Computing: Software Start‑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 Wikipedia. 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia'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).

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Is there consensus on the specific goals desired to be achieved for this article ? THI (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends which consensus you mean. The consensus should be something along the lines: 'writing an article according to Wikipedia's core policies, the other policies, and guidelines', I think. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. One specific goal, is an article which complies with wikipedia's guidelines. Helpful. Now, beyond that, what are the goals for this article. What do we desire to achieve here ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by THI (talk • contribs) 14:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That the content is based on reliable sources and anything else is stubbed and removed. If a reliable source is not talking about it, why the hell are we? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron, policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.

Do you feel the goal for this article should be more strict, requiring citation of all material, even if not a quotation or something not likely to be challenged ? (If you do, that POV is legitimate and part of what we should be discussing in determining our (all of us) common goals for this article.) THI (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely to be challenged by me (and I'm sure other editors). The onus on sourcing is on those who wish to include information not people removing it. As a first step, we should go through the article, line by line and remove anything that is not based upon reliable sources. We can then build upon on that material with additional sources. If sources don't exist, then there is nothing to expand. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idem here. I would suggest that we start with an article in which EVERYTHING is properly sourced, and from there see if some expansion is possible. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And further to my previous points, it's cart before horses to say "well the article should include X,Y and Z" because after all of this time, we have maybe 4, 5(?) reliable sources to build an article on. Reliable sources are the foundation of a wikipedia article and without them, there is nothing to 'build'. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, let's focus on reaching agreement on common goals. Cameron would like a goal to be a strict requirement that all facts be referenced. Beetstra is open to the possibility of some expansion beyond the properly sourced as an end result, and suggests using only sourced text to start as a working procedure. To avoid conflict and editing wars, etc. let's find consensus on what we are trying to do here. Hope you'll both agree that if we do that first, may resolve most of the conflict, and create a positive, unified, and shared editing environment for all involved. Cameron, are you both willing to discuss this goal (and the others which other editors may desire) and reach consensus with all editors as to goals for this article ? THI (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, helpful if we first set ultimate goals we can all agree upon for article, and from there develop consensus on specific procedures for editing, such as starting with referenced only and building from there, etc. THI (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My 'goal' that all material must be properly sourced is core policy and is not up for discussion or negotiation. I have no idea what you mean by "possibility of some expansion beyond the properly sourced as an end result". Get this straight, it's properly sourced or it's subject to erasure at any moment, that's an unmovable, not open to discussion, reality of a wikipedia article. This article cannot operate outside of the normal policies and procedures of wikipedia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this discussion is back to front, as you want to discuss content before we sort what reliable sources exists. It's would be easier for us to find what reliable sources there are (if there are any more that exist beyond what we are currently using in the article) and see if we can sort more of the unsourced content that exists (or remove it if it's not possible) and use the sources to expand if it's possible. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it seems to me the proper tack is to strip the article down and add only material that can be well sourced. THI, I can't speak for Dirk but I do not see him making any call for exceeding the parameters defined in policy. Nuujinn (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in discussing this point-- Policy clearly allows for non referenced text in articles. Policy also strongly promotes marking non referenced text for citation as opposed to deletion. On an article about software, the suggest approach is puzzling. Would make more sense to seek references for the material. That is constructive. 18:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THI (talk • contribs)

THI, I, amongst others, have asked for independent, reliable sources for a long, long time. And (core) policy suggests to remove anything that requires but lacks a source. Yes, if you think that the references are there, then one could leave it. But as I said, we have been asking for independent, reliable sources for a long, long time, and they have not been supplied .. why {{fact}} tag stuff which could not be referenced for months now? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THI, don't confuse things. Goal 1, and that is where Cameron Scott, Nuujinn and I agree fully upon as I read it: get everything sourced properly (i.e., FULL compliance with the relevant policies), and delete everything that is not properly sourced. Lets do that first, shall we.

