Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMwm1vHzvDWFXfxVb227bjPnbdCo3Xt3u14nskZY5E7Wv-99sg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAP-ksohjhfPPxuuuPj31iDPT1vQP7x__irbrJ6WFq7ZfGLa+8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<006201cdf779$b0a9bd70$11fd3850$@acm.org>
	<CAP-ksohnEv0obKPUZfkrOd3kzj65jEa9rysvtTn+1T-8XvUjmw@mail.gmail.com>
	<50FCB239.3050801@apache.org>
	<CAP-ksohJBkF4F15mHJhi2VF4GoUOsCGo+Rq7YM6Hq9BRJ6haTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<50FCC212.4060207@apache.org>
	<CAMwm1vHzvDWFXfxVb227bjPnbdCo3Xt3u14nskZY5E7Wv-99sg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:27:08 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAP-ksohC_KQy-Pr=i2jhebJSAnz6yvVrLA1Lz7tMrcLhPNhttw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed
 over the holidays
From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Donald Whytock <dwhytock@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
> object to an article or a piece thereof.  This comes out largely as
> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
> argument.
>
> Regarding conflicts of interest:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_inter=
est_guide
>
> This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject
> matter.  Whether offering a competing product and being personally
> committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises
> "personal involvement" is a complicated question.
>
> Regarding opinionated content:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is=
_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
>
> AKA
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX
>
> This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over
> things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles.  As others have
> said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader
> doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and
> value judgments aren't facts.  At best, one can say that such-and-such
> person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value
> judgments.
>


Facts are a funny thing. I could make Albert Einstein look like
deranged psychopath if I picked my facts selectively.  So there must
be more than just facts  Facts support a narrative, and a biased
narrative, even if connected by facts, is still a biased narrative.

The editing here is very dishonest.  For example, there is the
assertion "Most development is now done by IBM employees".  Two
references are given.  But then if you look at the references they
don't actually back up the assertion.  They are pseudo-citations,
decoration.

Similar, hearsay seems to be counted as facts.  For example, the
innuendo in "In June 2011, Oracle contributed the code and trademarks
to the Apache Software Foundation, unilaterally relicensing all
contributions under the Apache License, at the suggestion of IBM (to
whom Oracle had contractual obligations concerning the code)."

But the the citations don't back this up.  One citation is merely
hearsay,  "Oracle, which I'm told has contractual obligations to IBM".
 Does hearsay count as a reliable source? And the second citation
doesn't even remotely support the assertion.

This is all a house of cards he is putting up.  But he is at it again today=
.

-Rob


> Just above that is
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is=
_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
>
> AKA
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM
>
> which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research.
>
> Regarding it getting ugly:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is=
_not_a_battleground
>
> AKA
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND
>
> Regarding dispute resolution:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
>
> Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things
> that should be tried first.  Arbitration is apparently meant for
> situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content
> of the article.
>
> Regarding neutral point-of-view:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
>
> This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure
> for resolving the situation.  The article can be tagged as being part
> of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard.  The
> similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should
> be the very last resort.
>
> Don
>
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Louis Su=C3=A1rez-Potts <louis@apache.o=
rg> wrote:
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> For what it is worth, I too am a Wikipedia editor. Many are, and it's
>>>> > not anything to write home about as something special. But it does m=
ean
>>>> > that presenting a more truthful and honest account of Apache OpenOff=
ice
>>>> > is something we can do.
>>>> >
>>>
>>> So what can you do when you have someone pushing a biased POV?
>>>
>>> His comments here, for example, seem to show that he not only lacks
>>> the facts, but has an axe to grind:
>>>
>>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp
>>>
>>> Doesn't that make someone ineligible to edit an article?
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>
>> In a better land, where notions of fairness are codified and observed as
>> an honour code, and where cheating is out of the question because it
>> would devalue oneself (or one's affiliations), I'd think so; and even
>> Wikipedia might have codified provisions to guard against that sort of
>> thing; I cannot recall. But my understanding is that there is in play a
>> Hayek-style free speech rule, where the solution to biased or otherwise
>> untrue (or untrustworthy) speech is more speech, but from others,
>> including the offended parties.
>>
>> I can't recall but I would be curious if Wikipedia does have a kind of
>> means of safeguarding the impartiality of its editors. As just about
>> anybody can be an editor, and put out the most wonderfully batty stuff
>> (recall Sarah Palin's pages? language coined to give truth to bizarre
>> falsehood, and by her minions, no less, this was done), the remedy is
>> the agonistic one.
>>
>> So, I'd be delighted to help out here, and correct this nonsense. My
>> motivation is by no means adversarial. I do not wish ill of LO or TDF.
>> Gerard seems committed here, as elsewhere (such as his blog on
>> Wikimedia) to a certain notion of activism. That's fine for him. But
>> what it means for us is to fix the errors that we can identify and
>> clarify in the talk sections the logic of our work.
>>
>> Much of that has already been done in this thread by Rob and Dennis.
>>
>> best
>> Louis
>>
>> --
>> Louis Su=C3=A1rez-Potts
>> Apache OpenOffice PMC
>> In Real Life: Community Strategist, Age of Peers
>> @luispo