You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com> on 2013/01/21 23:43:47 UTC
OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice
Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
Rob Weir wrote:
>Take a look at the lovely new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>Some choice bits of distortion:
Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wanted more eyes on it.
Useful pages in dealing with contentious topics (which is everything):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
Cheers, looking forward to help. The talk page welcomes you!
Anyone with a good clippings file for the history of OO from 2000?
Such a history, that gets across *why* OO is as historically important
as it is, is not yet written, as far as I know. I went through the OO
clippings pages and archive.org but didn't find a lot.
- d.
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jan 21, 2013, at 7:02 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>>
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Take a look at the lovely new page:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>>> Some choice bits of distortion:
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wanted more eyes on it.
>>
>> Useful pages in dealing with contentious topics (which is everything):
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
>>
>> Cheers, looking forward to help. The talk page welcomes you!
>>
>> Anyone with a good clippings file for the history of OO from 2000?
>> Such a history, that gets across *why* OO is as historically important
>> as it is, is not yet written, as far as I know. I went through the OO
>> clippings pages and archive.org but didn't find a lot.
We tried to preserve all the web content at www.openoffice.org.
Here are some links:
http://www.openoffice.org/editorial/
http://www.openoffice.org/about/
http://www.openoffice.org/awards/index.html
http://www.openoffice.org/about_us/testimonials.html
Regards,
Dave
>>
>>
>> - d.
>
>
> David,
> Extensive records of OOo since its inception in 2000 exist. My own
> understanding is that the milestones are still obvious. I have personal
> accounts, but these would need to be validated by public citation.
>
> The generally useful milestone pages may still, too, be available via
> the Internet Archive, of
> course; but that goes without saying--?
> louis
> David Gerard wrote:
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> Take a look at the lovely new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>>> Some choice bits of distortion:
>>
>>
>> Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wanted more eyes on it.
>>
>> Useful pages in dealing with contentious topics (which is everything):
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
>>
>> Cheers, looking forward to help. The talk page welcomes you!
>>
>> Anyone with a good clippings file for the history of OO from 2000?
>> Such a history, that gets across *why* OO is as historically important
>> as it is, is not yet written, as far as I know. I went through the OO
>> clippings pages and archive.org but didn't find a lot.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>
> --
> Louis Suárez-Potts, PhD
> Age of Peers, Inc.
> Twitter: @luispo
> Skype: louisiam
> GMail: luispo@gmail.com
> Mobile: +1.416.625.3843
>
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice
Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
David Gerard wrote:
>
> Rob Weir wrote:
>
>>
>> Take a look at the lovely new page:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>> Some choice bits of distortion:
>
>
>
> Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wanted more eyes on it.
>
> Useful pages in dealing with contentious topics (which is everything):
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
>
> Cheers, looking forward to help. The talk page welcomes you!
>
> Anyone with a good clippings file for the history of OO from 2000?
> Such a history, that gets across *why* OO is as historically important
> as it is, is not yet written, as far as I know. I went through the OO
> clippings pages and archive.org but didn't find a lot.
>
>
> - d.
David,
Extensive records of OOo since its inception in 2000 exist. My own
understanding is that the milestones are still obvious. I have personal
accounts, but these would need to be validated by public citation.
The generally useful milestone pages may still, too, be available via
the Internet Archive, of
course; but that goes without saying--?
louis
David Gerard wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> Take a look at the lovely new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>> Some choice bits of distortion:
>
>
> Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wanted more eyes on it.
>
> Useful pages in dealing with contentious topics (which is everything):
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
>
> Cheers, looking forward to help. The talk page welcomes you!
>
> Anyone with a good clippings file for the history of OO from 2000?
> Such a history, that gets across *why* OO is as historically important
> as it is, is not yet written, as far as I know. I went through the OO
> clippings pages and archive.org but didn't find a lot.
>
>
> - d.
--
Louis Suárez-Potts, PhD
Age of Peers, Inc.