Note, with the expansion I do not mean inclusion based on some wiki, blogspot, yahoo forum, or whatever, I would there consider the sources where our policies and guidelines are giving statements as 'largely not accepted', 'those with a poor reputation for checking the facts', or 'but only with care' (and expect that we might go via WP:RS/N for those sources to see if they are good enough for the statements that are suggested). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the article at the moment uses a mix of the two: proper sources (real independent WP:RS), and sources which are questionable (of which WP:V would suggest to be careful, to avoid them or similar wording). At least there are no sources which are plain no-no's .. But I would, as Cameron suggests, even remove the ones which are questionable for now, and those may be the ones we want to discuss after that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, all have asked is that we discuss and reach consensus on the goals for this article. With common goals we can all work together toward the same end. Cameron has stated he/she is not willing to discuss. Cameron believes their POV as to wikipedia guidelines are the correct view, and is not willing to discuss. THI (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think asking for discussion and arriving at common goals for the article is not asking to much from any editor. If there are editors who feel every statement in an article must be referenced as a matter of wikipedia policy, I disagree. If we can discuss this and everyone is open to persuasion, let's discuss. If not, let's see what issues are in conflict and resolve them by formal mediation.

The point is to resolve areas of conflict up front. Also, by having agreed upon common goals, reached by consensus, we can all be playing on the same team. Which is what wikipidia is all about. THI (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am not calling on anyone to accept anyone's view at this point, only that we make a clear list of desired objectives, and arrive at consensus. Where there is conflict we fail to resolve by discussion, let's resolve by mediation. That way, we will have a shared map of where we are going and what we are doing. We can all play on the same team. THI (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question. So, yes, you are right, not everything needs to be sourced, if there are statements in the text which can not be challenged. At the moment, the whole section product functionality, i.e. the core of the software, is totally unreferenced, except for one sentence. Do you really think that that is unchallengeable information? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respond to this sub issue with hope return to primary issue of reaching agreed upon specific goals for article. Agree references should be added. In user manual, in reliable 3rd party sites, in stack of my Easy ECCO subscription from the '90s there are hundreds of articles on ecco pro functionality.

Let's agree on our goals, and have common goals so that all here are working in exactly same direction. Then let's agree on reference reliability. For Ex., YSWT has written on ecco internal details such as memory limits. Do we recognize (after discussion and consensus) his 'original research' published elsewhere as reliable ? THI (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THI, that is exactly one of the type of sources which is questionable. I think Nuujinn, Cameron Scott and I were clear, lets first try and use proper sources. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, perhaps reaching agreed criteria of what is minimally acceptable (to us all), and what is preferred, will eliminate many conflicts in edits, by having agreed upon standard to readily compare desired content. THI (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. We cannot agree locally (that is to say on this specific article) that original research is ok, it's not permitted, it's not allowed, it's forbidden, it's against core policy. It's not happening. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Why is this so difficult for you to grasp" is a personally directed discourtesy. that your intention ?

Cameron, perhaps confusing original research in developing facts for a wikipedia article, with original research someone does on their own and reports outside of wikipedia ? THI (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No confusion on my part.--Cameron Scott (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THI, if someone does their own research and that research is published in a reliable source, use of the reliable source is fine. Wikis, fora, and other self-published material fall outside of that. So does a product manual--it's a primary source, and while we are permitted to use such in limited cases, I would suggest this is not such a case. It appears to me that we have enough material to make a fine encyclopedic article on this subject between the infoworld and pc world articles. My suggestion is let's get to work on that, and deal with other issues as they come up. THI, if you have some specific goal in mind, I urge you to simply state what that goal is. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn. "between the infoworld and pc world articles." on software functionality, Curious for reasons to dismiss the periodicals dedicated to subject, and academic papers? THI (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand the question. I did not dismiss any periodicals dedicated to subject, nor academic papers, so long as they can be confirmed as reliable sources. My comment was that we have some reliable sources to work from already--working on the article rather than talking about how to work on the article is, IMO, a better way to spend our time. Nuujinn (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Only where long history of hot conflict, time investment to reach consensus on clear goals ALL seek to achieve is worth much. THI (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq has made large contribution to this discussion by listing several clear and concrete goals for this article. Others with further contribution ? (Goal of following guidelines, or, 'have every sentence referenced', etc. also legitimate and helpful goal proposals for establishing common goals). Once we have list of suggested goals, we can discuss any there is not consensus on. THI (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question, you've been asking us for the goals for this article, and I think that you got some input here on that, may I ask you what your goals for this article are? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wasting my time going around in circles talking about vague non-points. It's pretty clear this is an attempt to talk long enough so that someone will say something that can be seized upon as support for adding original research and sources that are not RS to the article. Well I'm not playing that game. If anyone has any *specific* sources they want to discuss and *specific* edits they went to add, let's hear about them, otherwise I'm not going to waste my time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead, and clean the article, fact tagging anything. I expect that anything fact-tagged can be removed at will when no suitable sources are produced. Lets see some sources. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Scott, are you assuming good faith ?? YSWT (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, you are unwilling to work on this article by concensus ?? YSWT (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My goal suggestions to add: Article should be interesting, informative, and accurate. It should include the history of the subject and the unique inventions and conceptions involved in the product and its functionality. The article should include the story of how the product was purchased by larger companies, and then eventually abanonded, what features provided by the product led to a dedicated user base, and how that led eventually to the release of the program as freeware and then the continued development of the program. The article should provide information as to the current context of the program, its user base, available add-ons. History of the product should include the original extensions, and how their functionality was later incorporated into the program. Also, WHO was involved in creating this software, and what happened to them, also part of story. YSWT (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A) I am working by the consensus which has established our policies and guidelines.

