You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> on 2015/09/03 22:31:08 UTC
Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Hi there,
the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they
have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
it's definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done
about it. The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its
version 5.0 and is getting ahead of us.
Max
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Wolf Halton <wo...@gmail.com>.
One solution is to write small but hopeful press releases of progress on the blog or otherwhere and have someone else update wikipedia.
Wolf Halton
Atlanta Cloud Technology
Broadening Your Vision to Broaden Your Reach
678-687-6104
--
Sent from my iPhone. Creative word completion courtesy of Apple, Inc.
> On Sep 3, 2015, at 5:12 PM, Phillip Rhodes <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see any
> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
>
> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I
> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
>
> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or how
> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this
> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
>
>
> Phil
>
>
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Max,
>>
>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they
>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think it's
>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it.
>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 and
>> is getting ahead of us.
>>
>> thanks for the alert.
>>
>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry
>> to reflect the facts.
>>
>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not arduous.
>>
>> Louis
>>>
>>> Max
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 10/09/2015 Max Merbald wrote:
> If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
OpenOffice is not dormant, as of today. A link that can dispel the myth is
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2
(and blog posts that will come, but this is enough for the time being).
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
> On 16 Sep 15, at 15:38, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Time, gentlemen, time.
>
> We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread go night-night.
>
> Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and AOO business. We have our own business to attend to. If folks want to keep fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on dev@.
>
> - Dennis
>
> [ … ]
?? I don’t think this is a) a gentleman kind of thing, if only for gender reasons; b) I think I rather like Mr G. and hardly deem this to be an ad hominem event. If others are like me, once you read over Mr G’s bio, a *lot* gets forgiven. He’s a card, a character, a source of necessary comic inversion. No one is flaming anyone here and we are actually kind of having fun.
Louis
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 09/16/2015 02:32 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>
>> On 16 Sep 15, at 17:27, Rob Weir <ro...@robweir.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@robweir.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>>> <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Time, gentlemen, time.
>>>>
>>>> We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let
>>>> this thread go night-night.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is
>>>> not ASF and AOO business. We have our own business to attend
>>>> to. If folks want to keep fussing about it, there are many
>>>> better places to do that than here on dev@.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ad hominem? Excuse me? The web page has a record of Wikipedia
>>> abuses attributed to Mr. Gerard and cites several cases where he
>>> was sanction for it. One can talk about his actions without
>>> slurring his person, especially when such acts are directly
>>> relevant to the topic of this thread.
>>>
>>
>> Last word, in case the inference is unclear. We're dealing with
>> a sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia. Correcting
>> erroneous information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be
>> achieved via an edit war. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Any
>> progress would only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict
>> and his bad will (not hard to do), and escalating it within the
>> the formal Wikipedia appeals process, patiently dealing with the
>> ministerial types to whom bureaucratic process is dear. Since
>> Dennis does not want to discuss this on the list, feel free to
>> contact me offline if anyone wishes to discuss this further.
>>
>> -Rob
I love "serial infringer". :)
>>
>
> But Dennis does not control the lists, just as King Canute did not
> control the waves. :-/
>
> Rob, your points are good; I was being too facetious, stunned by the
> attitude of Mr Gerard. Clearly, unless we are reading him wrongly, he
> would seem more likely to stick to his position, regardless of reason
> and logic, than accept the ignominy of somebody else being right.
>
> louis
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
--
--------------------------------------------
MzK
“The journey of a thousand miles begins
with a single step.”
--Lao Tzu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
> On 16 Sep 15, at 17:27, Rob Weir <ro...@robweir.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@robweir.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Time, gentlemen, time.
>>>
>>> We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread go night-night.
>>>
>>> Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and AOO business. We have our own business to attend to. If folks want to keep fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on dev@.
>>>
>>
>> Ad hominem? Excuse me? The web page has a record of Wikipedia
>> abuses attributed to Mr. Gerard and cites several cases where he was
>> sanction for it. One can talk about his actions without slurring his
>> person, especially when such acts are directly relevant to the topic
>> of this thread.
>>
>
> Last word, in case the inference is unclear. We're dealing with a
> sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia. Correcting erroneous
> information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be achieved via an
> edit war. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Any progress would
> only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict and his bad will
> (not hard to do), and escalating it within the the formal Wikipedia
> appeals process, patiently dealing with the ministerial types to whom
> bureaucratic process is dear. Since Dennis does not want to discuss
> this on the list, feel free to contact me offline if anyone wishes to
> discuss this further.
>
> -Rob
>
But Dennis does not control the lists, just as King Canute did not control the waves. :-/
Rob, your points are good; I was being too facetious, stunned by the attitude of Mr Gerard. Clearly, unless we are reading him wrongly, he would seem more likely to stick to his position, regardless of reason and logic, than accept the ignominy of somebody else being right.
louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@robweir.com>.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@robweir.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Time, gentlemen, time.
>>
>> We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread go night-night.
>>
>> Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and AOO business. We have our own business to attend to. If folks want to keep fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on dev@.
>>
>
> Ad hominem? Excuse me? The web page has a record of Wikipedia
> abuses attributed to Mr. Gerard and cites several cases where he was
> sanction for it. One can talk about his actions without slurring his
> person, especially when such acts are directly relevant to the topic
> of this thread.
>
Last word, in case the inference is unclear. We're dealing with a
sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia. Correcting erroneous
information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be achieved via an
edit war. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Any progress would
only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict and his bad will
(not hard to do), and escalating it within the the formal Wikipedia
appeals process, patiently dealing with the ministerial types to whom
bureaucratic process is dear. Since Dennis does not want to discuss
this on the list, feel free to contact me offline if anyone wishes to
discuss this further.