Twitter: @luispo
Skype: louisiam
GMail: luispo@gmail.com
Mobile: +1.416.625.3843
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: 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 11:02 AM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Rob;
>
>
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>> Da: Rob Weir
>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>>>> Da: Rob Weir
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> https://plus.google.com/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp
>>>>
>>>> You wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "OO is dead, LO is alive, switch immediately.
>>>>
>>>> The article sorta gets that across - read the history and LibreOffice
>>>> sections. Apache OpenOffice is a moribund shell, which will live
>>>> precisely as long as IBM is interested in keeping it alive. And
>>>> they've shown not all that much interest of late, either."
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> "It was dead from neglect; Oracle donated the corpse to Apache as
>> part
>>>> of their (details unrevealed) 2008 deal with IBM, with a side order of
>>>> f*ck-you to LO thrown in for free."
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> "The talk page discussion on naming of the article is interesting.
>>>> Basically, once AOO 4.0 is out (if it ever comes out - IBM doesn't
>>>> seem to have merged their Symphony code as yet, and it was supposed to
>>>> be released next month) there'll be a serious proposal to make AOO
>> a
>>>> separate article and keep this one as being about the OpenOffice.org
>>>> that existed from 2000 to 2011.
>>>>
>>>> If/when AOO 4.0 comes out with the horrible Symphony interface, expect
>>>> millions of previously-happy OOo users to absolutely sh*t. It'll be
>>>> the Windows 8 of office suites."
>>>>
>>>> So this does not suggest "good faith". In fact, it suggests
>> a
>>>> profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as
>> well
>>>> as having an axe to grind. These comments, plus your mendacious
>>>> editing in the article suggests you are using Wikipedia to push a
>>>> point of view.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
>>>
>>
>> I'm too charitable to assume that level of stupidity.
>>
>
> What we have to understand here is that there is a group of
> malinformed people that think everything they hear in the
> favorite linux *office distribution is true.
>
> Yes the guy is enthusiastic about it, but we all know that
> Wikipedia has that problem and precisely because of that
> reason is not a good source of information.
>
Oh, but what you are missing is that Wikipedia is the 31st highest
source of referrers to our website. #31 !!!! Don't you see???? If
we don't maintain **absolute control** over this page, then we could
LOSE LITERALLY DOZENS OF POTENTIAL USERS !!!! This is an existential
crisis, live or die. It is obviously worth giving up our holidays to
defend our view of the truth, If we're not going to go to the mat
with Gerard over the minutia of the project's history, then we might
as well just pack up and quit. Really. It is that important.
Not. ;-)
Like I said before, let him find other things to play with. I've seen
this before repeatably with other obsessive types on Wikipedia. Like
bad weather and food poisoning, it is just passing through.
-Rob
> Plus. these people usually change sides frequently :).
>
>
> Pedro.
>
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi Rob;
----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: Rob Weir
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>>> Da: Rob Weir
>> ...
>>>
>>> https://plus.google.com/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp
>>>
>>> You wrote:
>>>
>>> "OO is dead, LO is alive, switch immediately.
>>>
>>> The article sorta gets that across - read the history and LibreOffice
>>> sections. Apache OpenOffice is a moribund shell, which will live
>>> precisely as long as IBM is interested in keeping it alive. And
>>> they've shown not all that much interest of late, either."
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> "It was dead from neglect; Oracle donated the corpse to Apache as
> part
>>> of their (details unrevealed) 2008 deal with IBM, with a side order of
>>> f*ck-you to LO thrown in for free."
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> "The talk page discussion on naming of the article is interesting.
>>> Basically, once AOO 4.0 is out (if it ever comes out - IBM doesn't
>>> seem to have merged their Symphony code as yet, and it was supposed to
>>> be released next month) there'll be a serious proposal to make AOO
> a
>>> separate article and keep this one as being about the OpenOffice.org
>>> that existed from 2000 to 2011.