B) Yes, that is my goal as well, the article should be interest, informative and accurate. That last can only be done by using independent, reliable sources. And yes, all the rest is indeed part of the story, but .. if it can not be independently, reliably referenced, then .. well .. then how do we know it is true? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, WP policy relieves us of worry about what is true--our goal is what can be verified. YSWT, ECCO Pro is freeware, but I believe strictly speaking that it is not being developed. What is being developed are extensions that manipulate the last release version. Without access to the source code and permission from the copyright holder of the source code, development of the application itself is not possible. Your desire to paint a lush portrait of the software and activities surrounding it are evident, but you'll have to provide verifiable and reliable sources for whatever you wish to add. There is no need for consensus on that issue, it is a matter of policy. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try this:

"Outliners have a long history as tools on PCs. The best example known to the authors is NetManage ECCO Pro, which has not been updated by its publisher for over a decade but is still extensively used and even updated by means of object-code patches" from Professor Gregory's (Department of Finance and Operations, ESC Rennes School of Business) paper, "The Business of Personal Knowledge" presented at the Cambridge University 8th International Conference on Knowledge, Culture and Change in Organisations in '08. THI (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good reference, might be useful. See link. Still, this is not development of the code, it is patching the software .. or, as Nuujinn puts it, 'extensions that manipulate the last release version'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT is known expert on subject. not substitute for references but most likely statements about subject are accurate. Professor Gregory in academic paper presented at Cambridge says that Ecco Pro is being updated by object-code patches. Most reliable source we have.THI (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are disputing that. But indeed, that is not a replacement for the references. And we are also not disputing that the information is accurate, only that it is either not verifiable, or it is not notable enough (as no-one independent is writing about it). Threshold is the verifiability, not the truth. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comments: 1. purpose in this thread is to discuss and develop shared goals for articles. 2. What is or is not 'a matter of policy' subject to discussion. 3. By reaching consensus on what we are doing, together, should end need to resort to policy. Eg., if we agree our goal is text based on reliable sources, might end back and forth on issue. Might also end inter-editor hostility. Here Beetsra and YSTW agree already on specific common goals for article. Let's finish developing an objective list of goals we agree to share and move forward together in the same direction, helping each other reach goals we all agree upon.THI (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THI, this is not a page for establishing shared goals, the shared goals of this encyclopedia are defined in its policies and guidelines. We can not just decide here on this page that we are going to do something different. I'm not sure what you mean by your point 2. We don't need to develop consensus on what we are doing, we need to find consensus on what can be included and what not. There will never be an end to the need to resort to policy, we first look at policy, and based on that, we find consensus. We don't find consensus without looking at policy. We don't have to agree that we want a text based on reliable sources - policy describes that everything that is challenged or is likely to be challenged is supported by reliable sources. Anything without a reliable source can be removed. Our common goal should be (well, is, I hope): write a text that is compliant with our core policies, the other policies and the guidelines of this website, and move forward in that same direction.

