Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:17, 31 August 2019

Computing: Software / Apps / Free and open-source software Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Apps (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 November 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

November 2018

The /e/ project has created a new functioning mobile operating system, is run through a public interest French-registered trust, and has an active community of supporters. It has an upward battle in a mobile operating system world strongly dominated by two players: Apple, who claim high ideas with regard to privacy but have everything locked in proprietary formats, and Google who give away plenty of free services in exchange for colossal data harvesting. The /e/ project aims to deliver a privacy-oriented open-source mobile operating system to provide a real alternative to those who don't want to be locked in to either Apple or Google. I'm just a volunteer in the community, but we've been fielding comments wondering where our wikipedia page is, hence Manoj's contribution here. Neither of us are experts at Misplaced Pages; if there are specific changes needed to make the page acceptable, please let us know. Russell. 49.3.11.211 (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Please note there is a page dedicated to /e/ project on Misplaced Pages in German. Please can someone from the editorial team explain why different standards are being applied, to the same topic with similar references but in different languages.As mentioned by Russell above in case there is any issue in the formatting or template please let us know. The references quoted are all from national newspapers and popular websites from across the world.Manoj Nair (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

References

1. https://de.wikipedia.org//e/

Recent edits by User:Yae4

This discussion is continued from User talk:Yae4 § /e/ (operating system).

Yae4, thanks for refraining from using forum posts with your most recent edits. However, the following additions is still not neutral.

Ironically, in January 2018 Duval acknowledged using Google Adwords to analyze and improve "driving people to my two different landing pages."

With the word Ironically, you are using a non-neutral and unencyclopedic tone in your prose. Additionally, the above sentence is unrelated to the subject of the article (the operating system), and should be removed from the article as undue weight.

As of August 2019, half the resulting issues were still open in Gitlab.

This type of criticism, sourced to a primary source, is a form of original research that is undue in the article. If this were covered by a reliable secondary source in a way that is pertinent to the article content, then it can be added to the article, but primary sources should not be used to form controversial conclusions that are not supported by secondary sources.

Please also take some time to review Misplaced Pages's no original research policy. In particular, we should prefer reliable secondary sources as the basis for the majority of the article's content. — Newslinger talk 19:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

References

1. "Why every entrepreneur should experiment a crowdfunding campaign". hackernoon.com. Retrieved 2019-08-28.
2. "Issues · e". GitLab. Retrieved 2019-08-28.

These issues were addressed. "Ironically" was deleted. The sentence is related to background of the Kickstarter campaign, which was already included, so it should remain for balanced presentation of "non-Google" development.

"Original research" sentence was deleted.

InfoSec Handbook should be allowed as a 2nd party independent reference. Self-published PR by e foundation calls them experts, and InfoSec Handbook is one of few (or only one) to publish detailed investigation with professional form.

-- Yae4 (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

unfortunately that source does not fulfill the requirements for an acceptable source. Oldosfan (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

They publish articles. The writers are recognized as experts, including by /e/ staff. And, the publisher, while having small staff, uses a panel who are involved in a wide range of sites. Unlike most other sources, they do not display advertisements. Please tell me specifically what requirement they do not fulfill?

Yae4 (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This is starting to look like a reliability edge case to me. I'll start a noticeboard discussion to get more opinions. — Newslinger talk 03:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is at: WP:RSN § Hacker Noon (hackernoon.com) and InfoSec Handbook (infosec-handbook.eu) for /e/ (operating system). — Newslinger talk 03:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Gitlab tracking of Issues from InfoSec Handbook. For future reference, at:

https://medium.com/hackernoon/leaving-apple-google-how-is-e-actually-google-free-1ba24e29efb9 https://www.indidea.org/gael/blog/leaving-apple-google-how-is-e-actually-google-free/

Duval published the following supplement comment, referring to /e/'s tracking of the issues in their GitLab:

"Gaël Duval April 29, 2019

All those points have been converted to issues in our GitLab: https://gitlab.e.foundation/search?group_id=&project_id=&repository_ref=&scope=issues&search=Infosec+Handbook+Review "

Therefore, referring to Gitlab tracking of the issues is NOT original research. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