-Rob
> -Rob
>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@robweir.com>.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> Time, gentlemen, time.
>
> We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread go night-night.
>
> Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and AOO business. We have our own business to attend to. If folks want to keep fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on dev@.
>
Ad hominem? Excuse me? The web page has a record of Wikipedia
abuses attributed to Mr. Gerard and cites several cases where he was
sanction for it. One can talk about his actions without slurring his
person, especially when such acts are directly relevant to the topic
of this thread.
-Rob
> - Dennis
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
Time, gentlemen, time.
We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread go night-night.
Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and AOO business. We have our own business to attend to. If folks want to keep fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on dev@.
- Dennis
[ ... ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
> On 16 Sep 15, at 14:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> According to the links on that page it's him.
Fantastic.
One hopes he’s reading this.
Louis
PS in case others didn’t bother to follow up on Rob’s link, the title (self-appointed, I assume) held by Mr Gerard is enough to earn his keep, I’m sure.
>
>
>
> Am 16.09.2015 um 19:58 schrieb Louis Suárez-Potts:
>>> On 16 Sep 15, at 13:56, Rob Weir <ro...@robweir.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:52 PM, John D'Orazio
>>> <jo...@cappellaniauniroma3.org> wrote:
>>>> Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He
>>>> still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of
>>>> discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the
>>>> "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate
>>>> derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk
>>>> page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially
>>>> in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of
>>>> that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and
>>>> I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be
>>>> cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that
>>>> reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache
>>>> OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article (
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big
>>>> deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions
>>>> about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence
>>>> the corrections to the infobox information).
>>>> I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not
>>>> be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the
>>>> Apache license?
>>>>
>>> Is this the same David Gerard discussed here?
>>>
>>> https://encyclopediadramatica.se/David_Gerard
>>>
>> Oh, I hope so!
>>
>> Louis
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de>.
According to the links on that page it's him.
Am 16.09.2015 um 19:58 schrieb Louis Suárez-Potts:
>> On 16 Sep 15, at 13:56, Rob Weir <ro...@robweir.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:52 PM, John D'Orazio
>> <jo...@cappellaniauniroma3.org> wrote:
>>> Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He
>>> still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of
>>> discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the
>>> "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate
>>> derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk
>>> page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially
>>> in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of
>>> that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and
>>> I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be
>>> cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that
>>> reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache
>>> OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article (
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big
>>> deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions
>>> about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence
>>> the corrections to the infobox information).
>>> I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not
>>> be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the
>>> Apache license?
>>>
>> Is this the same David Gerard discussed here?
>>
>> https://encyclopediadramatica.se/David_Gerard
>>
> Oh, I hope so!
>
> Louis
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
> On 16 Sep 15, at 13:56, Rob Weir <ro...@robweir.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:52 PM, John D'Orazio
> <jo...@cappellaniauniroma3.org> wrote:
>> Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He
>> still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of
>> discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the
>> "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate
>> derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk
>> page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially
>> in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of
>> that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and
>> I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be
>> cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that
>> reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache
>> OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article (
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big
>> deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions
>> about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence
>> the corrections to the infobox information).
>> I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not
>> be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the
>> Apache license?
>>
>
> Is this the same David Gerard discussed here?
>
> https://encyclopediadramatica.se/David_Gerard
>
Oh, I hope so!
Louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:52 PM, John D'Orazio
<jo...@cappellaniauniroma3.org> wrote:
> Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He
> still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of
> discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the
> "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate
> derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk
> page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially
> in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of
> that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and
> I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be
> cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that
> reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache
> OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big
> deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions
> about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence
> the corrections to the infobox information).
> I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not
> be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the
> Apache license?
>
Is this the same David Gerard discussed here?
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/David_Gerard
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote:
>> > I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to
>> > three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia
>> > moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever...
>>
>> Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be
>> editing wars forever! :)
>>
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel <
>> matthias.seidel@hamburg.de
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> https://twitter.com/davidgerard
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald:
>> >>
>> >>> I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants
>> >>> to damage OpenOffice?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:
>> >>>
>> >>>> There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be
>> one
>> >>>> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes
>> >>>> <mo...@gmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right,
>> >>>>> having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the
>> 4.1.2
>> >>>>> release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't
>> >>>>> certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
>> around
>> >>>>> planning to start a revert war over this. :-(
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Phil
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hi Phil,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
>> that
>> >>>>>> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
>> citations.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> The
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
>> >>>>>> is in
>> >>>>>> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> they'll
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> start looking for different office software.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Max
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
>> >>>>>>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't
>> see
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> any
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
>> one
>> >>>>>>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out
>> some
>> >>>>>>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
>> article.
>> >>>>>>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
>> opposition.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> "Should I
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
>> >>>>>>> spreading through the press, about AOO being
>> dead/dormant/whatever, or
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> how
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
>> >>>>>>> this
>> >>>>>>> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Phil
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <
>> luispo@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Hi Max,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Hi there,
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see
>> where
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> they
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I
>> think
>> >>>>>>>> it's
>> >>>>>>>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done
>> about
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> it.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its
>> >>>>>>>> version 5.0
>> >>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>> is getting ahead of us.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> thanks for the alert.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change
>> the
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> entry
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> to reflect the facts.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
>> >>>>>>>> arduous.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Louis
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Max
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> “The journey of a thousand miles begins
>> with a single step.”
