Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Phillip Rhodes wrote: All of the above said, maybe we should drop this whole discussion Well, it remains the fact that "OpenOffice moribund" is false. The primary sources cited in the article (all of which are clearly misinterpreted) are: - A message from Juergen saying that he won't be Release Manager for 4.1.2; release managers are appointed per-release, so this is not relevant to the health of the project (actually Juergen's mail is very well-written, and very hard to misinterpret if one read carefully) - A message from Kay saying that we had not found a new volunteer for Release Manager yet; this is obsolete as we have now had a Release Manager (me) for several weeks, but no account is given of this. - My January 2015 report to Board. I'm sure I never wrote that OpenOffice is moribund or anything similar. I announced my resignation in that report, but I resigned as I had been 2 years in the role, just like Dennis plans to stay one year and then resign. shipping code is more important than Wikipedia anyway, right? Yes, but it is also important that users and potential users are not scared away. So, what can I do to help with 4.1.2? I like your approach! Are you looking for coder or non-coder tasks? I suggest that you seek inspiration at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2 but if you need more details just open a "What can I do to help with 4.1.2?" discussion and I'll be happy to give more details. In the meantime I could go to Wikipedia, write that Johnny Depp is moribund and provide as source a blog post by a fan who complains that she hasn't seen Johnny as handsome as usual in his last public appearance... but I'll spend my time on more productive activities instead. I understand Dennis' point that discussing actions of one individual on Wikipedia is off-topic on this list, but still I wanted to provide some feedback on how messages sent to this list are misused. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
On 17/09/15 15:30, Phillip Rhodes wrote: > This is about Wikipedia being accurate, and the simple truth is, Wikipedia is not about accuracy, nor is it about truth. What it is about, is whether or not the delusions and hallucinations of the editors can be supported by an appeal to an external authority. jonathon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
All of the above said, maybe we should drop this whole discussion, and let David have his way, and focus on getting a 4.1.2 release out the door. That should settle the issue, and shipping code is more important than Wikipedia anyway, right? So, what can I do to help with 4.1.2? Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Phillip Rhodes wrote: > David, this has nothing to do with marketing, and I honestly feel like you > are the one acting in bad faith here. This is about Wikipedia being > accurate, and the simple truth is, on a question like "what's the status of > AOO" none of your "sources" are more accurate than a primary source like > the internal project timeline / roadmap that I cited. > > If you have a grudge against AOO for some reason that's fine, I don't give > a flying fuck and I doubt anybody else does either. But Wikipedia is not > the place for you to further some personal vendetta. > > > Phil > > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:25 AM, David Gerard wrote: > >> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:27:53 GMT, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> > Last word, in case the inference is unclear. We're dealing with a >> > sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia. Correcting erroneous >> > information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be achieved via an >> > edit war. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Any progress would >> > only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict and his bad will >> > (not hard to do), and escalating it within the the formal Wikipedia >> > appeals process, patiently dealing with the ministerial types to whom >> > bureaucratic process is dear. Since Dennis does not want to discuss >> > this on the list, feel free to contact me offline if anyone wishes to >> > discuss this further. >> >> >> When you're putting together a plan for marketing efforts concerning a >> Wikipedia article, it may help if you don't leave prima facie evidence >> of your coordinated effort on a public mailing list. >> >> Editing with a conflict of interest is not specifically disallowed by >> Wikipedia policies, but ideally it should be avoided. Note example on >> the talk page, where a list participant properly noted his involvement >> when this was brought to his attention. >> >> Relevant guideline: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest >> >> You should note also that a "conflict of interest" does not mean a >> differing opinion, and also that improperly founded accusations of COI >> are held to constitute personal attacks and should ideally be avoided. >> >> There are those (e.g. Jimmy Wales) who believe public relations >> efforts on Wikipedia should work to the "bright line" standard, where >> you don't go near the article at all, and certainly don't try to >> coordinate an off-site attack on a Wikipedia contributor because you >> believe they are not helping your marketing. This is something the >> project, and the Foundation in general, should probably consider. >> >> Cheers! >> >> >> - d. >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> >
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
David, this has nothing to do with marketing, and I honestly feel like you are the one acting in bad faith here. This is about Wikipedia being accurate, and the simple truth is, on a question like "what's the status of AOO" none of your "sources" are more accurate than a primary source like the internal project timeline / roadmap that I cited. If you have a grudge against AOO for some reason that's fine, I don't give a flying fuck and I doubt anybody else does either. But Wikipedia is not the place for you to further some personal vendetta. Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:25 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:27:53 GMT, Rob Weir wrote: > > > Last word, in case the inference is unclear. We're dealing with a > > sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia. Correcting erroneous > > information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be achieved via an > > edit war. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Any progress would > > only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict and his bad will > > (not hard to do), and escalating it within the the formal Wikipedia > > appeals process, patiently dealing with the ministerial types to whom > > bureaucratic process is dear. Since Dennis does not want to discuss > > this on the list, feel free to contact me offline if anyone wishes to > > discuss this further. > > > When you're putting together a plan for marketing efforts concerning a > Wikipedia article, it may help if you don't leave prima facie evidence > of your coordinated effort on a public mailing list. > > Editing with a conflict of interest is not specifically disallowed by > Wikipedia policies, but ideally it should be avoided. Note example on > the talk page, where a list participant properly noted his involvement > when this was brought to his attention. > > Relevant guideline: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest > > You should note also that a "conflict of interest" does not mean a > differing opinion, and also that improperly founded accusations of COI > are held to constitute personal attacks and should ideally be avoided. > > There are those (e.g. Jimmy Wales) who believe public relations > efforts on Wikipedia should work to the "bright line" standard, where > you don't go near the article at all, and certainly don't try to > coordinate an off-site attack on a Wikipedia contributor because you > believe they are not helping your marketing. This is something the > project, and the Foundation in general, should probably consider. > > Cheers! > > > - d. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:25 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:27:53 GMT, Rob Weir wrote: > >> Last word, in case the inference is unclear. We're dealing with a >> sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia. Correcting erroneous >> information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be achieved via an >> edit war. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Any progress would >> only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict and his bad will >> (not hard to do), and escalating it within the the formal Wikipedia >> appeals process, patiently dealing with the ministerial types to whom >> bureaucratic process is dear. Since Dennis does not want to discuss >> this on the list, feel free to contact me offline if anyone wishes to >> discuss this further. > > > When you're putting together a plan for marketing efforts concerning a > Wikipedia article, it may help if you don't leave prima facie evidence > of your coordinated effort on a public mailing list. > > Editing with a conflict of interest is not specifically disallowed by > Wikipedia policies, but ideally it should be avoided. Note example on > the talk page, where a list participant properly noted his involvement > when this was brought to his attention. > > Relevant guideline: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest > > You should note also that a "conflict of interest" does not mean a > differing opinion, and also that improperly founded accusations of COI > are held to constitute personal attacks and should ideally be avoided. > > There are those (e.g. Jimmy Wales) who believe public relations > efforts on Wikipedia should work to the "bright line" standard, where > you don't go near the article at all, and certainly don't try to > coordinate an off-site attack on a Wikipedia contributor because you > believe they are not helping your marketing. This is something the > project, and the Foundation in general, should probably consider. > You are not reading very well today, David. I'm not talking about, "a plan for marketing efforts concerning a Wikipedia article." I'm talking about an effort to bring together evidence of your conflict of interest as well as your tendentious editing (much of which I have already collected over the past few years) and use that to lodge an appeal, via official and public channels, to get a topic ban imposed on you on Wikipedia articles relevant to this infringement. Cheers. -Rob > Cheers! > > > - d. