Line 185: | Line 185: | ||
Just to quote[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=294970375&oldid=294840781] some text to remind the readers of this article: |
Just to quote[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=294970375&oldid=294840781] some text to remind the readers of this article: |
||
<div style='border: 2px solid red;'> |
<div style='border: 2px solid red; font-size: 1.5em;'> |
||
Needs balance. |
Needs balance. |
||
Revision as of 23:57, 7 June 2009
Computing: Software B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 |
Please add new sections to the bottom of this page.
The easiest way to add a section is to click the "new section" tab at the top of the page. (It's between "edit this page" and "history").
Relative relevance of criticism and subtle advertising.
I do not understand why it is that anything even remotely critical of Microsoft and their behavior during the ECMA and ISO voting process is systematically deleted from this article while sections like the "covenant not to sue" which is marginally relevant to an article about an office document standard is allowed to remain. I can only draw one conclusion and that is that this article has become a vehicle for promoting Microsoft's agenda and a blatant attempt at rewriting history. For posterity, here is the paragraph that keeps getting deleted. Quote: When reading this article, please be aware that there is a lot of discord surrounding allegations that Microsoft hijacked or rigged the voting process in ECMA and/or ISO. The reader should keep this in mind when considering the merits of this particular document format. Unquote. I am re-inserting this paragraph in the article, with the hope that it is allowed to remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.111.68 (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Microsoft's behaviour in the standardization process is not strictly necessary to describing Office Open XML as a file format, so there is little detail about it in this article. There is an entire separate article on the topic: Standardization of Office Open XML. Warren -talk- 05:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe, but listing each country which adopted OOXML is also not necessary to describing Office Open XML as a file format. Hervegirod (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
On a related note I'd like to see that example pie-chart updated to 2009 browser figures :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamish1980 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
There is scope for far more material about the controversy regarding the 'standardisation' of Office Open XML
The article as it stands, even with the - relatively short - paragraph about the controversy, reads like promotional material for Microsoft. Maybe that is the intent?
No mention of the several very small countries, who joined ISO during the year prior to the vote, whose ISO representatives, as if by magic, all voted in favour, tipping the vote in Microsoft's favour.
Is it really necessary to include countries in the section on countries which have 'adopted' the standard, when at least some of the countries listed haven't actually adopted it at all, but are considering it, or merely adding it to other standards already used. That section makes it appear that Office Open XML was adopted to the exclusion of everything else in those countries.
Even the name of this 'standard' seems intended to confuse rather than enlighten the ordinary user: 'Open Office', 'Office Open'... I would laugh if it wasn't so obviously underhand in intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, and it's very existence is probably a classic example of WP:POVFORK. Let me quote that guideline: "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article." No one stumbles upon this other article; it's not linked near the top of the article as several other related articles are; it's not even linked here while we talk about it. It serves to get all the inconvenient facts squirrelled away where hardly anybody will ever read them, while being a stick to use to stop anyone adding balance to this one. It's frustrating as several editors have been trying to get this article balanced for some time now, with little effect. Meanwhile this article gets longer and longer, with lists of obscure technical details (complete with XML code samples, like we need help designing our own parsers), lists of the parts of each standardisation editions (copied from the contents pages?), even a growing list of each country in the world whose civil servants have ever mentioned OOXML in print: So, of course, there's no room here for a proper balanced discussion of the main issues. --Nigelj (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- So, anyone up for the humongous task of merging these two articles together? I'd do it myself but I'm a newbie, lol :) 91.153.107.4 (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- The issues surrounding the standardization of the format have little to no barings on the format itself. They are almost entirely made up of POV references and have little encyclopic information to give on information on the format. The standardization article is more about an event in time that has passed while the format still remains. The only remaining impact on the format itself is actual changes created in standardization proces leading to ISO/IEC 29500 leading to improvements in the specification. Many of the issues surrounding the standardization where about either Microsoft vs other office suite vendors or about ISO/IEC and its procedures and often only remotly related to the document file format itself. This is not an article to put in complaints about ISO/IEC procedures or the politics of office vendors but an article about a fileformat and as such should focues on the fileformat. The standardization of Office Open XML article is a good place to keep issues around the standardization but is dated and deals with more than just fileformats. hAl (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Don't be such a stick-in-the-mud hAl! Surely you agree this article lacks much needed criticism, despite there being another article about it? Merge I say! 91.153.107.4 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- For once, I agree with hAl. The technological mess that is the file format and the procedural/political mess that is the standardization process are both large subjects, and heavily interlinked (lots of political capital was expended on not fixing certain of the technical issues, for instance), but it is right to have two articles about the two subjects. --Alvestrand (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
People getting paid to remove criticism and maintain 'fluff'?
