There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History of OO page?
Though if there isn't an OO page it might start a redirect war... Don On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org> wrote: >> Don >> Thanks >> Inline... >> >> >> Donald Whytock 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_interest_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. >>> >>> 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 >> >> Thanks Don. I was but you were not, and I wish that Gerard were as aware >> of the importance of neutrality as you and the writers of these policy >> statements seem to have been. >> >> But out of a fair amount of personal experience with Wikipedia, my >> persistent impression is that unless the affected parties fix things on >> their own, the copy stays there, as if it were truth itself, though it >> be something other. >> > > Isn't one of their slogans, "Be bold"? IMHO, it could use a total rewrite. > > The current version can't decide whether it is writing about the > product or the project, and seems to want to tell the history of the > world from the Great Flood for every section. Much more useful for > the typical reader would be a section describing OpenOffice, the > product, in its current version, followed by a description of the > current project, then a section on history, broken into sections, of > "StarDivision", "Sun Stewardship", "Oracle Strewardship" and "Apache > Project". Or do it by release. You can either tell a project history > or a technical/product history in any given section, but trying to do > both at once is a disaster, as the current version demonstrates. > > -Rob > >> louis