>>>
>>> If/when AOO 4.0 comes out with the horrible Symphony interface, expect
>>> millions of previously-happy OOo users to absolutely sh*t. It'll be
>>> the Windows 8 of office suites."
>>>
>>> So this does not suggest "good faith". In fact, it suggests
> a
>>> profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as
> well
>>> as having an axe to grind. These comments, plus your mendacious
>>> editing in the article suggests you are using Wikipedia to push a
>>> point of view.
>>>
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
>>
>
> I'm too charitable to assume that level of stupidity.
>
What we have to understand here is that there is a group of
malinformed people that think everything they hear in the
favorite linux *office distribution is true.
Yes the guy is enthusiastic about it, but we all know that
Wikipedia has that problem and precisely because of that
reason is not a good source of information.
Plus. these people usually change sides frequently :).
Pedro.
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: 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 10:46 AM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>> Da: Rob Weir
> ...
>>
>> https://plus.google.com/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> "OO is dead, LO is alive, switch immediately.
>>
>> The article sorta gets that across - read the history and LibreOffice
>> sections. Apache OpenOffice is a moribund shell, which will live
>> precisely as long as IBM is interested in keeping it alive. And
>> they've shown not all that much interest of late, either."
>>
>> and
>>
>> "It was dead from neglect; Oracle donated the corpse to Apache as part
>> of their (details unrevealed) 2008 deal with IBM, with a side order of
>> f*ck-you to LO thrown in for free."
>>
>> and
>>
>> "The talk page discussion on naming of the article is interesting.
>> Basically, once AOO 4.0 is out (if it ever comes out - IBM doesn't
>> seem to have merged their Symphony code as yet, and it was supposed to
>> be released next month) there'll be a serious proposal to make AOO a
>> separate article and keep this one as being about the OpenOffice.org
>> that existed from 2000 to 2011.
>>
>> If/when AOO 4.0 comes out with the horrible Symphony interface, expect
>> millions of previously-happy OOo users to absolutely sh*t. It'll be
>> the Windows 8 of office suites."
>>
>> So this does not suggest "good faith". In fact, it suggests a
>> profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as well
>> as having an axe to grind. These comments, plus your mendacious
>> editing in the article suggests you are using Wikipedia to push a
>> point of view.
>>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
>
I'm too charitable to assume that level of stupidity.
-Rob
> cheers,
>
> Pedro.
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: Rob Weir
...
>
> https://plus.google.com/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp
>
> You wrote:
>
> "OO is dead, LO is alive, switch immediately.
>
> The article sorta gets that across - read the history and LibreOffice
> sections. Apache OpenOffice is a moribund shell, which will live
> precisely as long as IBM is interested in keeping it alive. And
> they've shown not all that much interest of late, either."
>
> and
>
> "It was dead from neglect; Oracle donated the corpse to Apache as part
> of their (details unrevealed) 2008 deal with IBM, with a side order of
> f*ck-you to LO thrown in for free."
>
> and
>
> "The talk page discussion on naming of the article is interesting.
> Basically, once AOO 4.0 is out (if it ever comes out - IBM doesn't
> seem to have merged their Symphony code as yet, and it was supposed to
> be released next month) there'll be a serious proposal to make AOO a
> separate article and keep this one as being about the OpenOffice.org
> that existed from 2000 to 2011.
>
> If/when AOO 4.0 comes out with the horrible Symphony interface, expect
> millions of previously-happy OOo users to absolutely sh*t. It'll be
> the Windows 8 of office suites."
>
> So this does not suggest "good faith". In fact, it suggests a
> profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as well
> as having an axe to grind. These comments, plus your mendacious
> editing in the article suggests you are using Wikipedia to push a
> point of view.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
cheers,
Pedro.
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: 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 10:45 AM, David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 January 2013 15:36, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> So this does not suggest "good faith". In fact, it suggests a
>> profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as well
>> as having an axe to grind.
>
>
> An opinion is not the same as a conflict of interest; I am of course
> open to persuasion.