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:27:53 GMT, Rob Weir wrote: > Last word, in case the inference is unclear. We're dealing with a > sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia. Correcting erroneous > information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be achieved via an > edit war. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Any progress would > only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict and his bad will > (not hard to do), and escalating it within the the formal Wikipedia > appeals process, patiently dealing with the ministerial types to whom > bureaucratic process is dear. Since Dennis does not want to discuss > this on the list, feel free to contact me offline if anyone wishes to > discuss this further. When you're putting together a plan for marketing efforts concerning a Wikipedia article, it may help if you don't leave prima facie evidence of your coordinated effort on a public mailing list. Editing with a conflict of interest is not specifically disallowed by Wikipedia policies, but ideally it should be avoided. Note example on the talk page, where a list participant properly noted his involvement when this was brought to his attention. Relevant guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest You should note also that a "conflict of interest" does not mean a differing opinion, and also that improperly founded accusations of COI are held to constitute personal attacks and should ideally be avoided. There are those (e.g. Jimmy Wales) who believe public relations efforts on Wikipedia should work to the "bright line" standard, where you don't go near the article at all, and certainly don't try to coordinate an off-site attack on a Wikipedia contributor because you believe they are not helping your marketing. This is something the project, and the Foundation in general, should probably consider. Cheers! - d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
On 09/16/2015 02:32 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: > >> On 16 Sep 15, at 17:27, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton >>> wrote: Time, gentlemen, time. We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread go night-night. Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and AOO business. We have our own business to attend to. If folks want to keep fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on dev@. >>> >>> Ad hominem? Excuse me? The web page has a record of Wikipedia >>> abuses attributed to Mr. Gerard and cites several cases where he >>> was sanction for it. One can talk about his actions without >>> slurring his person, especially when such acts are directly >>> relevant to the topic of this thread. >>> >> >> Last word, in case the inference is unclear. We're dealing with >> a sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia. Correcting >> erroneous information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be >> achieved via an edit war. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Any >> progress would only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict >> and his bad will (not hard to do), and escalating it within the >> the formal Wikipedia appeals process, patiently dealing with the >> ministerial types to whom bureaucratic process is dear. Since >> Dennis does not want to discuss this on the list, feel free to >> contact me offline if anyone wishes to discuss this further. >> >> -Rob I love "serial infringer". :) >> > > But Dennis does not control the lists, just as King Canute did not > control the waves. :-/ > > Rob, your points are good; I was being too facetious, stunned by the > attitude of Mr Gerard. Clearly, unless we are reading him wrongly, he > would seem more likely to stick to his position, regardless of reason > and logic, than accept the ignominy of somebody else being right. > > louis > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > -- MzK “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” --Lao Tzu - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
> On 16 Sep 15, at 17:27, Rob Weir wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton >> wrote: >>> Time, gentlemen, time. >>> >>> We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread >>> go night-night. >>> >>> Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and >>> AOO business. We have our own business to attend to. If folks want to >>> keep fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on >>> dev@. >>> >> >> Ad hominem? Excuse me? The web page has a record of Wikipedia >> abuses attributed to Mr. Gerard and cites several cases where he was >> sanction for it. One can talk about his actions without slurring his >> person, especially when such acts are directly relevant to the topic >> of this thread. >> > > Last word, in case the inference is unclear. We're dealing with a > sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia. Correcting erroneous > information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be achieved via an > edit war. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Any progress would > only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict and his bad will > (not hard to do), and escalating it within the the formal Wikipedia > appeals process, patiently dealing with the ministerial types to whom > bureaucratic process is dear. Since Dennis does not want to discuss > this on the list, feel free to contact me offline if anyone wishes to > discuss this further. > > -Rob > But Dennis does not control the lists, just as King Canute did not control the waves. :-/ Rob, your points are good; I was being too facetious, stunned by the attitude of Mr Gerard. Clearly, unless we are reading him wrongly, he would seem more likely to stick to his position, regardless of reason and logic, than accept the ignominy of somebody else being right. louis - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >> Time, gentlemen, time. >> >> We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread >> go night-night. >> >> Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and >> AOO business. We have our own business to attend to. If folks want to keep >> fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on dev@. >> > > Ad hominem? Excuse me? The web page has a record of Wikipedia > abuses attributed to Mr. Gerard and cites several cases where he was > sanction for it. One can talk about his actions without slurring his > person, especially when such acts are directly relevant to the topic > of this thread. > Last word, in case the inference is unclear. We're dealing with a sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia. Correcting erroneous information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be achieved via an edit war. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Any progress would only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict and his bad will (not hard to do), and escalating it within the the formal Wikipedia appeals process, patiently dealing with the ministerial types to whom bureaucratic process is dear. Since Dennis does not want to discuss this on the list, feel free to contact me offline if anyone wishes to discuss this further. -Rob > -Rob > >> - Dennis >> >> [ ... ] >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Time, gentlemen, time. > > We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread go > night-night. > > Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and AOO > business. We have our own business to attend to. If folks want to keep > fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on dev@. > Ad hominem? Excuse me? The web page has a record of Wikipedia abuses attributed to Mr. Gerard and cites several cases where he was sanction for it. One can talk about his actions without slurring his person, especially when such acts are directly relevant to the topic of this thread. -Rob > - Dennis > > [ ... ] > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
> On 16 Sep 15, at 15:38, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > > Time, gentlemen, time. > > We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread go > night-night. > > Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and AOO > business. We have our own business to attend to. If folks want to keep > fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on dev@. > > - Dennis > > [ … ] ?? I don’t think this is a) a gentleman kind of thing, if only for gender reasons; b) I think I rather like Mr G. and hardly deem this to be an ad hominem event. If others are like me, once you read over Mr G’s bio, a *lot* gets forgiven. He’s a card, a character, a source of necessary comic inversion. No one is flaming anyone here and we are actually kind of having fun. Louis > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Time, gentlemen, time. We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread go night-night. Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and AOO business. We have our own business to attend to. If folks want to keep fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on dev@. - Dennis [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
> On 16 Sep 15, at 14:31, Max Merbald wrote: > > According to the links on that page it's him. Fantastic. One hopes he’s reading this. Louis PS in case others didn’t bother to follow up on Rob’s link, the title (self-appointed, I assume) held by Mr Gerard is enough to earn his keep, I’m sure. > > > > Am 16.09.2015 um 19:58 schrieb Louis Suárez-Potts: >>> On 16 Sep 15, at 13:56, Rob Weir wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:52 PM, John D'Orazio >>> wrote: Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence the corrections to the infobox information). I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the Apache license? >>> Is this the same David Gerard discussed here? >>> >>> https://encyclopediadramatica.se/David_Gerard >>> >> Oh, I hope so! >> >> Louis >> >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
