You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> on 2013/01/21 00:46:36 UTC
In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over
the holidays
I noticed David Gerard bragging about this on Twitter to Roy
Schestowitz: https://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/293102313751584768
Take a look at the lovely new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
Some choice bits of distortion:
"In June 2011, Oracle contributed the code and trademarks to the
Apache Software Foundation, unilaterally relicensing all contributions
under the Apache License, at the suggestion of IBM (to whom Oracle had
contractual obligations concerning the code). Most development is now
done by IBM employees. On 18 October 2012 Apache OpenOffice graduated
from the Apache Incubator."
Nice conspiracy theory slipped in their by Gerard, eh?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OpenOffice&diff=prev&oldid=529910312)
or
"With the donation to Apache, development slowed while the foundation
moved the codebase and infrastructure to its servers. Apache
OpenOffice 3.4 was released on 8 May 2012. The work done in the
thirteen months since the OpenOffice.org 3.4 beta was mainly license
changes, removing or replacing as much code, including fonts, under
licenses unacceptable to Apache as possible. Language support was
considerably reduced, to 15 languages from a 2009 peak of over 110.
Java is no longer bundled with the installer. 3.4.1, released 23
August 2012, added five more languages."
Gerard is also pushing for the page to declare LO as the successor to
OpenOffice:
"LO as successor
Per the naming discussion above - AOO has the trademark, but that's
about all. There's about ten press sources in the article already to
support a statement that OOo was succeeded by LO, and that AOO is a
rump, a moribund shell; and only IBM sources seriously pretending AOO
is a live project - as far as I can see looking through AOO commits,
IBM hasn't even committed the Symphony code and it's supposed to come
out in February. We'll see with AOO 4.0, but if it looks anything like
Symphony (which I've used at work, and it's horrible), that will be
the day old OOo users notice something has gone terribly wrong and
it'll be appropriate to make this article all about OpenOffice.org and
make Apache OpenOffice a separate article - David Gerard (talk) 21:28,
1 January 2013 (UTC)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OpenOffice#Badly_in_need_of_copyediting_and_sensible_revision
These are some of the same misstatements as in the Lwn.net article
coming out later this week, btw.
Is that what they are stooping to now? Are these the words of a
neutral Wikipedia editor? Is that how they work? It seems rather odd
to me for a notable detractor of Apache OpenOffice to have free hand
in a revisionist rewrite of this Wikipedia page. Quite odd. I'm
disappointed, but not surprised.
-Rob
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed
over the holidays
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as
> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
> argument.
>
> Regarding conflicts of interest:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide
>
> This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject
> matter. Whether offering a competing product and being personally
> committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises
> "personal involvement" is a complicated question.
>
> Regarding opinionated content:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
>
> AKA
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX
>
> This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over
> things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles. As others have
> said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader
> doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and
> value judgments aren't facts. At best, one can say that such-and-such
> person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value
> judgments.
>
Facts are a funny thing. I could make Albert Einstein look like
deranged psychopath if I picked my facts selectively. So there must
be more than just facts Facts support a narrative, and a biased
narrative, even if connected by facts, is still a biased narrative.
The editing here is very dishonest. For example, there is the
assertion "Most development is now done by IBM employees". Two
references are given. But then if you look at the references they
don't actually back up the assertion. They are pseudo-citations,
decoration.
Similar, hearsay seems to be counted as facts. For example, the
innuendo in "In June 2011, Oracle contributed the code and trademarks
to the Apache Software Foundation, unilaterally relicensing all
contributions under the Apache License, at the suggestion of IBM (to
whom Oracle had contractual obligations concerning the code)."
But the the citations don't back this up. One citation is merely
hearsay, "Oracle, which I'm told has contractual obligations to IBM".
Does hearsay count as a reliable source? And the second citation
doesn't even remotely support the assertion.
This is all a house of cards he is putting up. But he is at it again today.
-Rob
> Just above that is
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
>
> AKA
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM
>
> which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research.
>
> Regarding it getting ugly:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
>
> AKA
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND
>
> Regarding dispute resolution:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
>
> Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things
> that should be tried first. Arbitration is apparently meant for
> situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content
> of the article.
>
> Regarding neutral point-of-view:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
>
> This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure
> for resolving the situation. The article can be tagged as being part
> of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard. The
> similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should
> be the very last resort.
>
> Don
>
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> For what it is worth, I too am a Wikipedia editor. Many are, and it's
>>>> > not anything to write home about as something special. But it does mean
>>>> > that presenting a more truthful and honest account of Apache OpenOffice
>>>> > is something we can do.
>>>> >
>>>
>>> So what can you do when you have someone pushing a biased POV?
>>>
>>> His comments here, for example, seem to show that he not only lacks
>>> the facts, but has an axe to grind:
>>>
>>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp
>>>
>>> Doesn't that make someone ineligible to edit an article?
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>
>> In a better land, where notions of fairness are codified and observed as
>> an honour code, and where cheating is out of the question because it
>> would devalue oneself (or one's affiliations), I'd think so; and even
>> Wikipedia might have codified provisions to guard against that sort of
>> thing; I cannot recall. But my understanding is that there is in play a
>> Hayek-style free speech rule, where the solution to biased or otherwise
>> untrue (or untrustworthy) speech is more speech, but from others,
>> including the offended parties.
>>
>> I can't recall but I would be curious if Wikipedia does have a kind of
>> means of safeguarding the impartiality of its editors. As just about
>> anybody can be an editor, and put out the most wonderfully batty stuff
>> (recall Sarah Palin's pages? language coined to give truth to bizarre
>> falsehood, and by her minions, no less, this was done), the remedy is
>> the agonistic one.
>>
>> So, I'd be delighted to help out here, and correct this nonsense. My
>> motivation is by no means adversarial. I do not wish ill of LO or TDF.
>> Gerard seems committed here, as elsewhere (such as his blog on
>> Wikimedia) to a certain notion of activism. That's fine for him. But
>> what it means for us is to fix the errors that we can identify and
>> clarify in the talk sections the logic of our work.
>>
>> Much of that has already been done in this thread by Rob and Dennis.
>>
>> best
>> Louis
>>
>> --
>> Louis Suárez-Potts
>> Apache OpenOffice PMC
>> In Real Life: Community Strategist, Age of Peers
>> @luispo
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jan 22, 2013, at 7:20 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/22/13 3:59 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
>>> There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its
>>> own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its
>>> own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History of OO page?
>>
>> I hope not because AOO is OOO and even if some people don't like this
>> fact it is still true. You can compare it with a company XY with lets
>> say 100 employees. Even if 50 employees will leave the company the
>> company will remain being company XY.
>>
>> We have all rights, the trademark, etc. we are OpenOffice! If the wiki
>> page would change or split it would be the wrong signal.