While, obviously, we always continue to assume that every individual editor is acting in good faith and for the good of Wikipedia, none-the-less, we also know without doubt that there are allegations of people being offered money to keep criticism of Microsoft out of WP articles, and that this one is at the core of the area where these allegations arose. See MyWikiBiz, Rick Jelliffe, List of The Colbert Report episodes (2007), History of Wikipedia#Controversies, Criticism of Wikipedia etc for such allegations, just within WP - there are many more on the big wide web.
Therefore, without entering into a detailed debate with any individual editor(s) who doggedly want to keep this article's positive spin intact (as that may risk losing that essential assumption of good faith wrt individuals), I think the consensus of this discussion page, going back right through its archives, is that the majority (of unpaid) editors want more criticism and less 'fluff' in this article.
So, we should just go it, and police our edits, and not be intimidated. Isn't that right? --Nigelj (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have no real opinion on changing the overall focus of the article. However, I strongly believe that an unsourced sentence inserted into the lead along the lines of "When reading this, bear in mind that Microsoft has been accused of lying and cheating to push this standard through" is unencyclopedic in tone and in nature, and blatantly pushes a particular POV. That is why I have removed this addition twice. Stannered (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- That was just trolling/uninformed editing of wikipedia. But in other news, I think most people have given up editing this article regarding criticism 91.153.107.4 (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't say whether individual editors are being paid or not, but there is little question that there's a small number of editors of this article who are _very_ persistent on removing criticism and maintaining fluff (as you call it). Quite sad. But any attempts to rectify it get met with extremely arrogant accusations of "warring", which puts people off. Thrapper (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Statement in article is: The Open XML Developer site was launched to promote these formats and to support developers impementing the specification This seem very plain info. Someone suggest this need to be sourced. Why. Is this contested/challenged ? Is someone suggesting the site not for promoting these formats en supporting developers implementing the specification. What is next ? Do we need to source that ISO is a standard organisation ?
- As you can see in Wikipedia:Verifiability:
- "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."
- please edit according to Wikipedia's policies.
- ISO is no longer a neutral/trustable organization anymore. The fairness of the votes on OOXML are doubtable (see Complaints about the national bodies process). If such an organization like ISO can't be trusted, what we can? Don't we need to source third-party material when mention ISO?
- This article has been severely disputed and biased, don't we need to improve the citations in order to raise its reliability? Requesting sources is no harm if you can justify and confident of your edit. - Justin545 (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- You do not seem to ask citations to improve reliability. There is no challenges that the openxmldevelopers.org site does not promote Office Open XML. You seem to add request for citations for no apparant reasons. You asked for a citation on a on statement of support by de Icaza allthough this was obviously cited in the article already by Slashdot and asked for citations on a stament that opendevelopers.org site is a site supporting OOXML which is actually as obvious as amazon wikipedia being an on line encyclopedia site. hAl (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- You should probably justify a sentence first than you can use it:
- "There is no challenges that the openxmldevelopers.org site does not promote Office Open XML."
- You didn't explain why the above sentence is true. Even ISO is doubtable, how can opendevelopers.org be trustworthy? - Justin545 (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- You should probably justify a sentence first than you can use it:
- By the way, remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) after you finish editing, as you can see in Wikipedia:Signatures#When_signatures_should_and_should_not_be_used:
- "Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages should be signed."
- - Justin545 (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence:
- "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."
The citation is not clear enough to support that Intel is one of those companies. There's nothing related to Intel can be found in the given two sources. Do not remove citation request about unrefered text (Intel) again.- Justin545 (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)- Anything violate Wikipedia's policies would be challenged. - Justin545 (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to be referring to a different part of the article. Please do no mix your citation requests. This section was about your unnescesary request on a citation about the site Openxmldevloper.org site being launched to promote the office open XML format. Nothing to do with Intel. hAl (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence:
- Your Point of View (Blog comments) is duly noted. hAl (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Company's blog might not be a reliable source!
HAl said that Google docs has support for OOXML and added "Google" to the first item of the Response section:
- "Major information technology companies like Adobe, Apple, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Novell, Sun Microsystems, Google and Toshiba offer products with full or partial support for Office Open XML and/or participated in the development of the Office Open XML formats[54], as well as other companies who may or may not be working inside the Ecma International Office Open XML technical committee (TC45)."
However, the verification of sources was failed so I requested the source for Google[1]. Later, Alexbrn added a new source, however it was a blog of Google[2]. Alexbrn said that:
- "Google's blog is an official organ of the corporation, and a good source"
and he removed my citation request again. However, after I consulted the help desk, this is what I got:
Verifiability is one of the nutshells of Wikipedia. Each article should be sourced by several reliable sources for verification purpose. According to Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29:
- "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable."
Therefore, I have some question regarding to the above:
- Can an official blog of a company be a reliable source?
- How to identify whether a given website is a reliable source or not?