>> --Lao Tzu
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> don John R. D'Orazio
> Cappellano Coordinatore
> ________________________________________
>
> Servizio di Cappellania - Università degli Studi Roma Tre
> Piazzale San Paolo 1/d - 00120 Città del Vaticano
> tel. +39 06-69880809 - cell. +39 333/2545447
> E-Mail: *cappellania.uniroma3@gmail.com* <ca...@gmail.com> |
> *cappellania@uniroma3.it* <ca...@uniroma3.it>
> ----
> Sito Web: http://www.cappellaniauniroma3.org
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/CappellaniaR3
> Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/people/cappellaniauniroma3/
> Pagina Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cappellania.uniroma3
> Gruppo Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cappellania.uniroma3
> Pagina Google+: https://plus.google.com/+CappellaniaUniRoma3org
> Community Google+: http://gplus.to/CappellaniaUniRoma3
> LinkedIn:
> http://www.linkedin.com/company/cappellania-universit-degli-studi-roma-tre
> ----
> Per iscriversi al Calendario Pubblico della Cappellania (con account
> gmail): [image: Iscriviti con Google Calendar]
> <https://www.google.com/calendar/render?cid=8jugejikjtlks094p62hled6vs%40group.calendar.google.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:20:18 +0200
Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
> Well, he did it again...
>
> That is what he wrote to me on google+:
>
> "And don't do what the previous AOO editor did and inexplicably fail to
> reveal their COI."
For those who don't know, "COI" means "Conflict of Interest".
COIs cut both ways; Mr G should be invited to quote chapter and verse (fact, not opinion) for his alteration.
If there is dispute on the matter it should be referred higher on Wikipedia; he, as moderator on Wikipedia, should not arbitrate on any entry in which he is personally involved. The legal maxim is "Nemo judex in sua causa" (No man should judge in his own case) and the UK legal precedent is that of Coke in Dr Bonham's case.
Rory O'Farrell
>
>
> Am 14.09.2015 um 22:52 schrieb John D'Orazio:
> > Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He
> > still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of
> > discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the
> > "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate
> > derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk
> > page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially
> > in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of
> > that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and
> > I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be
> > cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that
> > reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache
> > OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article (
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big
> > deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions
> > about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence
> > the corrections to the infobox information).
> > I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not
> > be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the
> > Apache license?
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote:
> >>> I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to
> >>> three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia
> >>> moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever...
> >>
> >> Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be
> >> editing wars forever! :)
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel <
> >> matthias.seidel@hamburg.de
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> https://twitter.com/davidgerard
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants
> >>>>> to damage OpenOffice?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be
> >> one
> >>>>>> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes
> >>>>>> <mo...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right,
> >>>>>>> having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the
> >> 4.1.2
> >>>>>>> release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't
> >>>>>>> certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
> >> around
> >>>>>>> planning to start a revert war over this. :-(
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Phil
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Phil,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
> >> that
> >>>>>>>> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
> >> citations.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
> >>>>>>>> is in
> >>>>>>>> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> they'll
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> start looking for different office software.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Max
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
> >>>>>>>>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't
> >> see
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
> >> one
> >>>>>>>>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out
> >> some
> >>>>>>>>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
> >> article.
> >>>>>>>>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
> >> opposition.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Should I
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
> >>>>>>>>> spreading through the press, about AOO being
> >> dead/dormant/whatever, or
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> how
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
> >>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Phil
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <
> >> luispo@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Max,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi there,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see
> >> where
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I
> >> think
> >>>>>>>>>> it's
> >>>>>>>>>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done
> >> about
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its
> >>>>>>>>>> version 5.0
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> is getting ahead of us.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> thanks for the alert.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change
> >> the
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> entry
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> to reflect the facts.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
> >>>>>>>>>> arduous.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Louis
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Max
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> --------------------------------------------
> >> MzK
> >>
> >> “The journey of a thousand miles begins
> >> with a single step.”
> >> --Lao Tzu
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
The best case we can make is a new release. So, even for this little
change it's good to make progress with 4.1.2.
PS:
I've my own opinion about Wikipedia and it's data quality. Maybe you can
guess in what direction is could go.
Marcus
Am 09/15/2015 12:14 AM, schrieb John D'Orazio:
> Yes I just received a message from him on my Wikipedia page, after he
> reverted my edits twice. Looking at his own Wikipedia talk page and on the
> OpenOffice talk page, more than one Wikipedia user has confronted him about
> having COI as regards the OpenOffice project. He answers that he has no
> issues or COI and that he is completely external. And guess what, he
> participates in Wikipedia as a "resolver of COI". Sounds to me like someone
> who becomes a police officer so as not to get arrested...
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Matthias Seidel<
> matthias.seidel@hamburg.de> wrote:
>
>> Well, he did it again...
>>
>> That is what he wrote to me on google+:
>>
>> "And don't do what the previous AOO editor did and inexplicably fail to
>> reveal their COI."
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 14.09.2015 um 22:52 schrieb John D'Orazio:
>>
>>> Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He
>>> still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of
>>> discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the
>>> "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate
>>> derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk
>>> page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially
>>> in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of
>>> that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage
>>> and
>>> I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to
>>> be
>>> cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that
>>> reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache
>>> OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article (
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big
>>> deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions
>>> about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence
>>> the corrections to the infobox information).
>>> I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not
>>> be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the
>>> Apache license?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to
>>>>> three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia
>>>>> moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be
>>>> editing wars forever! :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel<
>>>>>
>>>> matthias.seidel@hamburg.de
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://twitter.com/davidgerard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants
>>>>>>> to damage OpenOffice?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> one
>>>>
>>>>> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes
>>>>>>>> <mo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4.1.2
>>>>
>>>>> release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't
>>>>>>>>> certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> around
>>>>
>>>>> planning to start a revert war over this. :-(
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald<ma...@gmx.de>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>
>>>>> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> citations.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
>>>>>>>>>> is in
>>>>>>>>>> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> they'll
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> start looking for different office software.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Max
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>
>>>>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>
>>>>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> article.