>>
>> It is valid to name LibreOffice as well as the former go-oo or Symphony
>> as fork from the project. But it is simply wrong to name AOO a fork.
>>
>
> Right. I assume his goal is to:
>
> 1) Have queries for "OpenOffice" (the more popular search query) go to
> a dead OpenOffice.org page
>
> 2) Have that page then state that OpenOffice.org was discontinued and
> the successor is LibreOffice and then link to that page.
>
> But the error is that OpenOffice.org was never discontinued. The
> code, the trademark, the website and the a good portion of the
> community came to Apache. It was stilled called "OpenOffice.org"
> while at Apache! Remember, we did that for a good 6 months, and all
> that while we continued to distribute OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 from our
> website.
>
> So it is entirely false to say that OpenOffice was discontinued. It
> was brought over to Apache, and only months later was it renamed. So
> this is just a simple product renaming. The ball was never dropped.
> There was no loss of continuity.
openoffice.org is still the name of the website and where you can go to download what is now Apache OpenOffice.
OpenOffice.org is still a registered trademark now owned by the ASF.
Regards,
Dave
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> Just my personal opinion
>>
>> Juergne
>>
>>>
>>> Though if there isn't an OO page it might start a redirect war...
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Don
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Inline...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Donald Whytock wrote:
>>>>>> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
>>>>>> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as
>>>>>> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
>>>>>> argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding conflicts of interest:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject
>>>>>> matter. Whether offering a competing product and being personally
>>>>>> committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises
>>>>>> "personal involvement" is a complicated question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding opinionated content:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AKA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over
>>>>>> things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles. As others have
>>>>>> said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader
>>>>>> doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and
>>>>>> value judgments aren't facts. At best, one can say that such-and-such
>>>>>> person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value
>>>>>> judgments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just above that is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AKA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding it getting ugly:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AKA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding dispute resolution:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things
>>>>>> that should be tried first. Arbitration is apparently meant for
>>>>>> situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content
>>>>>> of the article.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding neutral point-of-view:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure
>>>>>> for resolving the situation. The article can be tagged as being part
>>>>>> of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard. The
>>>>>> similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should
>>>>>> be the very last resort.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Don. I was but you were not, and I wish that Gerard were as aware
>>>>> of the importance of neutrality as you and the writers of these policy
>>>>> statements seem to have been.
>>>>>
>>>>> But out of a fair amount of personal experience with Wikipedia, my
>>>>> persistent impression is that unless the affected parties fix things on
>>>>> their own, the copy stays there, as if it were truth itself, though it
>>>>> be something other.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Isn't one of their slogans, "Be bold"? IMHO, it could use a total rewrite.
>>>>
>>>> The current version can't decide whether it is writing about the
>>>> product or the project, and seems to want to tell the history of the
>>>> world from the Great Flood for every section. Much more useful for
>>>> the typical reader would be a section describing OpenOffice, the
>>>> product, in its current version, followed by a description of the
>>>> current project, then a section on history, broken into sections, of
>>>> "StarDivision", "Sun Stewardship", "Oracle Strewardship" and "Apache
>>>> Project". Or do it by release. You can either tell a project history
>>>> or a technical/product history in any given section, but trying to do
>>>> both at once is a disaster, as the current version demonstrates.
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>> louis
>>
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed
over the holidays
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/22/13 3:59 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its
>> own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its
>> own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History of OO page?
>
> I hope not because AOO is OOO and even if some people don't like this
> fact it is still true. You can compare it with a company XY with lets
> say 100 employees. Even if 50 employees will leave the company the
> company will remain being company XY.
>
> We have all rights, the trademark, etc. we are OpenOffice! If the wiki
> page would change or split it would be the wrong signal.
>
> It is valid to name LibreOffice as well as the former go-oo or Symphony
> as fork from the project. But it is simply wrong to name AOO a fork.
>
Right. I assume his goal is to:
1) Have queries for "OpenOffice" (the more popular search query) go to
a dead OpenOffice.org page
2) Have that page then state that OpenOffice.org was discontinued and
the successor is LibreOffice and then link to that page.
But the error is that OpenOffice.org was never discontinued. The
code, the trademark, the website and the a good portion of the
community came to Apache. It was stilled called "OpenOffice.org"
while at Apache! Remember, we did that for a good 6 months, and all
that while we continued to distribute OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 from our
website.
So it is entirely false to say that OpenOffice was discontinued. It
was brought over to Apache, and only months later was it renamed. So
this is just a simple product renaming. The ball was never dropped.
There was no loss of continuity.
-Rob
> Just my personal opinion
>
> Juergne
>
>>
>> Though if there isn't an OO page it might start a redirect war...
>>
>> Don
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Don
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Inline...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Donald Whytock wrote:
>>>>> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
>>>>> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as
>>>>> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
>>>>> argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding conflicts of interest:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide
>>>>>
>>>>> This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject
>>>>> matter. Whether offering a competing product and being personally
>>>>> committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises
>>>>> "personal involvement" is a complicated question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding opinionated content:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
>>>>>
>>>>> AKA
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX
>>>>>
>>>>> This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over
>>>>> things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles. As others have
>>>>> said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader
>>>>> doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and
>>>>> value judgments aren't facts. At best, one can say that such-and-such
>>>>> person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value
>>>>> judgments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just above that is
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
>>>>>
>>>>> AKA
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM
>>>>>
>>>>> which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding it getting ugly:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
>>>>>
>>>>> AKA
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding dispute resolution:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
>>>>>
>>>>> Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things
>>>>> that should be tried first. Arbitration is apparently meant for
>>>>> situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content
>>>>> of the article.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding neutral point-of-view:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
>>>>>
>>>>> This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure
>>>>> for resolving the situation. The article can be tagged as being part
>>>>> of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard. The
>>>>> similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should
>>>>> be the very last resort.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Don. I was but you were not, and I wish that Gerard were as aware
>>>> of the importance of neutrality as you and the writers of these policy
>>>> statements seem to have been.
>>>>
>>>> But out of a fair amount of personal experience with Wikipedia, my
>>>> persistent impression is that unless the affected parties fix things on
>>>> their own, the copy stays there, as if it were truth itself, though it
>>>> be something other.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't one of their slogans, "Be bold"? IMHO, it could use a total rewrite.
>>>
>>> The current version can't decide whether it is writing about the
>>> product or the project, and seems to want to tell the history of the
>>> world from the Great Flood for every section. Much more useful for
>>> the typical reader would be a section describing OpenOffice, the
>>> product, in its current version, followed by a description of the
>>> current project, then a section on history, broken into sections, of
>>> "StarDivision", "Sun Stewardship", "Oracle Strewardship" and "Apache
>>> Project". Or do it by release. You can either tell a project history
>>> or a technical/product history in any given section, but trying to do
>>> both at once is a disaster, as the current version demonstrates.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>> louis
>
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed
over the holidays
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 1/22/13 3:59 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
> There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its
> own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its
> own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History of OO page?