>
I did not say "conflict of interest". We were talking about "good
faith", the term that you introduced.
> As I noted, Wikipedia is a do-ocracy; I certainly don't own the page
> in any way. If your desired outcome is for the issues you perceive to
> be dealt with, I *suggest* (not require) following the pointers I've
> listed. See you on the talk page!
>
I suggest that bulldozing the article with hundreds of edits is a form
of asserting control, if not outright ownership.
As I said before, the prudent course is to simply wait for you to
engage in your next obsession and then let cooler heads prevail. This
means not me, and certainly not you.
-Rob
>
> - d.
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The
OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
Posted by David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com>.
On 22 January 2013 15:36, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> So this does not suggest "good faith". In fact, it suggests a
> profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as well
> as having an axe to grind.
An opinion is not the same as a conflict of interest; I am of course
open to persuasion.
As I noted, Wikipedia is a do-ocracy; I certainly don't own the page
in any way. If your desired outcome is for the issues you perceive to
be dealt with, I *suggest* (not require) following the pointers I've
listed. See you on the talk page!
- d.
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: 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 10:21 AM, David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 January 2013 15:06, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>> I'm not going to do this on your timing or your terms.
>
>
> The other apposite Wikipedia policy page:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
>
So I hope you'll assume good faith with any edits you see.
I might have initially assumed good faith from you, but that was lost
when seeing your Google+ comments on Apache OpenOffice, on a post
where you talked about your edits. (Note that I have had to edit your
comments slightly to avoid violating our policy against vulgarities on
the mailing list)
https://plus.google.com/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp
You wrote:
"OO is dead, LO is alive, switch immediately.
The article sorta gets that across - read the history and LibreOffice
sections. Apache OpenOffice is a moribund shell, which will live
precisely as long as IBM is interested in keeping it alive. And
they've shown not all that much interest of late, either."
and
"It was dead from neglect; Oracle donated the corpse to Apache as part
of their (details unrevealed) 2008 deal with IBM, with a side order of
f*ck-you to LO thrown in for free."
and
"The talk page discussion on naming of the article is interesting.
Basically, once AOO 4.0 is out (if it ever comes out - IBM doesn't
seem to have merged their Symphony code as yet, and it was supposed to
be released next month) there'll be a serious proposal to make AOO a
separate article and keep this one as being about the OpenOffice.org
that existed from 2000 to 2011.
If/when AOO 4.0 comes out with the horrible Symphony interface, expect
millions of previously-happy OOo users to absolutely sh*t. It'll be
the Windows 8 of office suites."
So this does not suggest "good faith". In fact, it suggests a
profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as well
as having an axe to grind. These comments, plus your mendacious
editing in the article suggests you are using Wikipedia to push a
point of view.
-Rob
> (Compare: https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/draftlist-conduct-policy.html )
>
>
>> A look at the article history [1] shows that as most of us were
>> enjoying conviviality with friends and family, you were spending your
>> Christmas and New Year's holidays making hundreds of edits to the
>> OpenOffice article. This suggests to me a more than slightly
>> obsessive nature.
>
>
> I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004, so I think that can be
> reasonably assumed. (That or boredom.)
>
>
>> So the prudent course would be to simply wait for
>> you to find another axe to grind, another crusade, another target for
>> your attentios. Then, when you are immersed in some other grand
>> mission, calmer heads will prevail, and I would not be surprised if
>> the article were then totally rewritten.
>
>
> That would be pretty much what I did. The page was a neglected
> disaster, with things like formatting errors that had been there
> months. I looked through the edit history since 2004, and it had never
> at any time been a coherently-written page.
>
> Much as with AOO, Wikipedia tends to be a do-ocracy; I'm sure you've
> long tired of people who only complain when you finally do something
> and they don't like the way you did it.
>
> At present IMO the page is mediocre and slightly coherent, which is at
> least better than it was before.