According to the links on that page it's him. Am 16.09.2015 um 19:58 schrieb Louis Suárez-Potts: On 16 Sep 15, at 13:56, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:52 PM, John D'Orazio wrote: Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence the corrections to the infobox information). I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the Apache license? Is this the same David Gerard discussed here? https://encyclopediadramatica.se/David_Gerard Oh, I hope so! Louis - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
> On 16 Sep 15, at 13:56, Rob Weir wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:52 PM, John D'Orazio > wrote: >> Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He >> still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of >> discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the >> "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate >> derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk >> page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially >> in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of >> that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and >> I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be >> cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that >> reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache >> OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article ( >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big >> deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions >> about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence >> the corrections to the infobox information). >> I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not >> be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the >> Apache license? >> > > Is this the same David Gerard discussed here? > > https://encyclopediadramatica.se/David_Gerard > Oh, I hope so! Louis - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:52 PM, John D'Orazio wrote: > Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He > still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of > discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the > "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate > derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk > page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially > in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of > that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and > I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be > cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that > reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache > OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big > deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions > about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence > the corrections to the infobox information). > I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not > be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the > Apache license? > Is this the same David Gerard discussed here? https://encyclopediadramatica.se/David_Gerard > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > >> >> >> On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote: >> > I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to >> > three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia >> > moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever... >> >> Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be >> editing wars forever! :) >> >> > >> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel < >> matthias.sei...@hamburg.de >> >> wrote: >> > >> >> https://twitter.com/davidgerard >> >> >> >> >> >> Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald: >> >> >> >>> I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants >> >>> to damage OpenOffice? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock: >> >>> >> There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be >> one >> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund". >> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes >> >> wrote: >> >> Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right, >> > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading. >> > >> > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the >> 4.1.2 >> > release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't >> > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting >> around >> > planning to start a revert war over this. :-( >> > >> > >> > Phil >> > >> > >> > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald >> > wrote: >> > >> > Hi Phil, >> >> >> >> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says >> that >> >> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the >> citations. >> >> >> > The >> > >> >> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info >> >> is in >> >> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" >> >> >> > they'll >> > >> >> start looking for different office software. >> >> >> >> Max >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: >> >> >> >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - >> >>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't >> see >> >>> >> >> any >> > >> >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although >> one >> >>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out >> some >> >>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the >> article. >> >>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face >> opposition. >> >>> >> >>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled >> >>> >> >> "Should I >> > >> >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office". >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office >> > >> > I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's >> >>> spreading through the press, about AOO being >> dead/dormant/whatever, or >> >>> >> >> how >> > >> >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see >> >
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
By golly you are right, I didn't notice that mr. David Gerard has really turned this into a personal crusade of his. On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote: > On 2015-09-15, 5:17 PM John D'Orazio wrote: > >> Well actually the case of the wikipedia article is different, because the >> adjective that is used for the project whether "dormant" or "moribund" is >> not in fact actually being referred to the Apache project but to the >> pre-Apache project. >> > > No. It is Apache OpenOffice that is being called "moribund". > See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice > > The Apache project is indicated as being a derivative >> project, and has been given a separate page as such. T >> > > No. The Apache OpenOffice page states: > "Apache OpenOffice (AOO) is an open-source office productivity software > suite. It is a successor project of OpenOffice.org " > > he issue there is >> that one or two users (who happen to also be moderators) are very set on >> considering the Apache project a different project, and not the >> "successor" >> of the Oracle project. So it's actually the Oracle project that is being >> called dormant. >> > > Wrong. Check the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice > > -- > _ > > Larry I. Gusaas > Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada > Website: http://larry-gusaas.com > "An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind > theirs." - Edgard Varese > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
On 2015-09-15, 5:17 PM John D'Orazio wrote: Well actually the case of the wikipedia article is different, because the adjective that is used for the project whether "dormant" or "moribund" is not in fact actually being referred to the Apache project but to the pre-Apache project. No. It is Apache OpenOffice that is being called "moribund". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice The Apache project is indicated as being a derivative project, and has been given a separate page as such. T No. The Apache OpenOffice page states: "Apache OpenOffice (AOO) is an open-source office productivity software suite. It is a successor project of OpenOffice.org " he issue there is that one or two users (who happen to also be moderators) are very set on considering the Apache project a different project, and not the "successor" of the Oracle project. So it's actually the Oracle project that is being called dormant. Wrong. Check the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com "An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Well actually the case of the wikipedia article is different, because the adjective that is used for the project whether "dormant" or "moribund" is not in fact actually being referred to the Apache project but to the pre-Apache project. The Apache project is indicated as being a derivative project, and has been given a separate page as such. The issue there is that one or two users (who happen to also be moderators) are very set on considering the Apache project a different project, and not the "successor" of the Oracle project. So it's actually the Oracle project that is being called dormant. I do believe that it is a bit confusing for any normal user that goes to read wikipedia, a lot of simple users don't even realize the history behind this (I myself didn't until just recently, as I've been reading up on the evolution of the project). But it's fairly useless trying to clear it up any, as there are a couple users who are very intent on keeping everything as is, any changes will spark debate (as has already happened). It's probably not worth it... On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Phillip Rhodes wrote: > Fair enough. That is the dictionary definition. I was thinking of how > it's used colloquially, which seems > to be more like a synonym for "stagnant." I'd be OK with either > "stagnant" or "stalled", if the change > can be made without someone immediately reverting it. I probably won't do > it myself since I quickly tire > of dicking around with wikipedia edit wars, but I fully support anybody who > does. > > > Phil > > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Donald Whytock > wrote: > > > "Moribund" means "dying". It's a goofy word, yes, which means it's an > > attention-getting word, which means people will look at it and say, "What > > the hell does THAT mean?" and focus on why someone would call AOO that. > > > > Is "dying" more accurate than "dormant" to describe