I hope not because AOO is OOO and even if some people don't like this
fact it is still true. You can compare it with a company XY with lets
say 100 employees. Even if 50 employees will leave the company the
company will remain being company XY.
We have all rights, the trademark, etc. we are OpenOffice! If the wiki
page would change or split it would be the wrong signal.
It is valid to name LibreOffice as well as the former go-oo or Symphony
as fork from the project. But it is simply wrong to name AOO a fork.
Just my personal opinion
Juergne
>
> Though if there isn't an OO page it might start a redirect war...
>
> Don
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Don
>>> Thanks
>>> Inline...
>>>
>>>
>>> Donald Whytock wrote:
>>>> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
>>>> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as
>>>> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
>>>> argument.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding conflicts of interest:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide
>>>>
>>>> This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject
>>>> matter. Whether offering a competing product and being personally
>>>> committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises
>>>> "personal involvement" is a complicated question.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding opinionated content:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
>>>>
>>>> AKA
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX
>>>>
>>>> This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over
>>>> things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles. As others have
>>>> said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader
>>>> doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and
>>>> value judgments aren't facts. At best, one can say that such-and-such
>>>> person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value
>>>> judgments.
>>>>
>>>> Just above that is
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
>>>>
>>>> AKA
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM
>>>>
>>>> which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding it getting ugly:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
>>>>
>>>> AKA
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND
>>>>
>>>> Regarding dispute resolution:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
>>>>
>>>> Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things
>>>> that should be tried first. Arbitration is apparently meant for
>>>> situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content
>>>> of the article.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding neutral point-of-view:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
>>>>
>>>> This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure
>>>> for resolving the situation. The article can be tagged as being part
>>>> of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard. The
>>>> similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should
>>>> be the very last resort.
>>>>
>>>> Don
>>>
>>> Thanks Don. I was but you were not, and I wish that Gerard were as aware
>>> of the importance of neutrality as you and the writers of these policy
>>> statements seem to have been.
>>>
>>> But out of a fair amount of personal experience with Wikipedia, my
>>> persistent impression is that unless the affected parties fix things on
>>> their own, the copy stays there, as if it were truth itself, though it
>>> be something other.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't one of their slogans, "Be bold"? IMHO, it could use a total rewrite.
>>
>> The current version can't decide whether it is writing about the
>> product or the project, and seems to want to tell the history of the
>> world from the Great Flood for every section. Much more useful for
>> the typical reader would be a section describing OpenOffice, the
>> product, in its current version, followed by a description of the
>> current project, then a section on history, broken into sections, of
>> "StarDivision", "Sun Stewardship", "Oracle Strewardship" and "Apache
>> Project". Or do it by release. You can either tell a project history
>> or a technical/product history in any given section, but trying to do
>> both at once is a disaster, as the current version demonstrates.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> louis
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed
over the holidays
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Saransh Sharma <sa...@theupscale.in> wrote:
> Is there any difference in OOO and AOO
>
It was a product renaming. OpenOffice.org was the name used from
2000, when Sun initially made their StarOffice (acquired from
StarDivision) product open source, until around December 2011 when we
agreed at Apache to rename it to Apache OpenOffice.
When we want to make a distinction, we still use "OpenOffice.org" to
refer to version 3.3.0 (or 3.4.0 beta) and earlier. And we call 3.4.0
and later "Apache OpenOffice".
-Rob
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its
>> own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its
>> own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History of OO page?
>>
>> Though if there isn't an OO page it might start a redirect war...
>>
>> Don
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> Don
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Inline...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Donald Whytock wrote:
>> >>> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
>> >>> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as
>> >>> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
>> >>> argument.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regarding conflicts of interest:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide
>> >>>
>> >>> This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject
>> >>> matter. Whether offering a competing product and being personally
>> >>> committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises
>> >>> "personal involvement" is a complicated question.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regarding opinionated content:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
>> >>>
>> >>> AKA
>> >>>
>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX
>> >>>
>> >>> This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over
>> >>> things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles. As others have
>> >>> said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader
>> >>> doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and
>> >>> value judgments aren't facts. At best, one can say that such-and-such
>> >>> person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value
>> >>> judgments.
>> >>>
>> >>> Just above that is
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
>> >>>
>> >>> AKA
>> >>>
>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM
>> >>>
>> >>> which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regarding it getting ugly:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
>> >>>
>> >>> AKA
>> >>>
>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND
>> >>>
>> >>> Regarding dispute resolution:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
>> >>>
>> >>> Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things
>> >>> that should be tried first. Arbitration is apparently meant for
>> >>> situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content
>> >>> of the article.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regarding neutral point-of-view:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
>> >>>
>> >>> This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure
>> >>> for resolving the situation. The article can be tagged as being part
>> >>> of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard. The
>> >>> similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should
>> >>> be the very last resort.
>> >>>
>> >>> Don
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Don. I was but you were not, and I wish that Gerard were as aware
>> >> of the importance of neutrality as you and the writers of these policy
>> >> statements seem to have been.
>> >>
>> >> But out of a fair amount of personal experience with Wikipedia, my
>> >> persistent impression is that unless the affected parties fix things on
>> >> their own, the copy stays there, as if it were truth itself, though it
>> >> be something other.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Isn't one of their slogans, "Be bold"? IMHO, it could use a total
>> rewrite.
>> >
>> > The current version can't decide whether it is writing about the
>> > product or the project, and seems to want to tell the history of the
>> > world from the Great Flood for every section. Much more useful for
>> > the typical reader would be a section describing OpenOffice, the
>> > product, in its current version, followed by a description of the
>> > current project, then a section on history, broken into sections, of
>> > "StarDivision", "Sun Stewardship", "Oracle Strewardship" and "Apache
>> > Project". Or do it by release. You can either tell a project history
>> > or a technical/product history in any given section, but trying to do
>> > both at once is a disaster, as the current version demonstrates.
>> >
>> > -Rob
>> >
>> >> louis
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best Regards
>
> Saransh Sharma
>
> Upscale Consultancy PVT LTD.
>
> Disclaimer:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This email was sent from within the Upscale Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd.
> The contents of this email, including the attachments, are LEGALLY
> PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL to the intended recipient at the email address
> to which it has been addressed. If you receive it in error, please notify
> the sender immediately by return email and then permanently delete it from
> your system.The unauthorized use, distribution, copying or alteration of
> this email, including the attachments, is strictly forbidden. Thank
> you.Please note that neither Upscale Group nor the sender accepts any
> responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan the email
> and attachments (if any).
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed
over the holidays
Posted by Saransh Sharma <sa...@theupscale.in>.
Is there any difference in OOO and AOO
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its
> own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its
> own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History of OO page?
