Mariachi, you asked us to say who we represent. I take it that that question in itself makes the assumption that we're not acting in good faith. To put things on an even ground, I would have to ask you too whom you represent because it is difficult to see where your good faith lies since you only seem interested in talking about 'apparently controversial' current events that are external to Mambo and the Mambo Foundation and bear absolutely no effect on the Mambo Foundation or the software it produces.

You say that Joomla and Wordpress also talk about current events but I see no current events there that are not related to the projects themselves. I do not even see any developing events in the Wordpress article! In the Joomla article there is even no mention of the recent mass resignation of their OSM board members. Why so much interest in the events surrounding Mambo Communities and MamboGuru? I say again, events involving those entities have absolutely nothing to do with Mambo or the Mambo Foundation. The outcome of those events, whatever they are, have no effect on the CMS nor on the projects' governing body. They are external to Mambo.

Finally, you make recommendations that Foundation Members follow their code of conduct. Why make such a recommendation? What does it add to the discussion about the article? Soon after the Joomla fork, the Mambo Foundation and it's members have had to take much abuse from Joomla supporters in very much the same tone as the recommendations you made below.

I am getting the impression that it will be very hard to reach any sort of aggreement here and possibly some external mediation might be necessary.

213.22.126.32 11:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a little hard to assume good faith when consistent and ongoing page blanking is going on - page blanking over and over of the same thing just comes across as vandalism. Take a long look at the edit history and you'll see ongoing page blanking for the last 3 months in the very least. This is why I initially asked who the relevant IPs represented, and as such I represent none of the parties mentioned. I agree with digital_me's actions to split off the relevant bodies - Mambo Guru, Mambo Communities and I recognise that a verifiable, attributable history of Mambo should be developed in light of these two external parties outside the Mambo Foundation.

I raised the Code of Conduct as it was stated above and below that only affiliated content would be published by those who run the Mambo Foundation, resulting in widespread page blanking, and that those representatives are also responsible for the edits destroying grammar and formatting (e.g. date ordered forks). If you are representating this project, please do it in such a way that conveys respect to those on the Wiki.

Both Joomla! and Wordpress retain historical records. Whilst they may not be as complete as you would like, the problem I see is that Mambo_(CMS) has no historical relevance whatsoever. Wikipedia should be providing some historical reference. In that light, I would like to start a history of the project area on the Mambo_(CMS) page - this is where the compromise and resolution should keep all parties involved happy. --El Mariachi 23:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Official statement from Chairman

This entry concerns the non-profit Mambo-Foundation and the Open Source software product it promotes and protects. It should not be used to promote commercial ventures such as Mambo Communities and Mambo Guru. Moreover, while it is true that Mambo Communities can be labelled a "Major Community Site", Mambo Guru most certainly cannot, being a minor effort with a history of combative criticism of the Foundation; their placement in this category is entirely promotional in nature and intended to drive traffic to a fledgling site. I would propose that if these other topics (Mambo Communities and Mambo Guru) are significant enough to merit entries, they do so under their own names and not attempt to piggy back their commercial efforts on this non-profit's entry. Opening this non-profit's entry up to a directory listing of Mambo Community sites runs the risk of turning this entry into a link farm, as there are literally hundreds of Mambo-related sites worldwide. -- Ric Shreves, Mambo Foundation, Inc.

Mambo Guru, a non commercial venture from investigation into it, qualifies as NPOV since it includes the core development team leader prior to the strategic alliance/takeover bid by Ansearch, if you care to look through the history of the Mambo CMS page. Mambo Communities, whilst commercial, provides the other part of the history as to why the Mambo Foundation has kicked out its leading open source development team leader. All this can be qualified and backed up with historical attribution. And it's the historical record I'm concerned about. These two sites, along with the Mambo Foundation itself, provide a significant overview on how the Mambo project has developed since the Joomla! split. This is why none of those other Mambo-related sites qualify, as both provide directly attributable historical information as to how the project has developed since August 2005. This guards the Mambo CMS page from turning into a link farm as none of the other sites provide directly attributable history into the development of the project. In that light, Ric, I think your proposal should be rejected. All I ask is that the history of the project be documented from a NPOV perspective, and part of that NPOV includes what has transpired with Mambo Guru and Mambo Communities.

I would also recommend that your representatives seek to follow the Mambo Foundation code of conduct as POV pushing as their actions on the Mambo_(CMS) page could, if I am reading the rules correctly, be grounds for removal from said Foundation, due to a lack of respect for other people's work related to the Mambo project --El Mariachi 07:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Flash Tutorial addition?

Well since Mambo is large and a large number of support sites exist.. and are posted in this profile why cant Mambo Tutorial sites be added?

If you look at the article for some odd reason Mambo Guru is on there, why they are not an official site of mambo.

Why was the addon about Flash Tutorials removed, and mambo guru is still on there?

Changed link to the official demo site. This page is now a neutral overview of the software project that contains the history, as El Mariachi wanted. It would be good if the page could stay that way. Xerodian 03:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

mambo foundation

Mambo is ultmaitely run by the miro corperation. should we replace "mambo foundation" with "miro corperation"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrew Hampe (talk • contribs) 19:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Miro International was deregistered as a company in 2005. The Mambo Foundation is run by its membership through annual elections from within the Mambo community. Xerodian (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mambo cms logo.png

Image:Mambo cms logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mambo/Joomla split

I came here looking for some information regarding the Mambo/Joomla split and all I could find out was that it had happened after some funny statements by some king of "big guy". Well, the average reader is not likely to be familiar with Mambo's internal politics, and is thus completely unable the understand why those core developers were so pissed off that they decided to abandon the project the next day. —suriv (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)