On Jan 22, 2013, at 7:20 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 1/22/13 3:59 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: >>> 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? >> >> I hope not because AOO is OOO and even if some people don't like this >> fact it is still true. You can compare it with a company XY with lets >> say 100 employees. Even if 50 employees will leave the company the >> company will remain being company XY. >> >> We have all rights, the trademark, etc. we are OpenOffice! If the wiki >> page would change or split it would be the wrong signal. >> >> It is valid to name LibreOffice as well as the former go-oo or Symphony >> as fork from the project. But it is simply wrong to name AOO a fork. >> > > Right. I assume his goal is to: > > 1) Have queries for "OpenOffice" (the more popular search query) go to > a dead OpenOffice.org page > > 2) Have that page then state that OpenOffice.org was discontinued and > the successor is LibreOffice and then link to that page. > > But the error is that OpenOffice.org was never discontinued. The > code, the trademark, the website and the a good portion of the > community came to Apache. It was stilled called "OpenOffice.org" > while at Apache! Remember, we did that for a good 6 months, and all > that while we continued to distribute OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 from our > website. > > So it is entirely false to say that OpenOffice was discontinued. It > was brought over to Apache, and only months later was it renamed. So > this is just a simple product renaming. The ball was never dropped. > There was no loss of continuity.
openoffice.org is still the name of the website and where you can go to download what is now Apache OpenOffice. OpenOffice.org is still a registered trademark now owned by the ASF. Regards, Dave > > -Rob > > >> Just my personal opinion >> >> Juergne >> >>> >>> 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 >>