>
> Though if there isn't an OO page it might start a redirect war...
>
> Don
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> Don
> >> Thanks
> >> Inline...
> >>
> >>
> >> Donald Whytock wrote:
> >>> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
> >>> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as
> >>> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
> >>> argument.
> >>>
> >>> Regarding conflicts of interest:
> >>>
> >>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide
> >>>
> >>> This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject
> >>> matter. Whether offering a competing product and being personally
> >>> committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises
> >>> "personal involvement" is a complicated question.
> >>>
> >>> Regarding opinionated content:
> >>>
> >>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
> >>>
> >>> AKA
> >>>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX
> >>>
> >>> This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over
> >>> things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles. As others have
> >>> said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader
> >>> doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and
> >>> value judgments aren't facts. At best, one can say that such-and-such
> >>> person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value
> >>> judgments.
> >>>
> >>> Just above that is
> >>>
> >>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
> >>>
> >>> AKA
> >>>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM
> >>>
> >>> which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research.
> >>>
> >>> Regarding it getting ugly:
> >>>
> >>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
> >>>
> >>> AKA
> >>>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND
> >>>
> >>> Regarding dispute resolution:
> >>>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
> >>>
> >>> Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things
> >>> that should be tried first. Arbitration is apparently meant for
> >>> situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content
> >>> of the article.
> >>>
> >>> Regarding neutral point-of-view:
> >>>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
> >>>
> >>> This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure
> >>> for resolving the situation. The article can be tagged as being part
> >>> of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard. The
> >>> similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should
> >>> be the very last resort.
> >>>
> >>> Don
> >>
> >> Thanks Don. I was but you were not, and I wish that Gerard were as aware
> >> of the importance of neutrality as you and the writers of these policy
> >> statements seem to have been.
> >>
> >> But out of a fair amount of personal experience with Wikipedia, my
> >> persistent impression is that unless the affected parties fix things on
> >> their own, the copy stays there, as if it were truth itself, though it
> >> be something other.
> >>
> >
> > Isn't one of their slogans, "Be bold"? IMHO, it could use a total
> rewrite.
> >
> > The current version can't decide whether it is writing about the
> > product or the project, and seems to want to tell the history of the
> > world from the Great Flood for every section. Much more useful for
> > the typical reader would be a section describing OpenOffice, the
> > product, in its current version, followed by a description of the
> > current project, then a section on history, broken into sections, of
> > "StarDivision", "Sun Stewardship", "Oracle Strewardship" and "Apache
> > Project". Or do it by release. You can either tell a project history
> > or a technical/product history in any given section, but trying to do
> > both at once is a disaster, as the current version demonstrates.
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >> louis
>
--
Best Regards
Saransh Sharma
Upscale Consultancy PVT LTD.
Disclaimer:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent from within the Upscale Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd.
The contents of this email, including the attachments, are LEGALLY
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL to the intended recipient at the email address
to which it has been addressed. If you receive it in error, please notify
the sender immediately by return email and then permanently delete it from
your system.The unauthorized use, distribution, copying or alteration of
this email, including the attachments, is strictly forbidden. Thank
you.Please note that neither Upscale Group nor the sender accepts any
responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan the email
and attachments (if any).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed
over the holidays
Posted by Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com>.
There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its
own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its
own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History of OO page?
Though if there isn't an OO page it might start a redirect war...
Don
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Don
>> Thanks
>> Inline...
>>
>>
>> Donald Whytock wrote:
>>> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
>>> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as
>>> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
>>> argument.
>>>
>>> Regarding conflicts of interest:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide
>>>
>>> This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject
>>> matter. Whether offering a competing product and being personally
>>> committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises
>>> "personal involvement" is a complicated question.
>>>
>>> Regarding opinionated content:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
>>>
>>> AKA
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX
>>>
>>> This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over
>>> things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles. As others have
>>> said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader
>>> doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and
>>> value judgments aren't facts. At best, one can say that such-and-such
>>> person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value
>>> judgments.
>>>
>>> Just above that is
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
>>>
>>> AKA
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM
>>>
>>> which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research.
>>>
>>> Regarding it getting ugly:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
>>>
>>> AKA
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND
>>>
>>> Regarding dispute resolution:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
>>>
>>> Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things
>>> that should be tried first. Arbitration is apparently meant for
>>> situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content
>>> of the article.
>>>
>>> Regarding neutral point-of-view:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
>>>
>>> This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure
>>> for resolving the situation. The article can be tagged as being part
>>> of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard. The
>>> similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should
>>> be the very last resort.
>>>
>>> Don
>>
>> Thanks Don. I was but you were not, and I wish that Gerard were as aware
>> of the importance of neutrality as you and the writers of these policy
>> statements seem to have been.
>>
>> But out of a fair amount of personal experience with Wikipedia, my
>> persistent impression is that unless the affected parties fix things on
>> their own, the copy stays there, as if it were truth itself, though it
>> be something other.
>>
>
> Isn't one of their slogans, "Be bold"? IMHO, it could use a total rewrite.
>
> The current version can't decide whether it is writing about the
> product or the project, and seems to want to tell the history of the
> world from the Great Flood for every section. Much more useful for
> the typical reader would be a section describing OpenOffice, the
> product, in its current version, followed by a description of the
> current project, then a section on history, broken into sections, of
> "StarDivision", "Sun Stewardship", "Oracle Strewardship" and "Apache
> Project". Or do it by release. You can either tell a project history
> or a technical/product history in any given section, but trying to do
> both at once is a disaster, as the current version demonstrates.
>
> -Rob
>
>> louis
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed
over the holidays
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Don
> Thanks
> Inline...
>
>
> Donald Whytock wrote:
>> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
>> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as
>> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
>> argument.
>>
>> Regarding conflicts of interest:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide
>>
>> This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject
>> matter. Whether offering a competing product and being personally
>> committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises
>> "personal involvement" is a complicated question.
>>
>> Regarding opinionated content:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
>>
>> AKA
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX
>>
>> This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over
>> things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles. As others have
>> said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader
>> doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and
>> value judgments aren't facts. At best, one can say that such-and-such
>> person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value
>> judgments.
>>
>> Just above that is
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
>>
>> AKA
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM
>>
>> which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research.
>>
>> Regarding it getting ugly:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
>>
>> AKA
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND
>>
>> Regarding dispute resolution:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
>>
>> Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things
>> that should be tried first. Arbitration is apparently meant for
>> situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content
>> of the article.
>>
>> Regarding neutral point-of-view:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
>>
>> This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure
>> for resolving the situation. The article can be tagged as being part
>> of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard. The
>> similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should
>> be the very last resort.
>>
>> Don
>
> Thanks Don. I was but you were not, and I wish that Gerard were as aware
> of the importance of neutrality as you and the writers of these policy
> statements seem to have been.
