Talk:List of concept- and mind-mapping software/Archives/2013

Inclusion criterion

Anyone considering adding software to this list should keep in mind the following from the Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) guideline:

"Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future."

To test the reasonableness of your expectations, you may want to create the article on the software first and then add it to this list. UnitedStatesian 18:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm for inclusion criteria where each entry has an article. This article is a joke, resulting from WP:POINT, and violates WP:RS and WP:NPOV. --Ronz 19:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all entries that did not have their own article per above. This solves much, if not all, of the problems we've been having with the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedias most ridiculous rule. Let the startups into lists like this and it gives them a level playing field against the big guys with public companies who qualify for wikipedia. Leave them out and its unfair. Or at least say at the top of the article that as a consequence of wikipedia policy many products from smaller companies will be excluded from this list. Otherwise, whats the list for ? Here's a "List of Mind Mapping Software sold by companies big enough to get on Wikipedia" - now theres a more appropriate title ! Sleep well. BTW I dont run a mind mapping software startup ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.82.91 (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That exactly meets my point of view. What is a list of Mindmap Software good for, if it's not allowed to add projects, which "are not big enough" to be worth an own topic? 89.246.169.56 (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

---

This "inclusion" criterion does not make sense. The article is not entitled "List of notable mind mapping software", it is entitled "List of mind mapping software". Period. Faweekee (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Yes, it's confusing. Maybe we should change the last sentence of the lede to better state the inclusion criteria? --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What I meant, Ronz, is that I agree with most people here, when they want to include other software, given that that the article simply lists "mind mapping software", not "notable mind mapping software" (in fact, had we had a "notable mind mapping software" article, it'd be even more complicated, because there'd be more views as to what's notable and what not). In my case, when I added HeadCase MindMapping, it was because it is worth of addition, given the author had talks with Tony Buzan and they agreed to release it as the 1st software which included all the principles of Buzan's Mind Mapping. It has also a fairly consistent user base and so I believe it should be included. Furthermore, it is very foreseeable that the author will post an article himself about it in the near future, especially if he sees his software included in this list. The fact that an article is not yet written, therefore, should not be used to remove arbitrarily the entry. But again, these reasons are not fundamental, given we are talking simply about a "list of mind mapping software", NOT a "list of notable mind mapping software" Faweekee (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking with this. I understand the problem and would like a better solution.

Yes, the title is confusing. However, it is the standard approach for lists in Wikipedia per WP:LIST to have such titles and make the inclusion criteria clear in introduction (lede) section of the article. That's why I'd like suggestions for a better-worded inclusion criteria.

If you can find a couple of sources to support what you've mentioned about HeadCase, then it shouldn't be hard to write an article for it. I'd be happy to help once you have a couple of potential sources. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi again, here's a couple of sources plus Headcase's website and a Yahoo! Group with threads talking about the deal with Buzan and the evolution of Headcase

• http://www.killerstartups.com/Web-App-Tools/loanedgenius-com-headcase-flexible-mind-mapping
• http://software.techrepublic.com.com/abstract.aspx?docid=821219
• http://www.loanedgenius.com/
• http://groups.yahoo.com/group/headcaseinfo/

Thanks, Faweekee (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that any of these links meet WP:IS and WP:RS criteria, specifically from a "reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative". I looked for more and the best I could find wasn't any better: http://www.innovationtools.com/Tools/SoftwareDetails.asp?a=150

I'm confused by the techrepublic link, probably because of access rights and how they present information to readers without accounts. Is there actually an article? If so, who's the author and when was it published? From what I can tell, there is just a small summary of the software that's likely provided by the developer, along with a download of a version of the software.

I can't figure out where the killerstartups article comes from. It appears to indicate it came from http://mashable.com/2007/11/03/mindmapping/#more-14875, but I'm not able to verify it nor determine if it came from a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, I think we are getting into dangerous territory here. When you talk about a "reliable publication process" and "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative" I must ask "regarded as trusthworthy or authoritative" by whom, and with what criteria? And then, do you mean to say that ALL other software listed in the article have been quoted by these allegedly authoritative sources? TechRepublic, for one, has been out there long enough to be considered authoritative. Not saying there is an article there, only that the link I have provided acknowledge the existence of HeadCase in the terms stated. It is a fact that there are websites out there that are quoting HeadCase, regardless of what they may say or not say about the quality of it (which is not what's in discussion here anyway). I am struggling to understand why it is so difficult to have it included in this article.Faweekee (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is explained at length in the articles I've linked to, especially WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Being new here I am trying to understand the guidelines better, however I am confused as there seems to be a lot of contradictions. As someone who uses mind mapping software extensively I would like to see a list of all mind mapping products not just notable ones. What is the criteria for defining what is notable and what isn't? I have tried many of the products on the list although few of which I would call notable. I thought the idea with wikipedia is to share knowledge and as such listing all mind mapping software rather than a select few seems the right thing in this instance, otherwise as some else above as already has said it is biased towards large software companies. Surely it is the readers of these pages to decide what they want from a mind mapping application not us just pointing them in the direction of a chosen few. In addition most of the pages to commercial software entries read like self promoting adverts to me rather than expert articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaninserres (talk • contribs) 15:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Advertisement?

