Talk:Caddy (web server)

Advert

Certain parts of this article read like an advertisement:

• "One of Caddy's most notable features is enabling HTTPS by default."
• "Since then it has been advanced by over two hundred other developers, adding for example support for QUIC."
• "Caddy is not vulnerable to a number of widespread CVEs including Heartbleed, DROWN, POODLE, and BEAST. In addition, Caddy uses TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV to prevent protocol downgrade attacks."
• "Caddy has also been used by Cloudflare as a platform to serve an experimental TLS 1.3 implementation."

I'm not arguing these are not notable (although I think not being vulnerable to these CVEs is just an expectation of normal web server software...). However, the tone here is not encyclopedic, and frankly smell of COI editing. Until these are rectified I'm re-adding the advert template. Soapwort (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I took the liberty of rewriting the article to remove the ad smell and add more factual substance. I also added many more secondary sources. M. (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"Apple Silicon" is not an architecture.

I noticed a line in the article:

> on a variety of architectures including x86-64, ARM, MIPS, S390X, Apple Silicon, and PPC64

Apple Silicon is not an architecture, in the same way "Snapdragon" is not an architecture, or "Ryzen" is not an architecture. Would anyone have any issues with removing this, as the same line does mention ARM support.

Aspenluxxxy (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

COI tag (May 2023)

Looks to have been written by major contributors to Caddy, which may have financial interest in doing so due to paid services provided by the company behind the software. —moonythedwarf 21:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Correction: User:Mwholt is the main contributor to the article and is also the primary contributor. Due to them having paid interest in the development of this article, they are required by WP:PAID to properly disclose their conflict of interest and potential monetary influences. —moonythedwarf 21:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed for "having paid interest in the development of this article" -- this is a serious, unsubstantiated claim and it is false. The facts are this: this article is and was not promotional -- it was not requested to be written, there is and was no compensation of any kind for writing it, nor is there any financial or business benefit of having it. I do not own the Caddy project nor am I employed by the company that does own it -- I don't even live in the same country. I will be happy to disclose if there is ever a COI related to my contributions. m (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Moonythedwarf In this instance, WP:PAID woudn't apply. @Mwholt seems to have created the Caddy project (could be wrong tho), which would mean the standard WP:COI would apply and not WP:PAID. Its an important distinction because the rules for paid editors are much stricter than an editor with an COI. Rlink2 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Matthew Holt, you run https://matt.life/ and plainly state everywhere you have direct financial involvement as per https://matt.life/writing/the-asymmetry-of-open-source or similar articles.

@Rlink2 see above. —moonythedwarf 16:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Moonythedwarf @Mwholt

Thanks for the ping and links. So the links confirm that he is the main developer of Caddy, and that he is paid money to develop the Caddy webserver. So that would mean WP:COI applies, but still not WP:PAID since being paid to work for the caddy software is not the same as being paid to edit the Caddy Wikipedia page.

WP:PAID states:

A paid contribution is one that involves contributing to Wikipedia in exchange for money or other inducements.

But still note that WP:COI editing is still discouraged. Rlink2 (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Well I can tell you I have no such interest, as that's not how open source (FOSS) projects work. I do not own the Caddy project, nor am I employed by the company that owns the Caddy project. I'm not even in the same country. This article is and was not promotional -- it was not requested to be written, there is and was no compensation of any kind for writing it, nor is there any financial or business benefit of having it. It was purely an exercise in contributing to the Wikimedia commons for the public benefit. Do you have proof I am financially incentivized by this Wikipedia article? If not, I suggest removing the flag.

Your edits removed 48 citations, most of which were independent, scholarly secondary sources. That is akin to vandalism on the Wikipedia commons. Can you justify that the current reference set is an improvement?

I noticed you are a contributor to the Apache web server Wikipedia page. That's interesting. m (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mwholt Generally, Wikipedia writing is different than normal articles because certain standards need to be met. For example long lists of features are discouraged, so Moony was right in taking that out. But there was some things Moony took out that probably still belonged in the article, so I put them back in. Rlink2 (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for putting some of the content back in. I'm well aware of Wikipedia's editing standards. That's why Moony's edits are considered defacing an article. They are inconsistently biased toward a different HTTP server which is suspicious: Moony's previous edit was to the Apache HTTP Server page, which has a stubby, relatively useless technical feature list that is, frankly, advert content. And yet it remains, even after Moony's edits. If technical descriptions are not allowed here, they are not allowed on other pages either. My original expansion of this article was to enhance such a list with actual history and technical details, backed by secondary sources and scholarly papers. Moony's edits deleted those enhancements. Editors on Wikipedia are discouraged from making broad, sweeping deletions to articles, which is why the edits are being treated as a defacing. m (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi!