>
> But out of a fair amount of personal experience with Wikipedia, my
> persistent impression is that unless the affected parties fix things on
> their own, the copy stays there, as if it were truth itself, though it
> be something other.
>
Isn't one of their slogans, "Be bold"? IMHO, it could use a total rewrite.
The current version can't decide whether it is writing about the
product or the project, and seems to want to tell the history of the
world from the Great Flood for every section. Much more useful for
the typical reader would be a section describing OpenOffice, the
product, in its current version, followed by a description of the
current project, then a section on history, broken into sections, of
"StarDivision", "Sun Stewardship", "Oracle Strewardship" and "Apache
Project". Or do it by release. You can either tell a project history
or a technical/product history in any given section, but trying to do
both at once is a disaster, as the current version demonstrates.
-Rob
> louis
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed
over the holidays
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org>.
Don
Thanks
Inline...
Donald Whytock wrote:
> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as
> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
> argument.
>
> Regarding conflicts of interest:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide
>
> This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject
> matter. Whether offering a competing product and being personally
> committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises
> "personal involvement" is a complicated question.
>
> Regarding opinionated content:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
>
> AKA
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX
>
> This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over
> things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles. As others have
> said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader
> doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and
> value judgments aren't facts. At best, one can say that such-and-such
> person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value
> judgments.
>
> Just above that is
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
>
> AKA
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM
>
> which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research.
>
> Regarding it getting ugly:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
>
> AKA
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND
>
> Regarding dispute resolution:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
>
> Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things
> that should be tried first. Arbitration is apparently meant for
> situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content
> of the article.
>
> Regarding neutral point-of-view:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
>
> This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure
> for resolving the situation. The article can be tagged as being part
> of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard. The
> similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should
> be the very last resort.
>
> Don
Thanks Don. I was but you were not, and I wish that Gerard were as aware
of the importance of neutrality as you and the writers of these policy
statements seem to have been.
But out of a fair amount of personal experience with Wikipedia, my
persistent impression is that unless the affected parties fix things on
their own, the copy stays there, as if it were truth itself, though it
be something other.
louis
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed
over the holidays
Posted by Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com>.
Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as
finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
argument.
Regarding conflicts of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide
This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject
matter. Whether offering a competing product and being personally
committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises
"personal involvement" is a complicated question.
Regarding opinionated content:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
AKA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX
This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over
things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles. As others have
said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader
doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and
value judgments aren't facts. At best, one can say that such-and-such
person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value
judgments.
Just above that is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
AKA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM
which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research.
Regarding it getting ugly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
AKA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND
Regarding dispute resolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things
that should be tried first. Arbitration is apparently meant for
situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content
of the article.
Regarding neutral point-of-view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure
for resolving the situation. The article can be tagged as being part
of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard. The
similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should
be the very last resort.
Don
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>>> For what it is worth, I too am a Wikipedia editor. Many are, and it's
>>> > not anything to write home about as something special. But it does mean
>>> > that presenting a more truthful and honest account of Apache OpenOffice
>>> > is something we can do.
>>> >
>>
>> So what can you do when you have someone pushing a biased POV?
>>
>> His comments here, for example, seem to show that he not only lacks
>> the facts, but has an axe to grind:
>>
>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp
>>
>> Doesn't that make someone ineligible to edit an article?
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>
> In a better land, where notions of fairness are codified and observed as
> an honour code, and where cheating is out of the question because it
> would devalue oneself (or one's affiliations), I'd think so; and even
> Wikipedia might have codified provisions to guard against that sort of
> thing; I cannot recall. But my understanding is that there is in play a
> Hayek-style free speech rule, where the solution to biased or otherwise
> untrue (or untrustworthy) speech is more speech, but from others,
> including the offended parties.
>
> I can't recall but I would be curious if Wikipedia does have a kind of
> means of safeguarding the impartiality of its editors. As just about
> anybody can be an editor, and put out the most wonderfully batty stuff
> (recall Sarah Palin's pages? language coined to give truth to bizarre
> falsehood, and by her minions, no less, this was done), the remedy is
> the agonistic one.
>
> So, I'd be delighted to help out here, and correct this nonsense. My
> motivation is by no means adversarial. I do not wish ill of LO or TDF.
> Gerard seems committed here, as elsewhere (such as his blog on
> Wikimedia) to a certain notion of activism. That's fine for him. But
> what it means for us is to fix the errors that we can identify and
> clarify in the talk sections the logic of our work.
>
> Much of that has already been done in this thread by Rob and Dennis.
>
> best
> Louis
>
> --
> Louis Suárez-Potts
> Apache OpenOffice PMC
> In Real Life: Community Strategist, Age of Peers
> @luispo
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed
over the holidays
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org>.
Rob Weir wrote:
>> For what it is worth, I too am a Wikipedia editor. Many are, and it's
>> > not anything to write home about as something special. But it does mean
>> > that presenting a more truthful and honest account of Apache OpenOffice
>> > is something we can do.
>> >
>
> So what can you do when you have someone pushing a biased POV?
>
> His comments here, for example, seem to show that he not only lacks
> the facts, but has an axe to grind:
>
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp
>
> Doesn't that make someone ineligible to edit an article?
>
> -Rob
>
In a better land, where notions of fairness are codified and observed as
an honour code, and where cheating is out of the question because it
would devalue oneself (or one's affiliations), I'd think so; and even
Wikipedia might have codified provisions to guard against that sort of
thing; I cannot recall. But my understanding is that there is in play a
Hayek-style free speech rule, where the solution to biased or otherwise
untrue (or untrustworthy) speech is more speech, but from others,
including the offended parties.
I can't recall but I would be curious if Wikipedia does have a kind of
means of safeguarding the impartiality of its editors. As just about
anybody can be an editor, and put out the most wonderfully batty stuff
(recall Sarah Palin's pages? language coined to give truth to bizarre
falsehood, and by her minions, no less, this was done), the remedy is
the agonistic one.
So, I'd be delighted to help out here, and correct this nonsense. My
motivation is by no means adversarial. I do not wish ill of LO or TDF.
Gerard seems committed here, as elsewhere (such as his blog on
Wikimedia) to a certain notion of activism. That's fine for him. But
what it means for us is to fix the errors that we can identify and
clarify in the talk sections the logic of our work.
Much of that has already been done in this thread by Rob and Dennis.
best
Louis
--
Louis Suárez-Potts
Apache OpenOffice PMC
In Real Life: Community Strategist, Age of Peers
@luispo
RE: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I agree, Gerard has impeached himself with regard to any interest in or grasp of the facts, etc.
Maybe he'll declare that DOA AOO to be a zombie that has eaten 30 million brains in 2012.