I just added an Advert template to the Proprietary software section because I think that some of the entries therein sound a lot like we're trying to sell those products, instead of merely listing their features. For example: XMIND is a revolutionary mind mapping software, a brainstorming helper, an easy-to-use productivity tool and a necessary part of office suite. You can put your mind maps and fishbone charts into Word/PDF/Powerpoint documents easily. What do you guys think? --Emc² • contact me 15:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Without sourcing from independent, reliable sources, no one should be surprised. --Ronz 16:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I just rewrote and reformatted this section. I didn't fix the sourcing but removed the advertising text. Davidcl (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I found a so called GPL software named "Edraw mind map" inserted in the table in the free software part just before FreeMind. After checking their web site, this is a full commercial software with a "freeware" version of their software but an old version with few possibilities and a time limit (30d) (NB: executable half the size if the retail version). This seems not GPL to me even if not a native English speaker able to discuss the statements contained in the GPL licence text (if I am wrong and the meaning of GPL in English matches that kind of trialware, I leave to legal advisors and English speakers of the site to revert my edit). Further more while editing the page and searching for "Edraw mind map" I could not find it, I just saved the page back using the source code version provided to me by Wikipedia and then the line referencing that software disapeared. I wonder if that was a cracked page with a kind of hack into the source code of Wikipedia? So actually my edit was not an edit, but rather just saving the actual source code of the page... Gilles Maisonneuve (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

dotThinker project

This web-site gives you opportunity to create mind maps easily and fast. Well, there is no sense to talk about it as far lot of other stuff was created. That's why I will give a number of real advantages: Auto image search, so you can use keyword or certain image of it. It has a question roulette. Menu for customizing design of elements. Links certainly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyhigh211 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Started by the file format is a good idea for a graphics software

All Freeware except Compendium is deleted

I strongly suggest undoing this edit. Please, comment here if you agree. Julia sova (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please review the above discussions, and the relevant policies cited.

You have a conflict of interest here. Please read and follow WP:COI and WP:NPOV, rather than appearing to work around these policies to further your personal and professional interests. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have done it all and it has nothing to do with WP:NPOV. Deleting a dozen of software people have carefully studied and put into Wikipedia is NOT an action guided by WP:NPOV. Also I don't see any point in continuing discussion with you, Ronz, as you seem to stick to an idea of preventing people from getting a profound view on the software list. It's not just about the software I'm interested in, it's about justice. I think all actions should be justified and all you do here is forcing your self-will upon mind map users. Julia sova (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but until you address your COI, I can't differentiate between your call for justice and your job to promote the products of the company you work for. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Without reliable sources to show these other entries belong in this list, it is against WP:NPOV to include them. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Julia, I agree. The views stated below do not represent wiki policy in this matter, they represent one user's opinion, expressed using wiki policy. Please contact me on my talk page. Thanks wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2008(UTC)wikieditor9999

The heading says All freeware except Compendium are deleted. But I don't find Compendium in the list, either. How come such a software with proven track record (e.g. used by NASA) is deleted?? See http://compendium.open.ac.uk/institute//community/showcase.htm 59.92.161.68 (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is bubbl.us always being deleted?

www.bubbl.us is a web application to make mind maps, why isn't not not allowed? The reason for this page is to list mind mapping software, and a web application is somewhat a software.

I added the link and it was deleted by "UnitedStatesian"

Can i please know why?

Limjix (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It does not meet the list inclusion criteria for this article Talk:List_of_mind_mapping_software#Inclusion_criterion. See the discussions above. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please consider including this free mind-mapper...

JayAaroBe: I do not have the skills to edit a wikipedia entry but I want to suggest a piece of software that is not listed: OpenOffice's Draw which is a free alternative to Microsoft Office's Vizio. Can someone with the proper skills please add that software to the list? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayAaroBe (talk • contribs) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Cayra: I added it a while ago, but I may have done something wrong because it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.15.64 (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:List_of_mind_mapping_software#Inclusion_criterion --Ronz (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Good, free mind-mapping software is so rare. You're preventing us from telling people about Cayra just because it doesn't have a WP page of its own? I thought the philosophy here was that anyone could contribute info, as long as it was accurate and non-exploitative. It looks like that was a naïve notion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.15.64 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 4 February 2008

OK, I have the solution---we add a notice to Wikipedia's homepage: "Be sure to check each article's Discussion page so you don't miss significant, useful information that, for one baffling bureaucratic reason or another, was chased off the article's main page."  :?D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.22.189 (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why can't I get MindMeister added to Wikipedia???

