Talk:Everything (software)

In defense of Everything

This article conforms to the notability guidelines insofar as conformity is possible at all when describing the operation of closed-source, proprietary software.

The author of a software application is de facto an authority on his own work

Its operational principles have been clearly stated in forum postings by the author of this application; each statement has been cited and can be reliably attributed to the author, who controls the forum in which they were posted. The author doesn't elaborate the merits of his approach but only explains what that approach is. The author is not an independent source, but any third party who would independently confirm the author's claims would inevitably violate his EULA. The author of this software is the best authority available who can explain how it works.

In this case, the author's explanation is plausible and compelling, and any competent Windows user can at least confirm that Everything is hooking the change journal, if not confirm how Everything uses this access.

The author isn't commenting on an extrinsic topic. He is explaining the construction of his own original creation. There is no better source for implementation details than the author himself. Here in fact the author is much more reliable than a well-known authority like PC World, which guesses at how the program operates and misstates how it works.

Rules should apply equally to all

Certainly the statements in this article are better supported than those in similar "acceptable" Wikipedia articles such as Locate (Unix) and find (Unix), which include no citations at all and direct the reader to the publisher's website for information. Certainly lack of acceptable references isn't reason per se for removing an article, else most of the many article stubs in Wikipedia would be flagged for removal. Certainly some editors are applying Wikipedia's publication standards unevenly.

Notability 2.0

In the opinion of the web surfing public, as measured by Google page rank, the Everything search engine is not less notable than, say, William Pitt the Younger. In fact, finding something called Everything on the Internet would be well-nigh impossible was it not de facto notable. Seen from this perspective, Everything is even more notable than the man who gave Britain the income tax.

First line of WP:Notability:

Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice." Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

Multiple independent reliable sources are really what determine notability on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So you've said, but the element of notability that's been cited time and again with respect to this article is reliable sources. The second line of WP:RS: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." It's disingenuous to suggest that the problem here is the article and not one overzealous editor when you compare this article to those about 7-Zip, sed, XYplorer, FreeOTFE, Mp3tag and a thousand other software applications published by small software companies or solo developers.

The trouble here, RexxS, is that Wikipedia has a de defacto standard of notability for software that is inconsistent with its formal policy which was cribbed from the days of paper and ink. That inconsistency invites abuse, and your boy Chzz abused it. That's what this is about, my friend. The app is popular, but popularity isn't formally acceptable. Bloggers rave about it, but blogs aren't acceptable either, aren't even reviewed - any link that even includes "blog" in the URL is excised by a bot. Ditto for forums, though if you own a computer you know that's where you'll find useful information and not at Apple or Microsoft. The designer of the software is discounted as biased, unreliable, yet that's the very reliable source you pay two grand to listen to when it's about your work and not a 3,000 word essy. Software distributors like CNET are decidedly interested parties, since downloads drive their cash flow, yet this is where we go for reliable software reviews, though not reliable by the Wikistandards you cite.

Wikipedia's explicit editorial policies are in some ways very out of touch with what consensus says is notable and reliable. Usually that doesn't matter, because the de facto policy prevails, at least in this niche. That didn't happen in this case. It should have.

I didn't ask that Wikipedia bend its policies, only that its policies, formal and de facto, be applied uniformly and fairly. They weren't. What's worse for your organization, many of your fellows refuse to acknowledge this inconsistency between what youyou (W, get it?) say and what youyou do at the same time they're using it to advantage in the heat of electioneering. It will have to be addressed, sooner better than later. We all know where we go for answers, and it ain't the sources cited in the standard.

As I've said, the references I provided were the best available to me. The one reference entirely reliable by Wikipedia standards misstated how Everything works, if the designer is to be believed. I think you boys are wrong in discounting a designer's statement; Tesla's AC generator wouldn't have been noteworthy for almost a decade by that criteria, but then, it's your show.