I still don't see what goals you have in mind. I think that a.o. Nuujinn, Cameron Scott, Johnuniq, and I have clearly stated what our common goal is. What are your goals, THI? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My primary goal is to put an end to the 'us' against 'you' 'we win, you lose' current of antagonism so pervasive here. By ALL agreeing to clear common goals for this article we put an end to all that. Have seen helpful goal discussions. Different subjects lend themselves to different goals, and different editors have different views on 'core policies'. By reaching agreed, clear and objective common goals, we start from a common center.THI (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you saying whatever goals Nuujinn agrees to, you also agree to ? THI (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THI, I don't think Dirk is saying that, although I cannot speak for him. I think that Cameron Scott, Johnuniq, Dirk and I are in basic agreement regarding our interpretation of WP policy. Myself, the only goal I'm interested in in the moment is to bring this article in alignment with the basic policies. If you would like to suggest other goals that are in line with policy, that's fine, and I think that's what Dirk is asking you to do, since we (or at least I) don't know what goals you have in mind. Nuujinn (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose is not to impose my own views as to goals, but to facilitate EVERYONE'S reaching agreed upon objective goals for this article. Johnunic and YSWT have offered several clear and specific goals, and a couple of 'reference' based goals have also been offered. Everyone here agrees that the article should conform with wikipedia guidelines, that is a strawman issue. Can we arrive at consensus as to specific goals arising out of those policies, such as referencing text, etc. in addition to agreement on purposes we are working toward in article-- jointly.THI (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'us' against 'you', THI, I don't know where you get that. I think that we are all trying to write an article here that is conform our policies and guidelines, and unless someone here is not willing to write an article following our policies and guidelines, we all have the same goal, there is no-one against another.

And as Nuujinn says, I have not said that whatever Nuujinn agrees to, I will also agree to. I agree with all edits that follow policy and guideline. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There clearly is an 'us' against 'you' theme here. directly from the text and words used on this talk page. "WE" all against only "YOU" has been pushed, "you LOSE" has been expressly stated, etc. These are editors words used on this page. clearly history of personally directed antagonism. committing to shared objective goals for the article, we ALL will have the same goals, and end 'against another' so pervasive in prior history here.

Beetstra, do you feel application of policy and guideline is determined by your interpretation, or arrived at in any particular article by consensus ? THI (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it is determined by my interpretation. It is determined by our interpretation (this our includes you). But as I said earlier, what specific goals do you have in mind, THI. I don't think that without specifics, we are getting anywhere. I would like this article arrive at a point where everything is referenced properly, and which does not read as a product manual or a software specification, and as I said, I think Nuujinn, Cameron Scott, Johnuniq have similar or the same goal; I however have no clue what your goal is. The text that Nuujinn wrote, e.g., can IMHO be implemented without further change. But I am not sure what you further mean. I do not have specific goals further than that, I am not having goals of 'I want to include this specific', or 'I want to exclude that specific'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I can't find any 'you LOSE' here, and I'd like to see specific examples of 'we' against 'you', too. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)B[reply]

Beetstra, both issues addressed on this page. Not seeing, or not wanting to see ? Your affirmative goals so far: *everything* referenced. If you could turn your negative 'not read as a product manual' into some affirmative objective goal, would be helpful. Notably, your goals are 'design' goals (which are also important) not content goals. Thus you don't care if article says nothing, so long is designed according to your goals. Compare with Johnuniq, who offered specific, clear, (and to my mind, very direct and helpful) content goals for article.

Also wonder if your goal is reasonable. (But this for discussion). Seems 990 out of 1000 software articles on wikipedia have substantial amounts of unreferenced text. Wonder if your 'every fact referenced' goal is a reasonable, healthy goal for software article, or is a utopian technacratic goal which destroys the value of article. Food for thought. THI (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get to work cleaning them up then, as you know WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I can find the words lose and, I am sorry, there indeed seems to be confusion as to the common goal here, THI. But please don't try and put yourself in a victim role. You have all the chances you need to come with good input, to give proper expansion, to come with proper references, etc. etc. Really, I am not that bad a guy to work with here on wikipedia. 'not read as a product manual', OK, the goal is to write an article that gives a neutral, informative overview of the product. And you can include as much detail as you like, THI, as long as it is properly referenced. I can set goals, like, a description of the DDE API, but hey, there are no proper sources for it .. in fact, there is hardly anything out there. I am sorry, there is not thát much to write about this here.

