On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> 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. > > 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 OpenOffice.org 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? > > 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: http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php I did a spot check and the FUD from over the holidays came from Gerard. Regards, -Rob > 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 [mailto:robw...@apache.org] > Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 15:47 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > 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: https://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/293102313751584768 > > Take a look at the lovely new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice > > 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 OpenOffice.org and > make Apache OpenOffice a separate article - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, > 1 January 2013 (UTC)" > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OpenOffice#Badly_in_need_of_copyediting_and_sensible_revision > > These are some of the same misstatements as in the Lwn.net 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 >