>>>>
>>>>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> opposition.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Should I
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative
>>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> spreading through the press, about AOO being
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> dead/dormant/whatever, or
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts<
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> luispo@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald<ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>
>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> version 5.0
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> is getting ahead of us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for the alert.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> entry
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to reflect the facts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> arduous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Louis
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Max
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by John D'Orazio <jo...@cappellaniauniroma3.org>.
Yes I just received a message from him on my Wikipedia page, after he
reverted my edits twice. Looking at his own Wikipedia talk page and on the
OpenOffice talk page, more than one Wikipedia user has confronted him about
having COI as regards the OpenOffice project. He answers that he has no
issues or COI and that he is completely external. And guess what, he
participates in Wikipedia as a "resolver of COI". Sounds to me like someone
who becomes a police officer so as not to get arrested...
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Matthias Seidel <
matthias.seidel@hamburg.de> wrote:
> Well, he did it again...
>
> That is what he wrote to me on google+:
>
> "And don't do what the previous AOO editor did and inexplicably fail to
> reveal their COI."
>
>
>
> Am 14.09.2015 um 22:52 schrieb John D'Orazio:
>
>> Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He
>> still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of
>> discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the
>> "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate
>> derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk
>> page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially
>> in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of
>> that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage
>> and
>> I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to
>> be
>> cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that
>> reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache
>> OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article (
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big
>> deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions
>> about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence
>> the corrections to the infobox information).
>> I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not
>> be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the
>> Apache license?
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to
>>>> three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia
>>>> moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be
>>> editing wars forever! :)
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel <
>>>>
>>> matthias.seidel@hamburg.de
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://twitter.com/davidgerard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald:
>>>>>
>>>>> I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants
>>>>>> to damage OpenOffice?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> one
>>>
>>>> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes
>>>>>>> <mo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4.1.2
>>>
>>>> release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't
>>>>>>>> certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> around
>>>
>>>> planning to start a revert war over this. :-(
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that
>>>
>>>> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> citations.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
>>>>>>>>> is in
>>>>>>>>> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> they'll
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> start looking for different office software.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Max
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> see
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> one
>>>
>>>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>
>>>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> article.
>>>
>>>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> opposition.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Should I
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative
>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> spreading through the press, about AOO being
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dead/dormant/whatever, or
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> luispo@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> think
>>>
>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> version 5.0
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> is getting ahead of us.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for the alert.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> entry
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to reflect the facts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> arduous.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Louis
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Max
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> “The journey of a thousand miles begins
>>> with a single step.”
>>> --Lao Tzu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
don John R. D'Orazio
Cappellano Coordinatore
________________________________________
Servizio di Cappellania - Università degli Studi Roma Tre
Piazzale San Paolo 1/d - 00120 Città del Vaticano
tel. +39 06-69880809 - cell. +39 333/2545447
E-Mail: *cappellania.uniroma3@gmail.com* <ca...@gmail.com> |
*cappellania@uniroma3.it* <ca...@uniroma3.it>
----
Sito Web: http://www.cappellaniauniroma3.org
Twitter: https://twitter.com/CappellaniaR3
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/people/cappellaniauniroma3/
Pagina Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cappellania.uniroma3
Gruppo Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cappellania.uniroma3
Pagina Google+: https://plus.google.com/+CappellaniaUniRoma3org
Community Google+: http://gplus.to/CappellaniaUniRoma3
LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/company/cappellania-universit-degli-studi-roma-tre
----
Per iscriversi al Calendario Pubblico della Cappellania (con account
gmail): [image: Iscriviti con Google Calendar]
<https://www.google.com/calendar/render?cid=8jugejikjtlks094p62hled6vs%40group.calendar.google.com>
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Well, he did it again...
That is what he wrote to me on google+:
"And don't do what the previous AOO editor did and inexplicably fail to
reveal their COI."
Am 14.09.2015 um 22:52 schrieb John D'Orazio:
> Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He
> still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of
> discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the
> "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate
> derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk
> page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially
> in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of
> that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and
> I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be
> cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that
> reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache
> OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big
> deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions
> about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence
> the corrections to the infobox information).
> I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not
> be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the
> Apache license?
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote:
>>> I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to
>>> three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia
>>> moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever...
>>
>> Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be
>> editing wars forever! :)
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel <
>> matthias.seidel@hamburg.de
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://twitter.com/davidgerard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald:
>>>>
>>>>> I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants
>>>>> to damage OpenOffice?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be
>> one
>>>>>> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes
>>>>>> <mo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right,
>>>>>>> having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the
>> 4.1.2
>>>>>>> release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't
>>>>>>> certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
>> around
>>>>>>> planning to start a revert war over this. :-(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
>> that
>>>>>>>> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
>> citations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
>>>>>>>> is in
>>>>>>>> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they'll
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> start looking for different office software.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Max
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
>>>>>>>>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't
>> see
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
>> one
>>>>>>>>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out
>> some
>>>>>>>>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
>> article.
>>>>>>>>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
>> opposition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Should I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
>>>>>>>>> spreading through the press, about AOO being
>> dead/dormant/whatever, or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <
>> luispo@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see
>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I
>> think
>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done
>> about
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its
>>>>>>>>>> version 5.0
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> is getting ahead of us.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thanks for the alert.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> entry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to reflect the facts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
>>>>>>>>>> arduous.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Louis
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Max
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> “The journey of a thousand miles begins
>> with a single step.”
>> --Lao Tzu
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by John D'Orazio <jo...@cappellaniauniroma3.org>.
Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He
still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of
discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the
"Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate
derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk
page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially
in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of
that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and
I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be
cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that
reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache
OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big
deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions
about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence
the corrections to the infobox information).
I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not
be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the
Apache license?
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote:
> > I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to
> > three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia
> > moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever...
>
> Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be
> editing wars forever! :)
>
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel <
> matthias.seidel@hamburg.de
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> https://twitter.com/davidgerard
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald:
> >>
> >>> I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants
> >>> to damage OpenOffice?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:
> >>>
> >>>> There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be
> one
> >>>> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes
> >>>> <mo...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right,
> >>>>> having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the
> 4.1.2
> >>>>> release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't
> >>>>> certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
> around
> >>>>> planning to start a revert war over this. :-(
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Phil
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Phil,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
> that
> >>>>>> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
> citations.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> The
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
> >>>>>> is in
> >>>>>> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> they'll
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> start looking for different office software.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Max
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
> >>>>>>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't
> see
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> any
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
> one
> >>>>>>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out
> some
> >>>>>>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
> article.
> >>>>>>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
> opposition.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Should I
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
> >>>>>>> spreading through the press, about AOO being
> dead/dormant/whatever, or
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> how
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Phil
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <
> luispo@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Max,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi there,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see
> where
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I
> think
> >>>>>>>> it's
> >>>>>>>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done
> about
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its
> >>>>>>>> version 5.0
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> is getting ahead of us.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> thanks for the alert.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change
> the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> entry
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> to reflect the facts.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
> >>>>>>>> arduous.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Louis
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Max
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> “The journey of a thousand miles begins
> with a single step.”
> --Lao Tzu
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
don John R. D'Orazio
Cappellano Coordinatore
________________________________________
Servizio di Cappellania - Università degli Studi Roma Tre
Piazzale San Paolo 1/d - 00120 Città del Vaticano
tel. +39 06-69880809 - cell. +39 333/2545447
E-Mail: *cappellania.uniroma3@gmail.com* <ca...@gmail.com> |
*cappellania@uniroma3.it* <ca...@uniroma3.it>
----
Sito Web: http://www.cappellaniauniroma3.org
Twitter: https://twitter.com/CappellaniaR3
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/people/cappellaniauniroma3/
Pagina Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cappellania.uniroma3
Gruppo Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cappellania.uniroma3
Pagina Google+: https://plus.google.com/+CappellaniaUniRoma3org
Community Google+: http://gplus.to/CappellaniaUniRoma3
LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/company/cappellania-universit-degli-studi-roma-tre
----
Per iscriversi al Calendario Pubblico della Cappellania (con account
gmail): [image: Iscriviti con Google Calendar]
<https://www.google.com/calendar/render?cid=8jugejikjtlks094p62hled6vs%40group.calendar.google.com>
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote:
> I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to
> three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia
> moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever...
Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be
editing wars forever! :)
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.seidel@hamburg.de
>> wrote:
>
>> https://twitter.com/davidgerard
>>
>>
>> Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald:
>>
>>> I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants
>>> to damage OpenOffice?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:
>>>
>>>> There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be one
>>>> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes
>>>> <mo...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right,
>>>>> having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
>>>>>
>>>>> I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2
>>>>> release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't
>>>>> certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
>>>>> planning to start a revert war over this. :-(
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
>>>>>> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The
>>>>>
>>>>>> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
>>>>>> is in
>>>>>> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
>>>>>>
>>>>> they'll
>>>>>
>>>>>> start looking for different office software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Max
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
>>>>>>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> any
>>>>>
>>>>>> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
>>>>>>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
>>>>>>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
>>>>>>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Should I
>>>>>
>>>>>> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
>>>>>>> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> how
>>>>>
>>>>>> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>
>>>>>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its
>>>>>>>> version 5.0
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> is getting ahead of us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks for the alert.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> entry
>>>>>
>>>>>> to reflect the facts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
>>>>>>>> arduous.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Louis
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Max
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------
MzK
“The journey of a thousand miles begins
with a single step.”
--Lao Tzu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by John D'Orazio <jo...@cappellaniauniroma3.org>.
I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to
three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia
moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever...
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.seidel@hamburg.de
> wrote:
> https://twitter.com/davidgerard
>
>
> Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald:
>
>> I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants
>> to damage OpenOffice?
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:
>>
>>> There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be one
>>> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes
>>> <mo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right,
>>>> having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
>>>>
>>>> I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2
>>>> release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't
>>>> certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
>>>> planning to start a revert war over this. :-(
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>>
>>>>> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
>>>>> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations.
>>>>>
>>>> The
>>>>
>>>>> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
>>>>> is in
>>>>> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
>>>>>
>>>> they'll
>>>>
>>>>> start looking for different office software.
>>>>>
>>>>> Max
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
>>>>>
>>>>> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
>>>>>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see
>>>>>>
>>>>> any
>>>>
>>>>> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
>>>>>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
>>>>>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
>>>>>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
>>>>>>
>>>>> "Should I
>>>>
>>>>> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
>>>>>> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or
>>>>>>
>>>>> how
>>>>
>>>>> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they
>>>>
>>>>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its
>>>>>>> version 5.0
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> is getting ahead of us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks for the alert.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> entry
>>>>
>>>>> to reflect the facts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
>>>>>>> arduous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Louis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Max
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
--
John R. D'Orazio
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
https://twitter.com/davidgerard
Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald:
> I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants
> to damage OpenOffice?
>
>
>
> Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:
>> There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be one
>> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes
>> <mo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right,
>>> having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
>>>
>>> I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2
>>> release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't
>>> certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
>>> planning to start a revert war over this. :-(
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>
>>>> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
>>>> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations.