AOO? "Dying" > suggests > > the project is in decline and will only continue to decline. Does anyone > > here think "dying" is more accurate than, say, "Stalled"? > > > > Don > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Phillip Rhodes < > motley.crue@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > "Moribund" is a goofy word that almost nobody uses in conversation, but > > > it's probably more accurate than "dormant". I've spent enough time > > > goofing around on Wikipedia lately, so, for myself, I'm quite happy to > > > leave it as is, until the 4.1.2 release comes out. At that point, I > > think > > > it's clear that it should then be made "Active". > > > > > > *shrug* > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Donald Whytock > > > wrote: > > > > > > > There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be > > one > > > > this week too...someone changed it to "moribund". > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes < > > > motley.crue@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're > right, > > > > > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading. > > > > > > > > > > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the > > 4.1.2 > > > > > release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there > aren't > > > > > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting > > > around > > > > > planning to start a revert war over this. :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > > > > > > > > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it > says > > > that > > > > > > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the > > > citations. > > > > > The > > > > > > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed > info > > > is > > > > in > > > > > > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is > "dormant" > > > > > they'll > > > > > > start looking for different office software. > > > > > > > > > > > > Max > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: > > > > > > > > > > > >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything > that's > > - > > > > > >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I > don't > > > see > > > > > any > > > > > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, > although > > > one > > > > > >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call > out > > > some > > > > > >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the > > > article. > > > > > >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face > > > opposition. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> In a related vein, The Guardian re
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Fair enough. That is the dictionary definition. I was thinking of how it's used colloquially, which seems to be more like a synonym for "stagnant." I'd be OK with either "stagnant" or "stalled", if the change can be made without someone immediately reverting it. I probably won't do it myself since I quickly tire of dicking around with wikipedia edit wars, but I fully support anybody who does. Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: > "Moribund" means "dying". It's a goofy word, yes, which means it's an > attention-getting word, which means people will look at it and say, "What > the hell does THAT mean?" and focus on why someone would call AOO that. > > Is "dying" more accurate than "dormant" to describe AOO? "Dying" suggests > the project is in decline and will only continue to decline. Does anyone > here think "dying" is more accurate than, say, "Stalled"? > > Don > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Phillip Rhodes > > wrote: > > > "Moribund" is a goofy word that almost nobody uses in conversation, but > > it's probably more accurate than "dormant". I've spent enough time > > goofing around on Wikipedia lately, so, for myself, I'm quite happy to > > leave it as is, until the 4.1.2 release comes out. At that point, I > think > > it's clear that it should then be made "Active". > > > > *shrug* > > > > > > Phil > > > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Donald Whytock > > wrote: > > > > > There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be > one > > > this week too...someone changed it to "moribund". > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes < > > motley.crue@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right, > > > > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading. > > > > > > > > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the > 4.1.2 > > > > release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't > > > > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting > > around > > > > planning to start a revert war over this. :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > > > > > > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says > > that > > > > > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the > > citations. > > > > The > > > > > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info > > is > > > in > > > > > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" > > > > they'll > > > > > start looking for different office software. > > > > > > > > > > Max > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: > > > > > > > > > >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's > - > > > > >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't > > see > > > > any > > > > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although > > one > > > > >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out > > some > > > > >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the > > article. > > > > >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face > > opposition. > > > > >> > > > > >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled > > > > "Should I > > > > >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office". > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office > > > > >> > > > > >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative > > that's > > > > >> spreading through the press, about AOO being > dead/dormant/whatever, > > or > > > > how > > > > >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see > > > this > > > > >> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-( > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Phil > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts < > > lui...@gmail.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Hi Max, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi there, > > > > > > > > the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see > where > > > > they > > > > > > > > >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I > > think > > > > >>> it's > > > > >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done > > about > > > > it. > > > > >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its > version > > >
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
"Moribund" means "dying". It's a goofy word, yes, which means it's an attention-getting word, which means people will look at it and say, "What the hell does THAT mean?" and focus on why someone would call AOO that. Is "dying" more accurate than "dormant" to describe AOO? "Dying" suggests the project is in decline and will only continue to decline. Does anyone here think "dying" is more accurate than, say, "Stalled"? Don On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Phillip Rhodes wrote: > "Moribund" is a goofy word that almost nobody uses in conversation, but > it's probably more accurate than "dormant". I've spent enough time > goofing around on Wikipedia lately, so, for myself, I'm quite happy to > leave it as is, until the 4.1.2 release comes out. At that point, I think > it's clear that it should then be made "Active". > > *shrug* > > > Phil > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Donald Whytock > wrote: > > > There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be one > > this week too...someone changed it to "moribund". > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes < > motley.crue@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right, > > > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading. > > > > > > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2 > > > release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't > > > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting > around > > > planning to start a revert war over this. :-( > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > > > > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says > that > > > > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the > citations. > > > The > > > > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info > is > > in > > > > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" > > > they'll > > > > start looking for different office software. > > > > > > > > Max > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: > > > > > > > >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - > > > >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't > see > > > any > > > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although > one > > > >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out > some > > > >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the > article. > > > >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face > opposition. > > > >> > > > >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled > > > "Should I > > > >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office". > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office > > > >> > > > >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative > that's > > > >> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, > or > > > how > > > >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see > > this > > > >> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-( > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Phil > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts < > lui...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi Max, > > > >>> > > > >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald wrote: > > > > > > Hi there, > > > > > > the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where > > > they > > > > > > >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I > think > > > >>> it's > > > >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done > about > > > it. > > > >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version > > 5.0 > > > >>> and > > > >>> is getting ahead of us. > > > >>> > > > >>> thanks for the alert. > > > >>> > > > >>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the > > > entry > > > >>> to reflect the facts. > > > >>> > > > >>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not > > > >>> arduous. > > > >>> > > > >>> Louis > > > >>> > > > Max > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > > > > > > - > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apa