/e/'s GitLab repository is a primary source, and your statement is an extrapolation of the primary source that is not covered by reliable secondary sources. Adding this statement would introduce undue weight into the article, and it would also be non-neutral because it paints the subject in a negative light ("still"). If you review articles on similar topics (LineageOS, CyanogenMod, and Android (operating system)) or just about any other open-source software article on Misplaced Pages, you'll see that none (or almost none) of them mention the proportion of open/closed issues in the tracker. Including this information when it's only cited to a primary source would significantly deviate from the norms on Misplaced Pages. — Newslinger talk 22:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The other similar topics include "negative" material and criticism, for more neutral coverage of the topic. This article still reads mostly positive, like an advertisement, aside from the couple statements you are pushing to remove. We are struggling to find replacements for the primary sources. Almost all of the secondary sources we find are really based on repeating the primary sources with some secondary interpretation, or based interviews of Duval, who is the primary source. In truth, if it wasn't for some success in getting primary source material repeated by "reliable" secondary sources, this article would be up for deletion. I'll reword the statement. We seem to agree mentioning tracking in gitlab is no longer original research. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The article has already been nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion//e/ mobile operating system, and there was consensus to keep the article based on the availability of independent reliable sources. I absolutely do not agree with you on GitLab: your statement on the proportion of open/closed issues is both original research (interpretation of raw data) and undue weight (trivia outside the norms of software articles), and should be removed. We should be working to remove the content in the article that is not cited to independent reliable sources, and adding content that is. This article should be primarily based on these kinds of sources:

1. "Now Is the Time to Start Planning for the Post-Android World - Linux Journal". Linux Journal.
2. Vaughan-Nichols, Steven J. "Eelo: A Google-less Android alternative emerges". ZDNet. Retrieved 2019-08-30.
3. Wallen, Jack. "Is /e/ good or bad for mobility?". TechRepublic. Retrieved 2019-08-30.
4. "Eelo : l'OS mobile open source de Gaël Duval sort en bêta - Le Monde Informatique" . Le Monde informatique  (in French). Retrieved 2019-08-30.
5. Andrew Orlowski 24 Sep 2018 at 16:40. "Open-source alt-droid wants to know if it's still leaking data to Google". www.theregister.co.uk. Retrieved 2019-08-29.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

On the other hand, content sourced to group blogs with no reputations should be removed:

1. "Eelo: Gaël Duval's Open Source, Privacy Respecting Android Phone Clone". FOSS Force. 2017-12-27. Retrieved 2019-08-30.
2. https://www.livemint.com/Technology/KMKuwDabJhVOIH4wDe0wUI/Eelos-crowdfunding-success-shows-how-important-data-privacy.html

Self-published sources have an exception for uncontroversial self-descriptions, in which they are treated as equivalents to primary sources, but they can not be used for descriptions of things other than themselves. — Newslinger talk 17:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Features Section (was Recent edit by User:Yae4)

I do not believe that an uncited block of features belong on an encyclopedia such as Misplaced Pages, since it makes it seem like an advertisement, and probably doesn't fulfill WP:NOTABILITY (if that is applicable to content). Oldosfan (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. For the record, all I did was re-format the material, with some small changes.

Yae4 (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice, should I remove it then? Oldosfan (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it should probably be removed. I'm going to add some reliable secondary sources to the article. If there is enough information in those articles to form a "Features" section, we can rewrite it. — Newslinger talk 04:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

done. if there's anything else that needs to be done just ask Oldosfan (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Liliputing.com versus InfoSec-Handbook.eu, as secondary sources

I added a liliputing reference without giving it too much thought, but now that infosec handbook has been challenged, and I noticed the liliputing article was based on an XDA Developers article, and none of the 3 is in https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources , I'd appreciate some help with comparing and contrasting why one is a good source but the other isn't, because I'm not seeing it. Here's my start.

More? -- Yae4 (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Liliputing is not on WP:RSP because it has never been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard. Popular group blogs like Liliputing are a borderline case, since editors could classify it as either a self-published source or a marginally reliable publication. Feel free to start a noticeboard discussion to clarify the issue, if you want to determine whether Liliputing should be removed from other articles. — Newslinger talk 17:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Computing articles
• Low-importance Computing articles
• Stub-Class software articles
• Low-importance software articles
• Stub-Class software articles of Low-importance
• All Software articles
• Stub-Class apps articles
• Low-importance apps articles
• Stub-Class Free and open-source software articles
• Low-importance Free and open-source software articles
• Stub-Class Free and open-source software articles of Low-importance
• All Free and open-source software articles
• All Computing articles