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 >>

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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