>>> The
>>>> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
>>>> is in
>>>> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
>>> they'll
>>>> start looking for different office software.
>>>>
>>>> Max
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
>>>>
>>>>> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
>>>>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see
>>> any
>>>>> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
>>>>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
>>>>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
>>>>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
>>>>>
>>>>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
>>> "Should I
>>>>> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
>>>
>>>>> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
>>>>> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or
>>> how
>>>>> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
>>>>> this
>>>>> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where
>>> they
>>>>>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about
>>> it.
>>>>>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its
>>>>>> version 5.0
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> is getting ahead of us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks for the alert.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the
>>> entry
>>>>>> to reflect the facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
>>>>>> arduous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Louis
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Max
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de>.
I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants
to damage OpenOffice?
Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:
> There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be one
> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes <mo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right,
>> having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
>>
>> I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2
>> release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't
>> certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
>> planning to start a revert war over this. :-(
>>
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Phil,
>>>
>>> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
>>> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations.
>> The
>>> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is in
>>> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
>> they'll
>>> start looking for different office software.
>>>
>>> Max
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
>>>
>>>> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
>>>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see
>> any
>>>> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
>>>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
>>>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
>>>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
>>>>
>>>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
>> "Should I
>>>> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
>>>> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
>>>> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or
>> how
>>>> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this
>>>> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where
>> they
>>>>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
>>>>> it's
>>>>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about
>> it.
>>>>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0
>>>>> and
>>>>> is getting ahead of us.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for the alert.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the
>> entry
>>>>> to reflect the facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
>>>>> arduous.
>>>>>
>>>>> Louis
>>>>>
>>>>>> Max
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by John D'Orazio <jo...@cappellaniauniroma3.org>.
Well actually the case of the wikipedia article is different, because the
adjective that is used for the project whether "dormant" or "moribund" is
not in fact actually being referred to the Apache project but to the
pre-Apache project. The Apache project is indicated as being a derivative
project, and has been given a separate page as such. The issue there is
that one or two users (who happen to also be moderators) are very set on
considering the Apache project a different project, and not the "successor"
of the Oracle project. So it's actually the Oracle project that is being
called dormant. I do believe that it is a bit confusing for any normal user
that goes to read wikipedia, a lot of simple users don't even realize the
history behind this (I myself didn't until just recently, as I've been
reading up on the evolution of the project). But it's fairly useless trying
to clear it up any, as there are a couple users who are very intent on
keeping everything as is, any changes will spark debate (as has already
happened). It's probably not worth it...
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Phillip Rhodes <mo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Fair enough. That is the dictionary definition. I was thinking of how
> it's used colloquially, which seems
> to be more like a synonym for "stagnant." I'd be OK with either
> "stagnant" or "stalled", if the change
> can be made without someone immediately reverting it. I probably won't do
> it myself since I quickly tire
> of dicking around with wikipedia edit wars, but I fully support anybody who
> does.
>
>
> Phil
>
>
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > "Moribund" means "dying". It's a goofy word, yes, which means it's an
> > attention-getting word, which means people will look at it and say, "What
> > the hell does THAT mean?" and focus on why someone would call AOO that.
> >
> > Is "dying" more accurate than "dormant" to describe AOO? "Dying"
> suggests
> > the project is in decline and will only continue to decline. Does anyone
> > here think "dying" is more accurate than, say, "Stalled"?
> >
> > Don
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Phillip Rhodes <
> motley.crue.fan@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Moribund" is a goofy word that almost nobody uses in conversation, but
> > > it's probably more accurate than "dormant". I've spent enough time
> > > goofing around on Wikipedia lately, so, for myself, I'm quite happy to
> > > leave it as is, until the 4.1.2 release comes out. At that point, I
> > think
> > > it's clear that it should then be made "Active".
> > >
> > > *shrug*
> > >
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be
> > one
> > > > this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes <
> > > motley.crue.fan@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're
> right,
> > > > > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
> > > > >
> > > > > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the
> > 4.1.2
> > > > > release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there
> aren't
> > > > > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
> > > around
> > > > > planning to start a revert war over this. :-(
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Phil
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Phil,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it
> says
> > > that
> > > > > > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
> > > citations.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed
> info
> > > is
> > > > in
> > > > > > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is
> "dormant"
> > > > > they'll
> > > > > > start looking for different office software.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Max
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything
> that's
> > -
> > > > > >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I
> don't
> > > see
> > > > > any
> > > > > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there,
> although
> > > one
> > > > > >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call
> out
> > > some
> > > > > >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
> > > article.
> > > > > >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
> > > opposition.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
> > > > > "Should I
> > > > > >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft
> Office".
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative
> > > that's
> > > > > >> spreading through the press, about AOO being
> > dead/dormant/whatever,
> > > or
> > > > > how
> > > > > >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to
> see
> > > > this
> > > > > >> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Phil
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <
> > > luispo@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Hi Max,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de>
> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Hi there,
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see
> > where
> > > > > they
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I
> > > think
> > > > > >>> it's
> > > > > >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done
> > > about
> > > > > it.
> > > > > >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its
> > version
> > > > 5.0
> > > > > >>> and
> > > > > >>> is getting ahead of us.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> thanks for the alert.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change
> > the
> > > > > entry
> > > > > >>> to reflect the facts.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is
> > not
> > > > > >>> arduous.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Louis
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Max
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
John R. D'Orazio
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by John D'Orazio <jo...@cappellaniauniroma3.org>.