One: Personal attacks are not tolerated on enwiki per WP:NPA, I edit here in my freetime (hence my brief disappearance) and have no relation to any HTTP servers to begin with (I'm a game developer, I work on Space Station 14 and nothing else at this time.)

Two: What is and is not allowed in enwiki is written plainly in our guidelines and policies, which results in my sweeping removal approach. I did unfortunately get sidetracked before I could continue doing the research for the History section in this article and I do recall having trouble finding sources for it so if you could provide reliable, third party sources that would be appreciated. —moonythedwarf 16:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, what personal attack? I'm criticizing actions made, not attacking you. (I don't care who or what you are.)

I also don't care what relation you do or don't have to other HTTP servers. What is relevant here is the inconsistent actions between the edits of that page and this page, and the serious, unsubstantiated accusations made.

As for reliable sources, there were plenty before you deleted them.

Now currently, we have a second defacing that removes 30-35 citations, including all of the scholarly ones. You've removed the strongest citations and kept probably the weakest. Why are you continually trying to deface and defame this page? m (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

You didn't tell the truth when you said MD defaced this page. You accused MD of trying to defame the page. You cast aspersions that because MD have edited other articles, that something is suspicious about them. None of this is civil. Very Average Editor (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mwholt your talk page says you retired but hopefully you can come back and contribute to this article (after better understanding WP:AGF and the 4th pillar, Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility); even if only via WP:EDITREQUESTs. Having very detailed and specific knowledge of course can be useful for articles but the core of it should be written by someone who is less personally involved (I am explicitly not invoking any particular Wikipedia policy, but just as a general idea). If you feel any particular removal is excessive or removed WP:DUE content, you can of course always post on this talk page as either an explicit edit request or to start a discussion to gain consensus to restore it. Since ultimately, Wikipedia articles aren't written by a single author but are written using a WP:CONSENSUS-based model.

Also, I think to everyone, there's WP:NODEADLINE. Either for adding back useful and WP:DUE content or for removing content that may not currently be WP:VERIFIED but doesn't otherwise violate a policy that requires immediate removal. Some of the content removed probably could have better be treated with tagging (better source required or what have you) for a bit before mass removal (as near as I can tell, the article was entirely tag-free as of May 28) and some was probably correct to summarily remove. Skynxnex (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

History section needs to go.

That entire section is backed up by primary sources. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 any secondary source will end up citing a primary source for the history. Nobody knows how a project started in someone's bedroom except for the creator, who can only lay this out in a primary source. 78.95.119.32 (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That's true of all reliable, secondary sources—they analyze primary sources because we can't. Their editorial processes involve fact-checking and also determining what's important enough to publish (and what's not). Woodroar (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

AfD?

By my count, only 6 of the 22 references are NOT primary sources direct from Caddy itself. Are the remaining 6 enough to establish notability? 2603:7000:CF0:7280:BD04:DF2D:37C2:D202 (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd be very, very surprised if this was deleted at AFD. Beyond the sources in the in the article, after a non-exhaustive search, I found: Open source server simplifies HTTPS, security certificates and Internet of Everything The First EAI International Conference, IoECon 2022 has multiple paragraphs talking about the amount of HTTP/3 support Caddy has (and says [QUIC-Go] is a common Go iibrary seen in a few recent, but well-known, web-application programs like Caddy, Traeflik, and SyncThing). And for books: Network Programming with Go a book that, based on the preview pages I can see, spends multiple pages (like a chapter called "Caddy: A Contemporary Web Server") detailing how to set up and extend Caddy (compared to many software articles, this book by itself would be for notability), Efficient Go seems to also have multiple pages about setting up and using Caddy as an example for networking (like one page I can preview has the text Let's take some programs as an example, as the Caddy HTTP web server explained in the previous chapter, .... Skynxnex (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd definitely classify it as one of the most 100 important web servers or web server modules in 2017-2018 Very Average Editor (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)