I don't think there is much that makes someone ineligible to edit, but it certainly makes the result questionable. I don't know where one can bring that to the attention of the senior editors that control the state of an article.
Once I logged in with my Wikipedia account, I see there is a place to rate the article at the bottom. I have done so. I suggest that is a good place to put a flag on the play.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 19:24
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; louis@apache.org
Subject: Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays
[ ... ]
So what can you do when you have someone pushing a biased POV?
His comments here, for example, seem to show that he not only lacks
the facts, but has an axe to grind:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp
Doesn't that make someone ineligible to edit an article?
-Rob
[ ... ]
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed
over the holidays
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>>> I started looking through this. There probably needs to be a flag,
>>> because there are inappropriate sources and this is an opinion
>>> piece in the ways Rob has noticed.
>
> Agreed. My thanks to you and Rob. How very unpleasant.
>
>>>
>>> While browsing,
>>>
>>> In the prelude, the Apache License is described as among the weak
>>> copyleft licenses. It is not, and weak copyleft is not allowed in
>>> Apache source code either. (LGPL is the archetypical weak
>>> copyleft.) The well-known term is "reciprocal," and ALv2 is part
>>> of the same family as the modern BSD, the MIT license, etc.
>>>
>>> The sidebar on license is a muddle and there probably needs to be a
>>> bright line between OpenOffice.org as delivered prior to the
>>> contribution to Apache and Apache OpenOffice. I see this is
>>> discussed on the Talk:OpenOffice page. Also, the chronological
>>> information is a jumble throughout the article.
>>>
>>> I don't believe the statement about enterprise desktop penetration
>>> either.
>>>
>>> If simple events were reported without supposing reasons for them
>>> (i.e., only Oracle knows what led to the SGA to Apache, but the
>>> fact that it happened is incontrovertible), this article would be
>>> much cleaner. That's the case for numerous statements which should
>>> be reduced to the essential facts and not invented reasons. I
>>> suppose it is fair to say where there was controversy, but there
>>> are too many unsupported conclusions.
>>>
>>> I agree that the "In June 2011 ..." paragraph is garbage.
>>>
>>> The Governance thing is also strange. Was an "OpenOffice
>>> Foundation" ever established?
>
> No.
>
> There were several nonprofit funding organizations acting as banks for
> OpenOffice.org, and these had local "foundation" status, in at least one
> instance (Germany), but they were not *the* "OpenOffice Foundation" (let
> alone the OpenOffice.org Foundation). That never existed, though it was
> discussed. However, there was no compelling point, given the nature of
> the project and the uncertain benefits a foundation would provide. (What
> a foundation in this case would do seems vague but most people would
> probably imagine it providing not just funds and the ability to obtain
> them but also code governance, plus marketing resources.)
>
>
>>>
>>> After all that introductory strangeness, there is a great deal of
>>> technical detail. Under "Development" the Security section is
>>> simply strange. (LibreOffice has never bundled Java, AFAIK.) The
>>> full functionality requirement is not explained but it is
>>> apparently from a phrase in the AOO install instructions. That
>>> should be remedied if it is not about OpenOffice functionality but
>>> a dependency for extensions and database providers.
>>>
>>> The Talk:OpenOffice page is interesting.
>>>
>>> The article requires considerable curation to be in
>>> Wikipedia-acceptable encyclopedic form.
>>>
>>> David Gerard seems to be well-intended in his presence on the
>>> Talk:OpenOffice page, despite his excessive speculation and
>>> prognostication on the main page. I am not certain that is all his
>>> doing.
>>>
>>
>> I recommend using Wikiblame to find the editor who entered the
>> portions you have concerns with:
>>
>> http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php
>>
>> I did a spot check and the FUD from over the holidays came from
>> Gerard.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>
> For what it is worth, I too am a Wikipedia editor. Many are, and it's
> not anything to write home about as something special. But it does mean
> that presenting a more truthful and honest account of Apache OpenOffice
> is something we can do.
>
So what can you do when you have someone pushing a biased POV?
His comments here, for example, seem to show that he not only lacks
the facts, but has an axe to grind:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp
Doesn't that make someone ineligible to edit an article?
-Rob
> thanks
> Louis
>>
>>> Contributions from IBM employees are significant, IBMers being the
>>> largest contingent of paid developers. But the article overstates
>>> that, as if everything else is miniscule.
>>>
>>> All of the tipping toward LibreOffice is also meaningless and
>>> doesn't belong in this article anyhow. His tweeting that he's like
>>> more eyes on the article seems benign to me. I don't see "bragging"
>>> and certainly not about FUD.
>>>
>>> I do agree that there is far too much information about
>>> LibreOffice, since LibreOffice has its own article. Many of the
>>> declarations about that and how it came about, who has what
>>> developers, etc., is not needed in this article. The OpenOffice
>>> page is not appropriate for LibreOffice posturing/FUD.
>>>
>>> The OpenOffice article probably needs one of those notices that it
>>> is not up to standard, etc.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir
>>> [mailto:robweir@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 15:47
>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: In case you missed it: The
>>> OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays
>>>
>>> I noticed David Gerard bragging about this on Twitter to Roy
>>> Schestowitz:
>>> https://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/293102313751584768
>>>
>>> Take a look at the lovely new page:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>>>
>>> Some choice bits of distortion:
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>> Gerard is also pushing for the page to declare LO as the successor
>>> to OpenOffice:
>>>
>>> "LO as successor
>>>
>>> Per the naming discussion above - AOO has the trademark, but
>>> that's about all. There's about ten press sources in the article
>>> already to support a statement that OOo was succeeded by LO, and
>>> that AOO is a rump, a moribund shell; and only IBM sources
>>> seriously pretending AOO is a live project - as far as I can see
>>> looking through AOO commits, IBM hasn't even committed the Symphony
>>> code and it's supposed to come out in February. We'll see with AOO
>>> 4.0, but if it looks anything like Symphony (which I've used at
>>> work, and it's horrible), that will be the day old OOo users notice
>>> something has gone terribly wrong and it'll be appropriate to make
>>> this article all about OpenOffice.org and make Apache OpenOffice a
>>> separate article - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2013
>>> (UTC)"
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OpenOffice#Badly_in_need_of_copyediting_and_sensible_revision
>>>
>>>
>>>
> These are some of the same misstatements as in the Lwn.net article
>>> coming out later this week, btw.
>>>
>>> Is that what they are stooping to now? Are these the words of a
>>> neutral Wikipedia editor? Is that how they work? It seems rather
>>> odd to me for a notable detractor of Apache OpenOffice to have free
>>> hand in a revisionist rewrite of this Wikipedia page. Quite odd.
>>> I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>
>
> --
> Louis Suárez-Potts
> Apache OpenOffice PMC
> In Real Life: Community Strategist, Age of Peers
> @luispo
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed
over the holidays
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> I started looking through this. There probably needs to be a flag,
>> because there are inappropriate sources and this is an opinion
>> piece in the ways Rob has noticed.