I just found out about mind mapping software and started looking for something simple I could begin with. I checked out the links on this page, but a friend recommended MindMeister. I started with it, and figured it would be helpful to others to add to this list, since it is a web application and offers collaborating functionality these others do not.

So I add it to this list and it gets deleted because there is no underlying wiki page.

Then I develop a wiki page for it. I upload a screenshot. The screenshot gets ripped down in 5 minutes, even though I put a hold on it - for false reasons.

Then while I'm fighting over the screenshot, my wiki page gets ripped down, even though I put a hold on it, again for false reasons.

All my work disappears within 5 minutes. It is like there are sharks circling the water just waiting to censor anything someone posts. It's crazy!

Now I'm being told that MindMeister lacks "notability." But I'm looking at this list and the linked wiki pages, and I modeled my page on the others I found here. If mine is getting ripped down, several others here should too. How did you folks manage to get yours to go up and stay up? This is ridiculous. any advice? --Gpd209 (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Thanks for the advice. I completely reworked the page, adding a section on notability, external references, etc. User: Pegasus used speedy deletion yet again. He has it stuck in his head that, since this particular mind-mapping software runs in a web browser instead of a standalone software package, it is subject to different rules from other mind-mapping software for inclusion in wikipedia. Let's hope this dude doesn't find all the other app's on this page. --Gpd209 (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Gdp209, the problem with including MindMeister here or creating an article about it is that, unless you can prove otherwise, the product lacks notability. Because it does not seem notable, inclusion here seems to indicate that it may be WP:Spam. If you can prove notability through legitimate references outside the subject and its immediate commercial supporters, you may have a case for an article, but again, beware of creating something that will only end up being deleted in WP:afd. I would also advise you to consider WP:Assume good faith with regard to your interactions with Pegasus and your comments here about that user. Thanks.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Pgagnon999, you are losing the forest for the trees. There are a dozen pages just like mine "advertising" other mind mapping software. What makes those "notable?" This specific page is valuable only to the degree that it provides a thorough listing of software options. One might say, without an "encyclopedic" offering of software options, the purpose of the list us completely undermined. To advance your agenda, you should continue on and censor the rest of these entries. Then your work would be complete, and the integrity of your mission maintained.

This whole page lacks "notability" by your definition. The whole field of reviewing software would be vulnerable to your criticism - it's either spam, or blatant advertising if the review is positive. If the review is mediocre, it lacks notability. If the review is negative? You'd probably complain it doesn't come from a neutral source. My recommendation: Pgagnon999, you should spend a month doing something else with your time - get out, ride a bike, go on a hike - something other than focusing on censoring information from something as wonderful as wikipedia. Then come back with fresh eyes and admire the beauty of the forest, with all its unpruned trees "lacking notability".--Gpd209 (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I find MindMeister notable. How one proves this, I don't know. It seems to me to work particularly smoothly and has lots of nice features. FWIW, I have purchased the expensive MindJet software, as well as Brainstorm and Thebrain, yet I still find MindMeister notable. And I've tried Compendium as well.

I'm glad to see that MindMeister is at least listed among the available programs in the Mindmapping pages. I am geneven@rocketmail.com, and today's date is March 9, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.0.34 (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see that Mindmeister appears to have been accepted. Now, what the heck is concept mapping? I've never heard of it before. I think it's basically the same as Mindmapping and should be merged into that article. Or else, we should set up separate pages for "idea mapping" and "thought mapping" and "vibe mapping". :)

I am geneven@rocketmail.com and today's date is March 24, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.0.34 (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What the heck is concept mapping? Essentially, a more general approach to mapping ideas than mind mapping. Whereas a mind map has a single central idea, a concept map may have many. Thus, a tool that can do concept mapping could be used to create a mind map, but a mind map tool may not necessarily support a concept map. For example, if the tool enforces the restrictions for mind mapping, it would not allow the flexibility allowed in by concept mapping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.137.18.50 (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Matchware openmind2pro en.jpg

The image Image:Matchware openmind2pro en.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Mindomo mindmap start.png
• Image:PersonalBrain.jpg
• Image:Omnigrafflescreen.jpg
• Image:Mindmanager.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Smart Draw

Its a while ago that I last used SmartDraw but back then it was nothing more than a flowchart drawing tool, not a mind mapping tool. Are you sure it belongs here? Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 01:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Columns in software tables

There should be a column for the type of license in the propietary software table. Propietary (otherwise called close source) software does not always mean that it is paid software. It can be freeware, and i believe that most people sometimes don't mind if the software is open or closed source, as long as it is free(as in beer).