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
"Moribund" is a goofy word that almost nobody uses in conversation, but it's probably more accurate than "dormant". I've spent enough time goofing around on Wikipedia lately, so, for myself, I'm quite happy to leave it as is, until the 4.1.2 release comes out. At that point, I think it's clear that it should then be made "Active". *shrug* Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Donald Whytock wrote: > There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be one > this week too...someone changed it to "moribund". > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes > > wrote: > > > Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right, > > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading. > > > > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2 > > release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't > > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around > > planning to start a revert war over this. :-( > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald > wrote: > > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that > > > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations. > > The > > > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is > in > > > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" > > they'll > > > start looking for different office software. > > > > > > Max > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: > > > > > >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - > > >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see > > any > > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one > > >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some > > >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article. > > >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition. > > >> > > >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled > > "Should I > > >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office". > > >> > > >> > > > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office > > >> > > >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's > > >> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or > > how > > >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see > this > > >> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-( > > >> > > >> > > >> Phil > > >> > > >> > > >> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > > >> > > >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Max, > > >>> > > >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald wrote: > > > > Hi there, > > > > the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where > > they > > > > >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think > > >>> it's > > >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about > > it. > > >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version > 5.0 > > >>> and > > >>> is getting ahead of us. > > >>> > > >>> thanks for the alert. > > >>> > > >>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the > > entry > > >>> to reflect the facts. > > >>> > > >>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not > > >>> arduous. > > >>> > > >>> Louis > > >>> > > Max > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > > > - > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > > > > > > >
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
The best case we can make is a new release. So, even for this little change it's good to make progress with 4.1.2. PS: I've my own opinion about Wikipedia and it's data quality. Maybe you can guess in what direction is could go. Marcus Am 09/15/2015 12:14 AM, schrieb John D'Orazio: Yes I just received a message from him on my Wikipedia page, after he reverted my edits twice. Looking at his own Wikipedia talk page and on the OpenOffice talk page, more than one Wikipedia user has confronted him about having COI as regards the OpenOffice project. He answers that he has no issues or COI and that he is completely external. And guess what, he participates in Wikipedia as a "resolver of COI". Sounds to me like someone who becomes a police officer so as not to get arrested... On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Matthias Seidel< matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> wrote: Well, he did it again... That is what he wrote to me on google+: "And don't do what the previous AOO editor did and inexplicably fail to reveal their COI." Am 14.09.2015 um 22:52 schrieb John D'Orazio: Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence the corrections to the infobox information). I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the Apache license? On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote: I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever... Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be editing wars forever! :) On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel< matthias.sei...@hamburg.de wrote: https://twitter.com/davidgerard Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald: I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants to damage OpenOffice? Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock: There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be one this week too...someone changed it to "moribund". On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes wrote: Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right, having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading. I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2 release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around planning to start a revert war over this. :-( Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald wrote: Hi Phil, what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations. The presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is in the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" they'll start looking for different office software. Max Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see any supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article. Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition. In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office". http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office I don't know if there's any easy wa
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Yes I just received a message from him on my Wikipedia page, after he reverted my edits twice. Looking at his own Wikipedia talk page and on the OpenOffice talk page, more than one Wikipedia user has confronted him about having COI as regards the OpenOffice project. He answers that he has no issues or COI and that he is completely external. And guess what, he participates in Wikipedia as a "resolver of COI". Sounds to me like someone who becomes a police officer so as not to get arrested... On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Matthias Seidel < matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> wrote: > Well, he did it again... > > That is what he wrote to me on google+: > > "And don't do what the previous AOO editor did and inexplicably fail to > reveal their COI." > > > > Am 14.09.2015 um 22:52 schrieb John D'Orazio: > >> Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He >> still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of >> discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the >> "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate >> derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk >> page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially >> in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of >> that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage >> and >> I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to >> be >> cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that >> reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache >> OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article ( >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big >> deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions >> about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence >> the corrections to the infobox information). >> I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not >> be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the >> Apache license? >> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk >> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote: >>> I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever... >>> >>> Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be >>> editing wars forever! :) >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel < >>> matthias.sei...@hamburg.de >>> wrote: > https://twitter.com/davidgerard > > > Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald: > > I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants >> to damage OpenOffice? >> >> >> >> Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock: >> >> There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be >>> >> one >>> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund". >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right, >>> having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading. I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the >>> 4.1.2 >>> release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting >>> around >>> planning to start a revert war over this. :-( Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald wrote: Hi Phil, > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says > that >>> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the > citations. >>> > The presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info > is in > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" > > they'll start looking for different office software. > > Max > > > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: > > I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - > >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't >> > see >>> >> any > supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although > one >>> could question the motives of whoe