Agreed. My thanks to you and Rob. How very unpleasant.
>>
>> While browsing,
>>
>> In the prelude, the Apache License is described as among the weak
>> copyleft licenses. It is not, and weak copyleft is not allowed in
>> Apache source code either. (LGPL is the archetypical weak
>> copyleft.) The well-known term is "reciprocal," and ALv2 is part
>> of the same family as the modern BSD, the MIT license, etc.
>>
>> The sidebar on license is a muddle and there probably needs to be a
>> bright line between OpenOffice.org as delivered prior to the
>> contribution to Apache and Apache OpenOffice. I see this is
>> discussed on the Talk:OpenOffice page. Also, the chronological
>> information is a jumble throughout the article.
>>
>> I don't believe the statement about enterprise desktop penetration
>> either.
>>
>> If simple events were reported without supposing reasons for them
>> (i.e., only Oracle knows what led to the SGA to Apache, but the
>> fact that it happened is incontrovertible), this article would be
>> much cleaner. That's the case for numerous statements which should
>> be reduced to the essential facts and not invented reasons. I
>> suppose it is fair to say where there was controversy, but there
>> are too many unsupported conclusions.
>>
>> I agree that the "In June 2011 ..." paragraph is garbage.
>>
>> The Governance thing is also strange. Was an "OpenOffice
>> Foundation" ever established?
No.
There were several nonprofit funding organizations acting as banks for
OpenOffice.org, and these had local "foundation" status, in at least one
instance (Germany), but they were not *the* "OpenOffice Foundation" (let
alone the OpenOffice.org Foundation). That never existed, though it was
discussed. However, there was no compelling point, given the nature of
the project and the uncertain benefits a foundation would provide. (What
a foundation in this case would do seems vague but most people would
probably imagine it providing not just funds and the ability to obtain
them but also code governance, plus marketing resources.)
>>
>> After all that introductory strangeness, there is a great deal of
>> technical detail. Under "Development" the Security section is
>> simply strange. (LibreOffice has never bundled Java, AFAIK.) The
>> full functionality requirement is not explained but it is
>> apparently from a phrase in the AOO install instructions. That
>> should be remedied if it is not about OpenOffice functionality but
>> a dependency for extensions and database providers.
>>
>> The Talk:OpenOffice page is interesting.
>>
>> The article requires considerable curation to be in
>> Wikipedia-acceptable encyclopedic form.
>>
>> David Gerard seems to be well-intended in his presence on the
>> Talk:OpenOffice page, despite his excessive speculation and
>> prognostication on the main page. I am not certain that is all his
>> doing.
>>
>
> I recommend using Wikiblame to find the editor who entered the
> portions you have concerns with:
>
> http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php
>
> I did a spot check and the FUD from over the holidays came from
> Gerard.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
For what it is worth, I too am a Wikipedia editor. Many are, and it's
not anything to write home about as something special. But it does mean
that presenting a more truthful and honest account of Apache OpenOffice
is something we can do.
thanks
Louis
>
>> Contributions from IBM employees are significant, IBMers being the
>> largest contingent of paid developers. But the article overstates
>> that, as if everything else is miniscule.
>>
>> All of the tipping toward LibreOffice is also meaningless and
>> doesn't belong in this article anyhow. His tweeting that he's like
>> more eyes on the article seems benign to me. I don't see "bragging"
>> and certainly not about FUD.
>>
>> I do agree that there is far too much information about
>> LibreOffice, since LibreOffice has its own article. Many of the
>> declarations about that and how it came about, who has what
>> developers, etc., is not needed in this article. The OpenOffice
>> page is not appropriate for LibreOffice posturing/FUD.
>>
>> The OpenOffice article probably needs one of those notices that it
>> is not up to standard, etc.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir
>> [mailto:robweir@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 15:47
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: In case you missed it: The
>> OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays
>>
>> I noticed David Gerard bragging about this on Twitter to Roy
>> Schestowitz:
>> https://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/293102313751584768
>>
>> Take a look at the lovely new page:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>>
>> Some choice bits of distortion:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> Gerard is also pushing for the page to declare LO as the successor
>> to OpenOffice:
>>
>> "LO as successor
>>
>> Per the naming discussion above - AOO has the trademark, but
>> that's about all. There's about ten press sources in the article
>> already to support a statement that OOo was succeeded by LO, and
>> that AOO is a rump, a moribund shell; and only IBM sources
>> seriously pretending AOO is a live project - as far as I can see
>> looking through AOO commits, IBM hasn't even committed the Symphony
>> code and it's supposed to come out in February. We'll see with AOO
>> 4.0, but if it looks anything like Symphony (which I've used at
>> work, and it's horrible), that will be the day old OOo users notice
>> something has gone terribly wrong and it'll be appropriate to make
>> this article all about OpenOffice.org and make Apache OpenOffice a
>> separate article - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2013
>> (UTC)"
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OpenOffice#Badly_in_need_of_copyediting_and_sensible_revision
>>
>>
>>
These are some of the same misstatements as in the Lwn.net article
>> coming out later this week, btw.
>>
>> Is that what they are stooping to now? Are these the words of a
>> neutral Wikipedia editor? Is that how they work? It seems rather
>> odd to me for a notable detractor of Apache OpenOffice to have free
>> hand in a revisionist rewrite of this Wikipedia page. Quite odd.
>> I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
--
Louis Suárez-Potts
Apache OpenOffice PMC
In Real Life: Community Strategist, Age of Peers
@luispo
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed
over the holidays
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> I started looking through this. There probably needs to be a flag, because there are inappropriate sources and this is an opinion piece in the ways Rob has noticed.
>
> While browsing,
>
> In the prelude, the Apache License is described as among the weak copyleft licenses. It is not, and weak copyleft is not allowed in Apache source code either. (LGPL is the archetypical weak copyleft.) The well-known term is "reciprocal," and ALv2 is part of the same family as the modern BSD, the MIT license, etc.
>
> The sidebar on license is a muddle and there probably needs to be a bright line between OpenOffice.org as delivered prior to the contribution to Apache and Apache OpenOffice. I see this is discussed on the Talk:OpenOffice page. Also, the chronological information is a jumble throughout the article.
>
> I don't believe the statement about enterprise desktop penetration either.
>
> If simple events were reported without supposing reasons for them (i.e., only Oracle knows what led to the SGA to Apache, but the fact that it happened is incontrovertible), this article would be much cleaner. That's the case for numerous statements which should be reduced to the essential facts and not invented reasons. I suppose it is fair to say where there was controversy, but there are too many unsupported conclusions.
>
> I agree that the "In June 2011 ..." paragraph is garbage.
>
> The Governance thing is also strange. Was an "OpenOffice Foundation" ever established?