Thank you for taking an interest, but I have nothing more to add here. The features I didn't describe are even more poorly documented, and this would be the wrong time to add unsupported prose. Don't bury this article just yet, though. I think cooler heads will prevail, and your comrades will see the sense in defending the comprehensive aspect of their encyclopedia, even if they have to leave dreck like this article in it. Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding editorial vandalism

If you delete all but one sentence of this article, then recommended deletion of the article itself, you are a vandal. Your tactics are designed to make you sole arbiter of what stays and what goes by preventing anyone else from reading what has offended your editorial sense and forming their own opinion of it. If you feel that some but not all of the article should remain, then delete the offending clauses. If you feel the article itself should go, leave it alone until it's deleted so that others can read it and comment upon it.

Of course, deleting comments from the Talk page is just bad sportsmanship. Not very British of you, lad.

Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

At present, the article does not demonstrate what is required for an article as outlined at WP:Notability:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

To try to be helpful: you should be looking for multiple reliable sources that are not connected with the author and that make prominent mention of the Everything software. Press releases from the company, etc. are unlikely to be useful. What you probably want is a number of reviews of the software in quality newspapers and magazines - it's ok if those are online, if not on paper. Is the software mentioned in any books which are independent of the author? Was there any news coverage of the software on its release beyond quoting a press release? If these sort of sources can't be shown to exist, then it's likely that the article won't survive an AfD, so I'd strongly recommend searching for them sooner rather later. --RexxS (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The developer has migrated some of the content describing internal operation of the application from his Everything forum to his Everything wiki. Is citing the wiki better, no better, or worse than citing the (attributable) statements by the developer on his forum? 24.34.105.177 (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As the source of the information is the same, there's no difference, other than an assumption that the wiki might be around longer than the forum. Either is a perfectly valid source for the author's views and opinions and for his description of what the software does and how it works. Unfortunately, it is no use for establishing the software's notability. --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Conflict of interest

As I have already stated, I am the author of this article, not the developer of the software application it describes. I have no association with the developer or his application except that I have used this application, and still use it, though sparingly because of the security issues described in this article. This charge was invented by Atama, apparently amplifying his statement in the discussion of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chzz. I'm removing Atama's Conflict of Interest flag; his charge is baseless and insulting. Yappy2bhere (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the tag based on your statement here. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 16:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

re: Original Research

I'm removing Chzz's Original Research flag. I've cited statements by the developer, not conducted original research. The developer of a software application is a primary source, per Wikipedia:No original research - Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: "The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event." If you disagree, please explain yourself before reinstating the flag. Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Everything (software). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090915174617/http://wakoopa.com/software/everything to http://wakoopa.com/software/everything
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091030223943/http://support.voidtools.com/everything/Using to http://support.voidtools.com/everything/Using
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090629175824/http://blogs.zdnet.com/gadgetreviews/?p=5368&page=5 to http://blogs.zdnet.com/gadgetreviews/?p=5368&page=5

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) 21:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on "Everything" Software Licensing

Hello,

I've noticed that the current article states that the "Everything" software is open-source and released under the MIT License. However, based on the following evidence, this appears to be incorrect:

• The official license text provided by Voidtools is not the MIT License and outlines different terms.
• There is no publicly available source code for "Everything"; the software is distributed only in binary form.
• In an official forum discussion, no developer confirms that "Everything" is open-source.
• The official documentation on installing Everything and the FAQs do not mention that the software is open-source or licensed under the MIT License.

Given this information, I propose that we update the article to accurately reflect the software's licensing status to prevent any misunderstandings. Specifically, we should remove references to it being open-source and licensed under the MIT License unless verifiable sources can confirm this.

I welcome any feedback or additional insights on this matter. If there are no objections, I'll proceed to make the necessary corrections in a few days. Thank you!

--JJHAGG4R (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• The paragraph in question was changed by an anonymous editor on 20 July 2024 (diff). I agree that there is no basis for the claim that Everything is open-source, but I can't see any difference in the text of their licence to the MIT licence.

MIT License

Everything

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

The phrase, "it is considered open-source" should be removed from the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)