openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
Date Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:36:29 GMT
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:21 AM, David Gerard <> wrote:
> On 22 January 2013 15:06, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>> I'm not going to do this on your timing or your terms.
> The other apposite Wikipedia policy page:

So I hope you'll assume good faith with any edits you see.

I might have initially assumed good faith from you, but that was lost
when seeing your Google+ comments on Apache OpenOffice, on a post
where you talked about your edits.  (Note that I have had to edit your
comments slightly to avoid violating our policy against vulgarities on
the mailing list)

You wrote:

"OO is dead, LO is alive, switch immediately.

The article sorta gets that across - read the history and LibreOffice
sections. Apache OpenOffice is a moribund shell, which will live
precisely as long as IBM is interested in keeping it alive. And
they've shown not all that much interest of late, either."


"It was dead from neglect; Oracle donated the corpse to Apache as part
of their (details unrevealed) 2008 deal with IBM, with a side order of
f*ck-you to LO thrown in for free."


"The talk page discussion on naming of the article is interesting.
Basically, once AOO 4.0 is out (if it ever comes out - IBM doesn't
seem to have merged their Symphony code as yet, and it was supposed to
be released next month) there'll be a serious proposal to make AOO a
separate article and keep this one as being about the
that existed from 2000 to 2011.

If/when AOO 4.0 comes out with the horrible Symphony interface, expect
millions of previously-happy OOo users to absolutely sh*t. It'll be
the Windows 8 of office suites."

So this does not suggest "good faith".  In fact, it suggests a
profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as well
as having an axe to grind.  These comments, plus your mendacious
editing in the article suggests you are using Wikipedia to push a
point of view.


> (Compare: )
>> A look at the article history [1] shows that as most of us were
>> enjoying conviviality with friends and family, you were spending your
>> Christmas and New Year's holidays making hundreds of edits to the
>> OpenOffice article.  This suggests to me a more than slightly
>> obsessive nature.
> I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004, so I think that can be
> reasonably assumed. (That or boredom.)
>>  So the prudent course would be to simply wait for
>> you to find another axe to grind, another crusade, another target for
>> your attentios.  Then, when you are immersed in some other grand
>> mission, calmer heads will prevail, and I would not be surprised if
>> the article were then totally rewritten.
> That would be pretty much what I did. The page was a neglected
> disaster, with things like formatting errors that had been there
> months. I looked through the edit history since 2004, and it had never
> at any time been a coherently-written page.
> Much as with AOO, Wikipedia tends to be a do-ocracy; I'm sure you've
> long tired of people who only complain when you finally do something
> and they don't like the way you did it.
> At present IMO the page is mediocre and slightly coherent, which is at
> least better than it was before.
> A good place to raise issues with the article is its talk page:
> Although Rob certainly
> may have other things to do with his time, others here may have a
> moment to raise issues.
> - d.
> [1]

View raw message