Also, GPL license does not mean that you just go and download and use a certain software. Most of the software listed in the open source table is free, BUT you are required to create an account or to give your email in order to receive a download link! Many people just aren't willing to give away personal information just to try a software for the first time. Therefore there should be a column detailing the usage terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.239.132.147 (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the GNU GPL license at all, if you're suggesting you need to register on web sites to download the code or binaries. Personally, in over a decade of using GPL software, I have only encountered around 4 or 5 cases where a GPL project required any form of membership/sign-up to download their software, and I have downloaded hundreds of applications that are released under the GPL license. I would agree that differentiating between Freeware, Shareware, Commercial, GPL, BSD, etc. licenses is a good and useful thing. Raven Morris (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Creately

Creately is diagramming software with the ability to make mind map type diagrams. If this is included, so also should Visio be, along with any other software package that can draw boxes with lines between them.

Furthermore, the Creately article itself is weak and with minimal citations. It is already flagged with questions about notability.

I propose it should be removed from this article, but initially, I cleaned up the sales talk in its entry in this table.

Argey (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

SmartDraw

I would apply similar comments to the above about Creately to SmartDraw.

I propose it should also be removed from this article, being first and foremost diagramming software.

Argey (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

With the most current versions of SmartDraw, you can create mind maps relatively easily. However, it is not yet as nimble as those tools whose purpose is specifically mind mapping.

Also, regarding the question about merging mind mapping and concept mapping, I think they are two distinctly different kinds of software. Any one who has used, say C-Maps and compared it to something like MindManager will see the significant differences right away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.164.29 (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing Platforms/OS

This list needs to be updated to include mobile platforms/OS's like Android and iPhone. There are several Mind Mapping apps on Android, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdelach (talk • contribs) 13:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Diagramming Software != Mind Mapping

Why does diagramming software redirect to mind mapping software? I was looking for an alternative to Visio to draw flow charts and ended up on this page, WTF!

For people who are confused by this, try looking at Categroy:Diagramming_software instead. Though someone really should resolve this nastiness. There's no reason this list should be squatting on diagramming software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.218.196 (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. The Diagramming Software article was laking an assertion of notability, that's why it was being deleted. Diego Moya (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Buzan's iMindMap?

The software list's order is alphabetical. I don't think the creator's names should be placed before software names, seems like something they'd do to rank higher and get more attention.81.71.164.202 (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Blumind, simple to use mind mapping software

Why don't you add a refference to Blumind(.org) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.180.122 (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Because it has no article on Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

SciPlore MindMapping is outdated

In home page of SciPlore http://www.sciplore.org/software/sciplore_mindmapping/ there is a message SciPlore MindMapping is outdated. Please use Docear the successor of SciPlore MindMapping instead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htest1 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Docear screenshot 1.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Docear screenshot 1.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Docear screenshot 1.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

PCWorld Review of YouMinds Composer

Mindmap tool "YouMinds Composer" was reviewed by PCWorld in April

http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,205499-order,4/description.html#tk.nl_bdx_h_misc

Does anybody care to write about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.110.2.61 (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Two Open Source packages not (yet) listed

I've been looking at mind map software packages for possible use in developing some training curriculum soon. I installed the Vym ("view your mind") software on my Fedora 8 Linux system, since it's available from the Fedora package repository. It's also available directly with other Linux distributions. I was referred to the Mind Map article by a link in Vym's documentation. I was surprised not to see it on the list of mind-mapping software since they referred me here. In my search, I've also found Semantik (formerly kdissert) has a package in Fedora's repository. Both are Open Source - Vym is GPL and Semantik is QPL. I have no connection to either piece of software.

I would usually just be WP:BOLD and add links such as these. But the talk discussion looks like that's not advisable in this topic. Submitted for reactions... Ikluft (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting here first. The article has a basic inclusion criteria, which these software packages do not meet. --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I was so lucky to find Vym outside of wikipedia because I always search (wikipedia) for software and it in not included! I installed it in ubuntu 9.10. Can someone from the FOSS community write an article about vym ? Thanks. 188.4.91.111 (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Just found this WiseMapping Software. It seems very modern and i want to test it for myself. Could anyone check if the Software is fulfilling the criteria for this article? Thanks in advance! Baho0815 (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)