By golly you are right, I didn't notice that mr. David Gerard has really
turned this into a personal crusade of his.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Larry Gusaas <la...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 2015-09-15, 5:17 PM John D'Orazio wrote:
>
>> Well actually the case of the wikipedia article is different, because the
>> adjective that is used for the project whether "dormant" or "moribund" is
>> not in fact actually being referred to the Apache project but to the
>> pre-Apache project.
>>
>
> No. It is Apache OpenOffice that is being called "moribund".
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice
>
> The Apache project is indicated as being a derivative
>> project, and has been given a separate page as such. T
>>
>
> No. The Apache OpenOffice page states:
> "Apache OpenOffice (AOO) is an open-source office productivity software
> suite. It is a successor project of OpenOffice.org "
>
> he issue there is
>> that one or two users (who happen to also be moderators) are very set on
>> considering the Apache project a different project, and not the
>> "successor"
>> of the Oracle project. So it's actually the Oracle project that is being
>> called dormant.
>>
>
> Wrong. Check the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice
>
> --
> _________________________________
>
> Larry I. Gusaas
> Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
> Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
> "An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind
> theirs." - Edgard Varese
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Larry Gusaas <la...@gmail.com>.
On 2015-09-15, 5:17 PM John D'Orazio wrote:
> Well actually the case of the wikipedia article is different, because the
> adjective that is used for the project whether "dormant" or "moribund" is
> not in fact actually being referred to the Apache project but to the
> pre-Apache project.
No. It is Apache OpenOffice that is being called "moribund".
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice
> The Apache project is indicated as being a derivative
> project, and has been given a separate page as such. T
No. The Apache OpenOffice page states:
"Apache OpenOffice (AOO) is an open-source office productivity software suite. It is a
successor project of OpenOffice.org "
> he issue there is
> that one or two users (who happen to also be moderators) are very set on
> considering the Apache project a different project, and not the "successor"
> of the Oracle project. So it's actually the Oracle project that is being
> called dormant.
Wrong. Check the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice
--
_________________________________
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Phillip Rhodes <mo...@gmail.com>.
Fair enough. That is the dictionary definition. I was thinking of how
it's used colloquially, which seems
to be more like a synonym for "stagnant." I'd be OK with either
"stagnant" or "stalled", if the change
can be made without someone immediately reverting it. I probably won't do
it myself since I quickly tire
of dicking around with wikipedia edit wars, but I fully support anybody who
does.
Phil
This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org> wrote:
> "Moribund" means "dying". It's a goofy word, yes, which means it's an
> attention-getting word, which means people will look at it and say, "What
> the hell does THAT mean?" and focus on why someone would call AOO that.
>
> Is "dying" more accurate than "dormant" to describe AOO? "Dying" suggests
> the project is in decline and will only continue to decline. Does anyone
> here think "dying" is more accurate than, say, "Stalled"?
>
> Don
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Phillip Rhodes <motley.crue.fan@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > "Moribund" is a goofy word that almost nobody uses in conversation, but
> > it's probably more accurate than "dormant". I've spent enough time
> > goofing around on Wikipedia lately, so, for myself, I'm quite happy to
> > leave it as is, until the 4.1.2 release comes out. At that point, I
> think
> > it's clear that it should then be made "Active".
> >
> > *shrug*
> >
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be
> one
> > > this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes <
> > motley.crue.fan@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right,
> > > > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
> > > >
> > > > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the
> 4.1.2
> > > > release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't
> > > > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
> > around
> > > > planning to start a revert war over this. :-(
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Phil,
> > > > >
> > > > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
> > that
> > > > > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
> > citations.
> > > > The
> > > > > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
> > is
> > > in
> > > > > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
> > > > they'll
> > > > > start looking for different office software.
> > > > >
> > > > > Max
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's
> -
> > > > >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't
> > see
> > > > any
> > > > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
> > one
> > > > >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out
> > some
> > > > >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
> > article.
> > > > >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
> > opposition.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
> > > > "Should I
> > > > >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative
> > that's
> > > > >> spreading through the press, about AOO being
> dead/dormant/whatever,
> > or
> > > > how
> > > > >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
> > > this
> > > > >> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Phil
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <
> > luispo@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi Max,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Hi there,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see
> where
> > > > they
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I
> > think
> > > > >>> it's
> > > > >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done
> > about
> > > > it.
> > > > >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its
> version
> > > 5.0
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>> is getting ahead of us.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> thanks for the alert.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change
> the
> > > > entry
> > > > >>> to reflect the facts.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is
> not
> > > > >>> arduous.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Louis
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Max
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org>.
"Moribund" means "dying". It's a goofy word, yes, which means it's an
attention-getting word, which means people will look at it and say, "What
the hell does THAT mean?" and focus on why someone would call AOO that.
Is "dying" more accurate than "dormant" to describe AOO? "Dying" suggests
the project is in decline and will only continue to decline. Does anyone
here think "dying" is more accurate than, say, "Stalled"?
Don
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Phillip Rhodes <mo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "Moribund" is a goofy word that almost nobody uses in conversation, but
> it's probably more accurate than "dormant". I've spent enough time
> goofing around on Wikipedia lately, so, for myself, I'm quite happy to
> leave it as is, until the 4.1.2 release comes out. At that point, I think
> it's clear that it should then be made "Active".
>
> *shrug*
>
>
> Phil
>
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be one
> > this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes <
> motley.crue.fan@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right,
> > > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
> > >
> > > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2
> > > release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't
> > > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
> around
> > > planning to start a revert war over this. :-(
> > >
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Phil,
> > > >
> > > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
> that
> > > > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
> citations.
> > > The
> > > > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
> is
> > in
> > > > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
> > > they'll
> > > > start looking for different office software.