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:20:18 +0200 Matthias Seidel wrote: > Well, he did it again... > > That is what he wrote to me on google+: > > "And don't do what the previous AOO editor did and inexplicably fail to > reveal their COI." For those who don't know, "COI" means "Conflict of Interest". COIs cut both ways; Mr G should be invited to quote chapter and verse (fact, not opinion) for his alteration. If there is dispute on the matter it should be referred higher on Wikipedia; he, as moderator on Wikipedia, should not arbitrate on any entry in which he is personally involved. The legal maxim is "Nemo judex in sua causa" (No man should judge in his own case) and the UK legal precedent is that of Coke in Dr Bonham's case. Rory O'Farrell > > > Am 14.09.2015 um 22:52 schrieb John D'Orazio: > > Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He > > still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of > > discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the > > "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate > > derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk > > page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially > > in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of > > that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and > > I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be > > cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that > > reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache > > OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article ( > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big > > deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions > > about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence > > the corrections to the infobox information). > > I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not > > be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the > > Apache license? > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote: > >>> I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to > >>> three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia > >>> moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever... > >> > >> Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be > >> editing wars forever! :) > >> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel < > >> matthias.sei...@hamburg.de > wrote: > >>> > https://twitter.com/davidgerard > > > Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald: > > > I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants > > to damage OpenOffice? > > > > > > > > Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock: > > > >> There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be > >> one > >> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund". > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right, > >>> having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading. > >>> > >>> I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the > >> 4.1.2 > >>> release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't > >>> certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting > >> around > >>> planning to start a revert war over this. :-( > >>> > >>> > >>> Phil > >>> > >>> > >>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > >>> > >>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Phil, > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says > >> that > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the > >> citations. > > >>> The > >>> > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info > is in > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" > > >>> they'll > >>> > start looking for different office software. > > Max > > > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: > > I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - > > strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't > >> see > > > any > >>> > supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although > >> one > > could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out > >> some > >
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Well, he did it again... That is what he wrote to me on google+: "And don't do what the previous AOO editor did and inexplicably fail to reveal their COI." Am 14.09.2015 um 22:52 schrieb John D'Orazio: Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence the corrections to the infobox information). I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the Apache license? On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote: I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever... Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be editing wars forever! :) On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel < matthias.sei...@hamburg.de wrote: https://twitter.com/davidgerard Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald: I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants to damage OpenOffice? Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock: There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be one this week too...someone changed it to "moribund". On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes wrote: Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right, having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading. I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2 release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around planning to start a revert war over this. :-( Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald wrote: Hi Phil, what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations. The presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is in the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" they'll start looking for different office software. Max Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see any supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article. Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition. In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office". http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or how LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-( Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts < lui...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Max, On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald wrote: Hi there, the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think it's definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it. The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 and is getting ahead of us. thanks for the alert. Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry to reflect the facts. So can anyone on this
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence the corrections to the infobox information). I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the Apache license? On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > > On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote: > > I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to > > three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia > > moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever... > > Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be > editing wars forever! :) > > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel < > matthias.sei...@hamburg.de > >> wrote: > > > >> https://twitter.com/davidgerard > >> > >> > >> Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald: > >> > >>> I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants > >>> to damage OpenOffice? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock: > >>> > There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be > one > this week too...someone changed it to "moribund". > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes > > wrote: > > Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right, > > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading. > > > > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the > 4.1.2 > > release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't > > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting > around > > planning to start a revert war over this. :-( > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald > > wrote: > > > > Hi Phil, > >> > >> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says > that > >> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the > citations. > >> > > The > > > >> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info > >> is in > >> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" > >> > > they'll > > > >> start looking for different office software. > >> > >> Max > >> > >> > >> > >> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: > >> > >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - > >>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't > see > >>> > >> any > > > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although > one > >>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out > some > >>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the > article. > >>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face > opposition. > >>> > >>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled > >>> > >> "Should I > > > >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office". > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office > > > > I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's > >>> spreading through the press, about AOO being > dead/dormant/whatever, or > >>> > >> how > > > >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see > >>> this > >>> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-( > >>> > >>> > >>> Phil > >>> > >>> > >>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > >>> > >>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts < > lui...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote: > I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to > three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia > moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever... Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be editing wars forever! :) > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > >> https://twitter.com/davidgerard >> >> >> Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald: >> >>> I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants >>> to damage OpenOffice? >>> >>> >>> >>> Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock: >>> There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be one this week too...someone changed it to "moribund". On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes wrote: Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right, > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading. > > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2 > release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around > planning to start a revert war over this. :-( > > > Phil > > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald > wrote: > > Hi Phil, >> >> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that >> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations. >> > The > >> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info >> is in >> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" >> > they'll > >> start looking for different office software. >> >> Max >> >> >> >> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: >> >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - >>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see >>> >> any > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one >>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some >>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article. >>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition. >>> >>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled >>> >> "Should I > >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office". >>> >>> >>> > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office > > I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's >>> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or >>> >> how > >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see >>> this >>> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-( >>> >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Max, >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald wrote: > Hi there, > > the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where > they > >> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think it's definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about >>> it. > >> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 and is getting ahead of us. thanks for the alert. Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the >>> entry > >> to reflect the facts. So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not arduous. Louis Max > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever... On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote: > https://twitter.com/davidgerard > > > Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald: > >> I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants >> to damage OpenOffice? >> >> >> >> Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock: >> >>> There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be one >>> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund". >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right, having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading. I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2 release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around planning to start a revert war over this. :-( Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald wrote: Hi Phil, > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations. > The > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info > is in > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" > they'll > start looking for different office software. > > Max > > > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: > > I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see >> > any > supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article. >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition. >> >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled >> > "Should I > Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office". >> >> >> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's >> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or >> > how > LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see >> this >> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-( >> >> >> Phil >> >> >> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts >> wrote: >> >> Hi Max, >> >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald wrote: >>> Hi there, the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where >>> they > have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think >>> it's >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about >>> >> it. > The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its >>> version 5.0 >>> and >>> is getting ahead of us. >>> >>> thanks for the alert. >>> >>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the >>> >> entry > to reflect the facts. >>> >>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not >>> arduous. >>> >>> Louis >>> >>> Max - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>> >>> >>> >>> - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> > -- John R. D'Orazio
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
https://twitter.com/davidgerard Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald: I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants to damage OpenOffice? Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock: There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be one this week too...someone changed it to "moribund". On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes wrote: Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right, having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading. I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2 release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around planning to start a revert war over this. :-( Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald wrote: Hi Phil, what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations. The presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is in the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" they'll start looking for different office software. Max Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see any supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article. Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition. In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office". http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or how LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-( Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: Hi Max, On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald wrote: Hi there, the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think it's definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it. The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 and is getting ahead of us. thanks for the alert. Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry to reflect the facts. So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not arduous. Louis Max - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants to damage OpenOffice? Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock: There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be one this week too...someone changed it to "moribund". On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes wrote: Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right, having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading. I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2 release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around planning to start a revert war over this. :-( Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald wrote: Hi Phil, what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations. The presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is in the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" they'll start looking for different office software. Max Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see any supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article. Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition. In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office". http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or how LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-( Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: Hi Max, On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald wrote: Hi there, the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think it's definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it. The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 and is getting ahead of us. thanks for the alert. Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry to reflect the facts. So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not arduous. Louis Max - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be one this week too...someone changed it to "moribund". On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes wrote: > Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right, > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading. > > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2 > release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around > planning to start a revert war over this. :-( > > > Phil > > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald wrote: > > > Hi Phil, > > > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that > > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations. > The > > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is in > > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" > they'll > > start looking for different office software. > > > > Max > > > > > > > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: > > > >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - > >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see > any > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one > >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some > >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article. > >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition. > >> > >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled > "Should I > >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office". > >> > >> > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office > >> > >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's > >> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or > how > >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this > >> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-( > >> > >> > >> Phil > >> > >> > >> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts > >> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Max, > >>> > >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald wrote: > > Hi there, > > the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where > they > > >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think > >>> it's > >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about > it. > >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 > >>> and > >>> is getting ahead of us. > >>> > >>> thanks for the alert. > >>> > >>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the > entry > >>> to reflect the facts. > >>> > >>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not > >>> arduous. > >>> > >>> Louis > >>> > Max > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > - > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > > >
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right, having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading. I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2 release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around planning to start a revert war over this. :-( Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald wrote: > Hi Phil, > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations. The > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is in > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" they'll > start looking for different office software. > > Max > > > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: > >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see any >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article. >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition. >> >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office". >> >> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office >> >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's >> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or how >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this >> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-( >> >> >> Phil >> >> >> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts >> wrote: >> >> Hi Max, >>> >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald wrote: Hi there, the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think >>> it's >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it. >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 >>> and >>> is getting ahead of us. >>> >>> thanks for the alert. >>> >>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry >>> to reflect the facts. >>> >>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not >>> arduous. >>> >>> Louis >>> Max - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>> >>> >>> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
On 10/09/2015 Max Merbald wrote: If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" OpenOffice is not dormant, as of today. A link that can dispel the myth is https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2 (and blog posts that will come, but this is enough for the time being). Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Added a {{Failed verification}} tag. That shows as "[[not in citation given]]". Don On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald wrote: > Hi Phil, > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations. The > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is in > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" they'll > start looking for different office software. > > Max > > > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: > >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see any >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article. >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition. >> >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office". >> >> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office >> >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's >> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or how >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this >> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-( >> >> >> Phil >> >> >> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts >> wrote: >> >> Hi Max, >>> >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald wrote: Hi there, the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think >>> it's >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it. >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 >>> and >>> is getting ahead of us. >>> >>> thanks for the alert. >>> >>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry >>> to reflect the facts. >>> >>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not >>> arduous. >>> >>> Louis >>> Max - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>> >>> >>> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Hi Phil, what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations. The presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is in the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" they'll start looking for different office software. Max Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see any supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article. Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition. In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office". http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or how LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-( Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: Hi Max, On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald wrote: Hi there, the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think it's definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it. The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 and is getting ahead of us. thanks for the alert. Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry to reflect the facts. So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not arduous. Louis Max - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
One solution is to write small but hopeful press releases of progress on the blog or otherwhere and have someone else update wikipedia. Wolf Halton Atlanta Cloud Technology Broadening Your Vision to Broaden Your Reach 678-687-6104 -- Sent from my iPhone. Creative word completion courtesy of Apple, Inc. > On Sep 3, 2015, at 5:12 PM, Phillip Rhodes wrote: > > I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - > strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see any > supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one > could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some > concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article. > Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition. > > In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I > Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office". > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office > > I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's > spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or how > LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this > kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-( > > > Phil > > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: >> >> Hi Max, >> >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald wrote: >>> >>> Hi there, >>> >>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they >> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think it's >> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it. >> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 and >> is getting ahead of us. >> >> thanks for the alert. >> >> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry >> to reflect the facts. >> >> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not arduous. >> >> Louis >>> >>> Max >>> >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see any supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article. Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition. In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office". http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or how LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-( Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: > Hi Max, > > > On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald wrote: > > > > Hi there, > > > > the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they > have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think it's > definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it. > The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 and > is getting ahead of us. > > thanks for the alert. > > Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry > to reflect the facts. > > So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not arduous. > > Louis > > > > Max > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia
Hi Max, > On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald wrote: > > Hi there, > > the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they have > the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think it's > definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it. The > problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 and is > getting ahead of us. thanks for the alert. Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry to reflect the facts. So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not arduous. Louis > > Max > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org