>
> After all that introductory strangeness, there is a great deal of technical detail. Under "Development" the Security section is simply strange. (LibreOffice has never bundled Java, AFAIK.) The full functionality requirement is not explained but it is apparently from a phrase in the AOO install instructions. That should be remedied if it is not about OpenOffice functionality but a dependency for extensions and database providers.
>
> The Talk:OpenOffice page is interesting.
>
> The article requires considerable curation to be in Wikipedia-acceptable encyclopedic form.
>
> David Gerard seems to be well-intended in his presence on the Talk:OpenOffice page, despite his excessive speculation and prognostication on the main page. I am not certain that is all his doing.
>
I recommend using Wikiblame to find the editor who entered the
portions you have concerns with:
http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php
I did a spot check and the FUD from over the holidays came from Gerard.
Regards,
-Rob
> Contributions from IBM employees are significant, IBMers being the largest contingent of paid developers. But the article overstates that, as if everything else is miniscule.
>
> All of the tipping toward LibreOffice is also meaningless and doesn't belong in this article anyhow. His tweeting that he's like more eyes on the article seems benign to me. I don't see "bragging" and certainly not about FUD.
>
> I do agree that there is far too much information about LibreOffice, since LibreOffice has its own article. Many of the declarations about that and how it came about, who has what developers, etc., is not needed in this article. The OpenOffice page is not appropriate for LibreOffice posturing/FUD.
>
> The OpenOffice article probably needs one of those notices that it is not up to standard, etc.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 15:47
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays
>
> I noticed David Gerard bragging about this on Twitter to Roy
> Schestowitz: https://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/293102313751584768
>
> Take a look at the lovely new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>
> Some choice bits of distortion:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Gerard is also pushing for the page to declare LO as the successor to
> OpenOffice:
>
> "LO as successor
>
> Per the naming discussion above - AOO has the trademark, but that's
> about all. There's about ten press sources in the article already to
> support a statement that OOo was succeeded by LO, and that AOO is a
> rump, a moribund shell; and only IBM sources seriously pretending AOO
> is a live project - as far as I can see looking through AOO commits,
> IBM hasn't even committed the Symphony code and it's supposed to come
> out in February. We'll see with AOO 4.0, but if it looks anything like
> Symphony (which I've used at work, and it's horrible), that will be
> the day old OOo users notice something has gone terribly wrong and
> it'll be appropriate to make this article all about OpenOffice.org and
> make Apache OpenOffice a separate article - David Gerard (talk) 21:28,
> 1 January 2013 (UTC)"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OpenOffice#Badly_in_need_of_copyediting_and_sensible_revision
>
> These are some of the same misstatements as in the Lwn.net article
> coming out later this week, btw.
>
> Is that what they are stooping to now? Are these the words of a
> neutral Wikipedia editor? Is that how they work? It seems rather odd
> to me for a notable detractor of Apache OpenOffice to have free hand
> in a revisionist rewrite of this Wikipedia page. Quite odd. I'm
> disappointed, but not surprised.
>
> -Rob
>
RE: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I started looking through this. There probably needs to be a flag, because there are inappropriate sources and this is an opinion piece in the ways Rob has noticed.
While browsing,
In the prelude, the Apache License is described as among the weak copyleft licenses. It is not, and weak copyleft is not allowed in Apache source code either. (LGPL is the archetypical weak copyleft.) The well-known term is "reciprocal," and ALv2 is part of the same family as the modern BSD, the MIT license, etc.
The sidebar on license is a muddle and there probably needs to be a bright line between OpenOffice.org as delivered prior to the contribution to Apache and Apache OpenOffice. I see this is discussed on the Talk:OpenOffice page. Also, the chronological information is a jumble throughout the article.
I don't believe the statement about enterprise desktop penetration either.
If simple events were reported without supposing reasons for them (i.e., only Oracle knows what led to the SGA to Apache, but the fact that it happened is incontrovertible), this article would be much cleaner. That's the case for numerous statements which should be reduced to the essential facts and not invented reasons. I suppose it is fair to say where there was controversy, but there are too many unsupported conclusions.
I agree that the "In June 2011 ..." paragraph is garbage.
The Governance thing is also strange. Was an "OpenOffice Foundation" ever established?
After all that introductory strangeness, there is a great deal of technical detail. Under "Development" the Security section is simply strange. (LibreOffice has never bundled Java, AFAIK.) The full functionality requirement is not explained but it is apparently from a phrase in the AOO install instructions. That should be remedied if it is not about OpenOffice functionality but a dependency for extensions and database providers.
The Talk:OpenOffice page is interesting.
The article requires considerable curation to be in Wikipedia-acceptable encyclopedic form.
David Gerard seems to be well-intended in his presence on the Talk:OpenOffice page, despite his excessive speculation and prognostication on the main page. I am not certain that is all his doing.
Contributions from IBM employees are significant, IBMers being the largest contingent of paid developers. But the article overstates that, as if everything else is miniscule.
All of the tipping toward LibreOffice is also meaningless and doesn't belong in this article anyhow. His tweeting that he's like more eyes on the article seems benign to me. I don't see "bragging" and certainly not about FUD.
I do agree that there is far too much information about LibreOffice, since LibreOffice has its own article. Many of the declarations about that and how it came about, who has what developers, etc., is not needed in this article. The OpenOffice page is not appropriate for LibreOffice posturing/FUD.
The OpenOffice article probably needs one of those notices that it is not up to standard, etc.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 15:47
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays
I noticed David Gerard bragging about this on Twitter to Roy
Schestowitz: https://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/293102313751584768
Take a look at the lovely new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
Some choice bits of distortion:
[ ... ]
Gerard is also pushing for the page to declare LO as the successor to
OpenOffice:
"LO as successor
Per the naming discussion above - AOO has the trademark, but that's
about all. There's about ten press sources in the article already to
support a statement that OOo was succeeded by LO, and that AOO is a
rump, a moribund shell; and only IBM sources seriously pretending AOO
is a live project - as far as I can see looking through AOO commits,
IBM hasn't even committed the Symphony code and it's supposed to come
out in February. We'll see with AOO 4.0, but if it looks anything like
Symphony (which I've used at work, and it's horrible), that will be
the day old OOo users notice something has gone terribly wrong and
it'll be appropriate to make this article all about OpenOffice.org and
make Apache OpenOffice a separate article - David Gerard (talk) 21:28,
1 January 2013 (UTC)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OpenOffice#Badly_in_need_of_copyediting_and_sensible_revision
These are some of the same misstatements as in the Lwn.net article
coming out later this week, btw.
Is that what they are stooping to now? Are these the words of a
neutral Wikipedia editor? Is that how they work? It seems rather odd
to me for a notable detractor of Apache OpenOffice to have free hand
in a revisionist rewrite of this Wikipedia page. Quite odd. I'm
disappointed, but not surprised.
-Rob