Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
40 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

Max Merbald
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.

Max


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

Louis Suárez-Potts-3
Hi Max,

> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Max,
>
> > On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

Wolf Halton-3
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Max,
>>
>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

Max Merbald
In reply to this post by Phillip Rhodes
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Max,
>>
>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

Donald Whytock-2
Added a {{Failed verification}} tag.  That shows as "[[not in citation
given]]".

Don

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Max,
>>>
>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

Andrea Pescetti-2
In reply to this post by Max Merbald
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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

Phillip Rhodes
In reply to this post by Max Merbald
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Max,
>>>
>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

Donald Whytock-2
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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Max,
> >>>
> >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

Matthias Seidel
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
>> <[hidden email]>
>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

John D'Orazio
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 <[hidden email]
> 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
>>> <[hidden email]>
>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>


--
John R. D'Orazio
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

Kay Schenk-2


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 <[hidden email]
>> 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
>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

--
--------------------------------------------
MzK

“The journey of a thousand miles begins
 with a single step.”
                          --Lao Tzu



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]
> >> 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
> >>>> <[hidden email]>
> >>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>>>> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Max,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> “The journey of a thousand miles begins
>  with a single step.”
>                           --Lao Tzu
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
don John R. D'Orazio
Cappellano Coordinatore
________________________________________

Servizio di Cappellania - Università degli Studi Roma Tre
Piazzale San Paolo 1/d - 00120 Città del Vaticano
tel. +39 06-69880809 - cell. +39 333/2545447
E-Mail: *[hidden email]* <[hidden email]> |
*[hidden email]* <[hidden email]>
----
Sito Web: http://www.cappellaniauniroma3.org
Twitter: https://twitter.com/CappellaniaR3
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/people/cappellaniauniroma3/
Pagina Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cappellania.uniroma3
Gruppo Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cappellania.uniroma3
Pagina Google+: https://plus.google.com/+CappellaniaUniRoma3org
Community Google+: http://gplus.to/CappellaniaUniRoma3
LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/company/cappellania-universit-degli-studi-roma-tre
----
Per iscriversi al Calendario Pubblico della Cappellania (con account
gmail): [image: Iscriviti con Google Calendar]
<https://www.google.com/calendar/render?cid=8jugejikjtlks094p62hled6vs%40group.calendar.google.com>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

Matthias Seidel
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
>> [hidden email]
>>>> 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
>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> 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 <
>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> “The journey of a thousand miles begins
>>   with a single step.”
>>                            --Lao Tzu
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>


smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

Rory O'Farrell
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:20:18 +0200
Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> >> [hidden email]
> >>>> 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
> >>>>>> <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> 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 <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Max,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> --------------------------------------------
> >> MzK
> >>
> >> “The journey of a thousand miles begins
> >>   with a single step.”
> >>                            --Lao Tzu
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>


--
Rory O'Farrell <[hidden email]>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

John D'Orazio
In reply to this post by Matthias Seidel
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 <
[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> 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 <
>>>>
>>> [hidden email]
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> “The journey of a thousand miles begins
>>>   with a single step.”
>>>                            --Lao Tzu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


--
don John R. D'Orazio
Cappellano Coordinatore
________________________________________

Servizio di Cappellania - Università degli Studi Roma Tre
Piazzale San Paolo 1/d - 00120 Città del Vaticano
tel. +39 06-69880809 - cell. +39 333/2545447
E-Mail: *[hidden email]* <[hidden email]> |
*[hidden email]* <[hidden email]>
----
Sito Web: http://www.cappellaniauniroma3.org
Twitter: https://twitter.com/CappellaniaR3
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/people/cappellaniauniroma3/
Pagina Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cappellania.uniroma3
Gruppo Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cappellania.uniroma3
Pagina Google+: https://plus.google.com/+CappellaniaUniRoma3org
Community Google+: http://gplus.to/CappellaniaUniRoma3
LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/company/cappellania-universit-degli-studi-roma-tre
----
Per iscriversi al Calendario Pubblico della Cappellania (con account
gmail): [image: Iscriviti con Google Calendar]
<https://www.google.com/calendar/render?cid=8jugejikjtlks094p62hled6vs%40group.calendar.google.com>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

Marcus (OOo)
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<
> [hidden email]>  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<[hidden email]>
>>> 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<
>>>>>
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> 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<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> 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<
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald<[hidden email]>  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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

Phillip Rhodes
In reply to this post by Donald Whytock-2
"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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]
> >
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Max,
> > >>>
> > >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

Donald Whytock-2
"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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Max,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
12