openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays
Date Mon, 21 Jan 2013 03:23:49 GMT
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> <> wrote:
>>> I started looking through this.  There probably needs to be a flag,
>>> because there are inappropriate sources and this is an opinion
>>> piece in the ways Rob has noticed.
> Agreed. My thanks to you and Rob. How very unpleasant.
>>> While browsing,
>>> In the prelude, the Apache License is described as among the weak
>>> copyleft licenses. It is not, and weak copyleft is not allowed in
>>> Apache source code either.  (LGPL is the archetypical weak
>>> copyleft.)  The well-known term is "reciprocal," and ALv2 is part
>>> of the same family as the modern BSD, the MIT license, etc.
>>> The sidebar on license is a muddle and there probably needs to be a
>>> bright line between as delivered prior to the
>>> contribution to Apache and Apache OpenOffice.  I see this is
>>> discussed on the Talk:OpenOffice page.  Also, the chronological
>>> information is a jumble throughout the article.
>>> I don't believe the statement about enterprise desktop penetration
>>> either.
>>> If simple events were reported without supposing reasons for them
>>> (i.e., only Oracle knows what led to the SGA to Apache, but the
>>> fact that it happened is incontrovertible), this article would be
>>> much cleaner.  That's the case for numerous statements which should
>>> be reduced to the essential facts and not invented reasons.  I
>>> suppose it is fair to say where there was controversy, but there
>>> are too many unsupported conclusions.
>>> I agree that the "In June 2011 ..." paragraph is garbage.
>>> The Governance thing is also strange.  Was an "OpenOffice
>>> Foundation" ever established?
> No.
> There were several nonprofit funding organizations acting as banks for
>, and these had local "foundation" status, in at least one
> instance (Germany), but they were not *the* "OpenOffice Foundation" (let
> alone the Foundation). That never existed, though it was
> discussed. However, there was no compelling point, given the nature of
> the project and the uncertain benefits a foundation would provide. (What
> a foundation in this case would do seems vague but most people would
> probably imagine it providing not just funds and the ability to obtain
> them but also code governance, plus marketing resources.)
>>> After all that introductory strangeness, there is a great deal of
>>> technical detail.  Under "Development" the Security section is
>>> simply strange. (LibreOffice has never bundled Java, AFAIK.)  The
>>> full functionality requirement is not explained but it is
>>> apparently from a phrase in the AOO install instructions. That
>>> should be remedied if it is not about OpenOffice functionality but
>>> a dependency for extensions and database providers.
>>> The Talk:OpenOffice page is interesting.
>>> The article requires considerable curation to be in
>>> Wikipedia-acceptable encyclopedic form.
>>> David Gerard seems to be well-intended in his presence on the
>>> Talk:OpenOffice page, despite his excessive speculation and
>>> prognostication on the main page.  I am not certain that is all his
>>> doing.
>> I recommend using Wikiblame to find the editor who entered the
>> portions you have concerns with:
>> I did a spot check and the FUD from over the holidays came from
>> Gerard.
>> Regards,
>> -Rob
> For what it is worth, I too am a Wikipedia editor. Many are, and it's
> not anything to write home about as something special. But it does mean
> that presenting a more truthful and honest account of Apache OpenOffice
> is something we can do.

So what can you do when you have someone pushing a biased POV?

His comments here, for example, seem to show that he not only lacks
the facts, but has an axe to grind:

Doesn't that make someone ineligible to edit an article?


> thanks
> Louis
>>> Contributions from IBM employees are significant, IBMers being the
>>> largest contingent of paid developers.  But the article overstates
>>> that, as if everything else is miniscule.
>>> All of the tipping toward LibreOffice is also meaningless and
>>> doesn't belong in this article anyhow.  His tweeting that he's like
>>> more eyes on the article seems benign to me. I don't see "bragging"
>>> and certainly not about FUD.
>>> I do agree that there is far too much information about
>>> LibreOffice, since LibreOffice has its own article.  Many of the
>>> declarations about that and how it came about, who has what
>>> developers, etc., is not needed in this article.  The OpenOffice
>>> page is not appropriate for LibreOffice posturing/FUD.
>>> The OpenOffice article probably needs one of those notices that it
>>> is not up to standard, etc.
>>> - Dennis
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir
>>> [] Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 15:47
>>> To: Subject: In case you missed it: The
>>> OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays
>>> I noticed David Gerard bragging about this on Twitter to Roy
>>> Schestowitz:
>>> Take a look at the lovely new page:
>>> Some choice bits of distortion:
>>> [ ... ]
>>> Gerard is also pushing for the page to declare LO as the successor
>>> to OpenOffice:
>>> "LO as successor
>>> Per the naming discussion above - AOO has the trademark, but
>>> that's about all. There's about ten press sources in the article
>>> already to support a statement that OOo was succeeded by LO, and
>>> that AOO is a rump, a moribund shell; and only IBM sources
>>> seriously pretending AOO is a live project - as far as I can see
>>> looking through AOO commits, IBM hasn't even committed the Symphony
>>> code and it's supposed to come out in February. We'll see with AOO
>>> 4.0, but if it looks anything like Symphony (which I've used at
>>> work, and it's horrible), that will be the day old OOo users notice
>>> something has gone terribly wrong and it'll be appropriate to make
>>> this article all about and make Apache OpenOffice a
>>> separate article - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2013
>>> (UTC)"
> These are some of the same misstatements as in the article
>>> coming out later this week, btw.
>>> Is that what they are stooping to now?  Are these the words of a
>>> neutral Wikipedia editor?  Is that how they work?  It seems rather
>>> odd to me for a notable detractor of Apache OpenOffice to have free
>>> hand in a revisionist rewrite of this Wikipedia page.  Quite odd.
>>> I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
>>> -Rob
> --
> Louis Suárez-Potts
> Apache OpenOffice PMC
> In Real Life: Community Strategist, Age of Peers
> @luispo

View raw message