>
> A good place to raise issues with the article is its talk page:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OpenOffice Although Rob certainly
> may have other things to do with his time, others here may have a
> moment to raise issues.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> [1]
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The
OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
Posted by David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com>.
On 22 January 2013 15:06, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm not going to do this on your timing or your terms.
The other apposite Wikipedia policy page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
(Compare: https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/draftlist-conduct-policy.html )
> A look at the article history [1] shows that as most of us were
> enjoying conviviality with friends and family, you were spending your
> Christmas and New Year's holidays making hundreds of edits to the
> OpenOffice article. This suggests to me a more than slightly
> obsessive nature.
I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004, so I think that can be
reasonably assumed. (That or boredom.)
> So the prudent course would be to simply wait for
> you to find another axe to grind, another crusade, another target for
> your attentios. Then, when you are immersed in some other grand
> mission, calmer heads will prevail, and I would not be surprised if
> the article were then totally rewritten.
That would be pretty much what I did. The page was a neglected
disaster, with things like formatting errors that had been there
months. I looked through the edit history since 2004, and it had never
at any time been a coherently-written page.
Much as with AOO, Wikipedia tends to be a do-ocracy; I'm sure you've
long tired of people who only complain when you finally do something
and they don't like the way you did it.
At present IMO the page is mediocre and slightly coherent, which is at
least better than it was before.
A good place to raise issues with the article is its talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OpenOffice Although Rob certainly
may have other things to do with his time, others here may have a
moment to raise issues.
- d.
[1]
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: 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 4:06 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:43 PM, David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> Take a look at the lovely new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>>> Some choice bits of distortion:
>>
>>
>> Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wanted more eyes on it.
>>
>> Useful pages in dealing with contentious topics (which is everything):
>>
>
> I'm not going to do this on your timing or your terms. That would be
> foolish and merely lead to edit warring.
>
> A look at the article history [1] shows that as most of us were
> enjoying conviviality with friends and family, you were spending your
> Christmas and New Year's holidays making hundreds of edits to the
> OpenOffice article. This suggests to me a more than slightly
> obsessive nature. So the prudent course would be to simply wait for
> you to find another axe to grind, another crusade, another target for
> your attentios. Then, when you are immersed in some other grand
> mission, calmer heads will prevail, and I would not be surprised if
> the article were then totally rewritten.
nothing to add, if I would write something on wikipedia I would ensure
that the facts are well researched and true. Especially if I would never
have had any relation to the topic.
Juergen
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OpenOffice&action=history
>
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
>>
>> Cheers, looking forward to help. The talk page welcomes you!
>>
>> Anyone with a good clippings file for the history of OO from 2000?
>> Such a history, that gets across *why* OO is as historically important
>> as it is, is not yet written, as far as I know. I went through the OO
>> clippings pages and archive.org but didn't find a lot.
>>
>>
>> - d.
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: 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 5:43 PM, David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>
>>Take a look at the lovely new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>>Some choice bits of distortion:
>
>
> Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wanted more eyes on it.
>
> Useful pages in dealing with contentious topics (which is everything):
>
I'm not going to do this on your timing or your terms. That would be
foolish and merely lead to edit warring.
A look at the article history [1] shows that as most of us were
enjoying conviviality with friends and family, you were spending your
Christmas and New Year's holidays making hundreds of edits to the
OpenOffice article. This suggests to me a more than slightly
obsessive nature. So the prudent course would be to simply wait for
you to find another axe to grind, another crusade, another target for
your attentios. Then, when you are immersed in some other grand
mission, calmer heads will prevail, and I would not be surprised if
the article were then totally rewritten.
Regards,
-Rob
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OpenOffice&action=history
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
>
> Cheers, looking forward to help. The talk page welcomes you!
>
> Anyone with a good clippings file for the history of OO from 2000?
> Such a history, that gets across *why* OO is as historically important
> as it is, is not yet written, as far as I know. I went through the OO
> clippings pages and archive.org but didn't find a lot.
>
>
> - d.