Thanks. - Justin545 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not have firm rules; policies and guidelines can and do change. There is little point in looking at the exact policy wording, as a degree of common sense is required - and that's where consensus comes in.
- My own common sense tells me that it is very unlikely that a company blog would constitute a reliable source. Opinions, however, may vary. If you are ever in doubt, then ask on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Chzz ► 10:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- So if a teamblog of a company described a featured on the product that you would consider unreliable ? For instance Micrsoft IE team explaining what in IE8 webslices and/or acceleraters are or how InPrivate browsing in IE8 is implemented ? Is that unreliable information because it is provided trough a comnpany blog ??hAl (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
the reply from help desk tends to support that:
- Company's blog is NOT a reliable source!
so how can we resolve the conflicts between Alexbrn and the Help desk? - Justin545 (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Read it again. It specifically states you can use blogs to support factual claims. So there is no conflict. Google has stated on a blog that Google docs supports Office Open XML files and that is actually factual information about a Google product. Not opinion. hAl (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- That "Google support OOXML" is a fact or is a fake has not yet been justified/confirmed. Which means basically "Google support OOXML is a fact" itself is questionable. Wikipedia is a free platform that everyone with different degree of background may join. You shouldn't expect everyone has consensus it is a fact. So the material in question is questionable, it may be freely challenged by every person who doubts it. - Justin545 (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say it is a fack. I said "is a fact or is a fake"
- which is pretty much like:
- Major information technology companies like Adobe, Apple, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Novell, Sun Microsystems, Google and Toshiba offer products with full or partial support for Office Open XML and/or participated in the development of the Office Open XML formats[55], as well as other companies who may or may not be working inside the Ecma International Office Open XML technical committee (TC45).
- filled with weasel words - Justin545 (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please explain your tenacity in requesting sourcing for the obvious fact that google docs supports Office Open XML. There is no obvious reason to challenge the claim however you even go to length at finding support at the helpdesk for your queeste. It is pathetic. You could have just googled and find at least a dozen articles stating this as well. So even if your pathetic queeste to get the Google blog dismissed succeeded there would be planety of other sources. I think however the specific Google blog is actually a very good source for feature announcements by google on Google doc. Probably the best possible source linkable on the internet. You must of course also understand that the support by Google for the Office Open XML format is factual but go at lengths to still challenge the claims in the article. Why ? hAl (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- >> "Could you please explain your tenacity in requesting sourcing for..."
- Just like what I said above "You should probably justify a sentence first than you can use it". Basically, your claim above (Google support OOXML is a fact) has a logic flaw. Therefore, I can continuously request the source until it becomes reliable.
- >> "...your tenacity in requesting sourcing for the obvious fact that google docs supports Office Open XML. There is no obvious reason to challenge the claim"
- "google docs supports OOXML" is obvious to you, however it is not necessarily so obvious to everyone.
- >> "You could have just googled and find at least a dozen articles stating this as well."
- I believe all of the existing sources in this article can be found by Googling. So does it means we should remove all of the existing sources and ask all reader to find all of sources by themselves? It seems not to be a right way to do that, dose it?
- >>"So even if your pathetic queeste to get the Google blog dismissed succeeded there would be planety of other sources."
- You were absolutely right. But why didn't you add the source directly instead of arguing with me? The other reliable sources is what I was asking for. Just add it to the article then I will immediately stop challenging it. - Justin545 (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- >>"You must of course also understand that the support by Google for the Office Open XML format is factual but go at lengths to still challenge the claims in the article. Why ?"
- Honestly, I didn't know anything about the relation between Google and OOXML until you point out the Google docs blog. I'm not an OOXML expert like you. (actually, I'm learning while editing) And you have said that you find my behaviour is ridiculous and childish, so please don't make any assumption of what I've already known. - Justin545 (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is a silly discussion, Google - of all companies - will make official announcements through blogs rather than habitually using stuffy old news releases. If it surely common sense that this official blog posting from them is an authoritative source for this piece of technical information. Mind you if we're going to be strict about blog and self-publications as sources, then a large portion of this article could be consigned to the dustbin. That would be no bad thing IMO. Alexbrn (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Microsoft hijacked or rigged the voting process in ECMA and/or ISO
Just to quote[3] some text to remind the readers of this article:
Needs balance.
When considering the content of this article, please be aware that there is significant discord surrounding allegations that Microsoft hijacked or rigged the voting process in ECMA and/or ISO. The reader should keep this in mind when considering the use of this particular document format.
The Neutral point of view of this article has been disputed. Need more work on this. - Justin545 (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just because some idiot drops by and inserts (completely inappropriate) instructions to readers on HOW THEY MUST THINK, does not necessarily mean more work needs to be done. More information and factual accuracy is always beneficial, of course, but we don't need POV crusades -- I thought in this article we'd actually started to move away from those ... Alexbrn (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)