> > > >
> > > > Max
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
> > > >
> > > >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
> > > >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't
> see
> > > any
> > > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
> one
> > > >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out
> some
> > > >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
> article.
> > > >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
> opposition.
> > > >>
> > > >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
> > > "Should I
> > > >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative
> that's
> > > >> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever,
> or
> > > how
> > > >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
> > this
> > > >> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Phil
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <
> luispo@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Max,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Hi there,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where
> > > they
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I
> think
> > > >>> it's
> > > >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done
> about
> > > it.
> > > >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version
> > 5.0
> > > >>> and
> > > >>> is getting ahead of us.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> thanks for the alert.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the
> > > entry
> > > >>> to reflect the facts.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
> > > >>> arduous.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Louis
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Max
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Phillip Rhodes <mo...@gmail.com>.
"Moribund" is a goofy word that almost nobody uses in conversation, but
it's probably more accurate than "dormant". I've spent enough time
goofing around on Wikipedia lately, so, for myself, I'm quite happy to
leave it as is, until the 4.1.2 release comes out. At that point, I think
it's clear that it should then be made "Active".
*shrug*
Phil
This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org>
wrote:
> There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be one
> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes <motley.crue.fan@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right,
> > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
> >
> > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2
> > release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't
> > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
> > planning to start a revert war over this. :-(
> >
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Phil,
> > >
> > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
> > > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations.
> > The
> > > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is
> in
> > > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
> > they'll
> > > start looking for different office software.
> > >
> > > Max
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
> > >
> > >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
> > >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see
> > any
> > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
> > >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
> > >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
> > >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
> > >>
> > >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
> > "Should I
> > >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
> > >>
> > >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
> > >> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or
> > how
> > >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
> this
> > >> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Phil
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Max,
> > >>>
> > >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi there,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where
> > they
> > >>>>
> > >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
> > >>> it's
> > >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about
> > it.
> > >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version
> 5.0
> > >>> and
> > >>> is getting ahead of us.
> > >>>
> > >>> thanks for the alert.
> > >>>
> > >>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the
> > entry
> > >>> to reflect the facts.
> > >>>
> > >>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
> > >>> arduous.
> > >>>
> > >>> Louis
> > >>>
> > >>>> Max
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org>.
There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be one
this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes <mo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right,
> having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
>
> I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2
> release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't
> certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
> planning to start a revert war over this. :-(
>
>
> Phil
>
>
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi Phil,
> >
> > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
> > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations.
> The
> > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is in
> > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
> they'll
> > start looking for different office software.
> >
> > Max
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
> >
> >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
> >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see
> any
> >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
> >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
> >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
> >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
> >>
> >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
> "Should I
> >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> >>
> >>
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
> >>
> >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
> >> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or
> how
> >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this
> >> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
> >>
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>
> >>
> >> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Max,
> >>>
> >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi there,
> >>>>
> >>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where
> they
> >>>>
> >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
> >>> it's
> >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about
> it.
> >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0
> >>> and
> >>> is getting ahead of us.
> >>>
> >>> thanks for the alert.
> >>>
> >>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the
> entry
> >>> to reflect the facts.
> >>>
> >>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
> >>> arduous.
> >>>
> >>> Louis
> >>>
> >>>> Max
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Phillip Rhodes <mo...@gmail.com>.
Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right,
having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2
release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't
certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
planning to start a revert war over this. :-(
Phil
This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations. The
> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is in
> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" they'll
> start looking for different office software.
>
> Max
>
>
>
> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
>
>> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see any
>> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
>>
>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I
>> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
>>
>> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
>> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or how
>> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this
>> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
>>
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Max,
>>>
>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi there,
>>>>
>>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they
>>>>
>>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
>>> it's
>>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it.
>>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0
>>> and
>>> is getting ahead of us.
>>>
>>> thanks for the alert.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry
>>> to reflect the facts.
>>>
>>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
>>> arduous.
>>>
>>> Louis
>>>
>>>> Max
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Donald Whytock <dw...@apache.org>.
Added a {{Failed verification}} tag. That shows as "[[not in citation
given]]".
Don
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations. The
> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is in
> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" they'll
> start looking for different office software.
>
> Max
>
>
>
> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
>
>> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see any
>> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
>>
>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I
>> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
>>
>> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
>> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or how
>> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this
>> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
>>
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Max,
>>>
>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi there,
>>>>
>>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they
>>>>
>>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
>>> it's
>>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it.
>>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0
>>> and
>>> is getting ahead of us.
>>>
>>> thanks for the alert.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry
>>> to reflect the facts.
>>>
>>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
>>> arduous.
>>>
>>> Louis
>>>
>>>> Max
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de>.
Hi Phil,
what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations.
The presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
is in the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is
"dormant" they'll start looking for different office software.
Max
Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see any
> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
>
> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I
> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
>
> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or how
> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this
> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
>
>
> Phil
>
>
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Max,
>>
>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they
>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think it's
>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it.
>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 and
>> is getting ahead of us.
>>
>> thanks for the alert.
>>
>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry
>> to reflect the facts.
>>
>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not arduous.
>>
>> Louis
>>> Max
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Phillip Rhodes <mo...@gmail.com>.
I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see any
supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I
Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or how
LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this
kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-(
Phil
This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Max,
>
> > On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi there,
> >
> > the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they
> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think it's
> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it.
> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 and
> is getting ahead of us.
>
> thanks for the alert.
>
> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry
> to reflect the facts.
>
> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not arduous.
>
> Louis
> >
> > Max
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
Hi Max,
> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think it's definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it. The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 and is getting ahead of us.
thanks for the alert.
Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry to reflect the facts.
So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not arduous.
Louis
>
> Max
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org