Reasonable, yes. As I have said before, and many editors have shown their trust in me when I wrote it, is that this is a plain shame. And you know why that is, THI? That is because those 990 out of 1000 articles are indeed badly sourced. And there is nothing here that keeps you from improving that situation. A) see what is unreferenced, b) see if you can find proper sources for it, c) if so, insert the sources, or d) if not, delete it, or rewrite it, until it is. Maybe, if you would also get to that goal, we can actually change this into something else. An unreferenced article is worthless. Food for thought, THI? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"But please don't try and put yourself in a victim role." This comment is very odd.

"informative overview of the product. " helpful goal.

We can agree on goals, even if not see means to reach them all right now. Others may provide sources we don't see.

Unclear why you argue limited references for this software. At least two periodicals were devoted exclusively to the subject over period of years. Thousands of articles exist. Also, official product documentation exits. This is software. Seems your position is software manual is not proper reference, and 990 out of 1000 software articles are badly written and violate wikipedia policies. Maybe you think you are right and 990 out of 1000 others are not. Self confidence is healthy. If we can't reach concensus on the manual being proper reference for product functionality, we have agreed to mediate the question.

Your argument is straw man. Have asked editors to work on agreed set of common goals for articles. THI (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we can reach common goals, all of the long-term editors who are not single purpose accounts or have an personal interest in the software can agree what to do. Consensus doesn't require all of us to agree, it requires the majority of us to decide on a direction - and we have. An article built on reliable sources, no original research allowed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron, consensus not 'majority rule'. THI (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes.". It seems to me, THI, that we are not getting to a consensus, so yes, majority rule should then be applied. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slanted view. Refusal to welcome and give equal respect to all editors violates core principles of wikipedia. not a deletion discussion. you reveal breakdown with editing here. Failure to give respect to other editors, 'going ahead and doing' what you, in place of discussion. Discussion must be content based, not editor based. YSWT is entitled to be a wikipedia ecco pro specialist. Charlie1945 is entitled to contribute only to this article and discuss his views of his compusol website. Everyone is entitled to edit any wikipedia article. You do not have to earn the right to edit or discuss one article by editing others. Every editor must be treated with respect, wikipedia is not a 'class' based system. If you feel you have special status and higher status than other editors, and therefore can ignore their input and exclude them from consensus, there is a problem. THI (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'exclude them from consensus' - you still don't seem to understand what I'm saying - consensus does not and has never required that we get everyone to agree to something, if it did nothing at all would happen here! Consensus at wikipedia defined by what the majority of editors want to do (guided by policy). Nobody is trying to exclude anyone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really ? Reference for that ? THI (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS: "Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes.". It is all there, THI. Just give it a read. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, THI, WP:COI does strongly suggest editors with a conflict of interest to stay in discussion, and to more strictly adhere to our core policies and guidelines (which would hence be required from anyone with an interest in Ecco Pro (or strongly related software) or who are otherwise connected to it, I think indeed that that includes for Ecco Pro Charlie1945 and YSWT, who have a known conflict of interest with Ecco Pro). I do note, that that guideline does not forbid them to edit .. Also note, it is ironic that you tell us that our views violate core principles of Wikipedia, this whole problem started (and is still not resolved) since this article was just doing that, violating core principles of Wikipedia (e.g., WP:NOT is one of our five pillars; note: I am not going to point fingers at anyone here specific, I might even myself have included info which was not properly referenced, but some of the issues in the article were there way before the current set of editors is looking at them). That is not to say that together we should not try and get in the end there where this article should be, a properly referenced,

Moving on, THI, do you have any problem with first trying to get it to that status (properly referenced), and that we then discuss further on how to go on? Do you have a problem with having a good, properly referenced core standing here, and that the rest may come later? That means that we now may remove a lot of unreferenced, though correct, information, but we could e.g. record diffs of revisions just before major deletions were done, and later revisit the information that was removed. We might even find, that in the end a lot of it will end up already there. I do not find the discussion where we are talking about the hypothetical inclusion of material that is supported by questionable references very constructive. I'd rather see that we e.g. discuss the example text of Nuujinn, which seems a great step forward, and which could be used as a base for expansion later. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think will eliminate much conflict if agree on goals first, and with that in hand address one point at a time. Text seems factually accurate. Would be odd if in user manual, or infoworld, or any of hundreds of EasyECCO articles, etc. is not source for each detail.

On different subject, if fact in question, makes sense tear down/rebuild. Here, functionality facts objectively accurate, issue only of reference. Official manual/spec guide, etc. should cover. Working on fact/issue at a time seems better approach to building without conflict.

Also, this page is still too long. Can we find way to respect EVERYONE's needs/views and archive or place some topics to subpages, to make easier for all? Not a 'forced' solution, but TOGETHER, consensus on solution to page length. THI (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THI, with all due respect, in terms of goals, we've asked you a number of times to propose whatever goal you think we should have in regard to this article. You haven't done so, and until you do, there is little to say, since you're the one that wants us to set goals.

Also, a question--why do you not write in complete sentences? Your use of staccato phrases sometimes makes it hard for me to understand what you are saying. Nuujinn (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, THI, all those boil down to the same point: the majority here finds that we have a set of well defined goals and a plan to proceed, the majority does not find a number of those sources suitable to draw content from (they do not pass WP:V), the majority here finds that the current way of archiving proper and sufficient. We do not need everyone to agree, or to satisfy everyone's needs (it would be nice, but sometimes we can't; WP:CONSENSUS has anticipated such occasions .. really, it's there! It would also make Wikipedia an impossible place to work if always everyone needs to agree .. you would only need one or two opponents that do not agree, and no-one can edit .. sometimes majority rules, sorry). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've written a new version of the Product functionality section based on the material in the PC Magazine archives. It is up here as a subpage. My suggestions has to how to use this are on that page, but basically, I suggest we edit the second copy at the bottom, but comment on what we are doing here. It's rough on purpose, but I think the sourcing is good. Nuujinn (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wonderful starting point. Thanks!! I see you found the rest of the sources, I only saw a couple of the articles in PC magazine. I don't have any immediate suggestions on how to improve this, IMHO, this can be used as such, and we can then wait for suggestion on what can be added (properly referenced, of course). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

great stuff, I agree this can be used as is (the second version) and should be dropped straight into the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I think it adds a lot to the functionality section, providing perspective of pop cultural appraisal as to the software. Missing the functionality that is actually important from a ISc. perspective, those things which are dealt with in speciality sources, such as the products reference manual, and specialist publications such as the mentioned above EasyECCO magazine. Also note the information is dated, and while providing incredible historical background does not provide information about current software. Thus, "wow" a major contribution to the article as an addition to existing functionality text. YSWT (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn, this is a major contribution to this article. Thanks. If I invest my time to find references in the (1) Netmanage Ecco User Manual from '97, (2) the EasyEcco magazines, (3) The eccowiki documentation for the active development features, and the eccomagic closed forums for interal memory specs, is that going to be supported ? YSWT (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

neither forums or a wiki are a reliable source and cannot be used in anyway - I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned before to you? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have noticed this issue in other discussion pages. Cameron, could you please provide specific reference for your argument. "this has been mentioned before you" is not one of our guidelines here at wikipedia. THI (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THI, you have been pointed to that guideline/policy over and over. Forums or a wiki are not a reliable source. hardly ever acceptable, and then still only for information in certain way. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, I am sure that you checked if these pass our policies and guidelines. And you are free to include material that you can properly source (the relevant policies and guidelines have been mentioned to you before, I am not going to reiterate them) .. if you are in doubt, please feel free to ask e.g. here. Remember, the onus of proving the worthiness of inclusion is upon the editor who wants to include the material. All material that is unsourced, or unreliably sourced can be removed without discussion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While Cameron's input unsourced, provides direct response to issue, explaining his position all wikis/forums cannot be reliable references. Beetstra, unwilling to discuss this up-front ? THI (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what is said, and we have discussed this over and over. Forums and wikis are not reliable sources. No need to discuss it up front, lets first try to get this article referenced with proper reliable and independent sources, and thén we can see what we can add. Strike that. THI, if you have specific suggestions, then you can add those in the draft. E.g. make a copy of the draft, and add the information to it. If you think that you can write information in such a way, that the forum or the wiki is a reliable source for it, then feel free. We can as well try and discuss it directly. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have diverse views on forum and wiki issue. If cannot resolve by discussion, understand you have agreed to formal mediation. Some software developers use locked forums or wikis as official web pages. In such cases, the forum or wiki must be treated as any other developer's webpage. For software such pages provide many references, particularly for product functionality. THI (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they are not independent. We are not disputing that Ecco Pro is year 2000 compliant, we are saying that thát is nothing special, and that it therefore does not have a place in this article. We are not disputing that the program cost XX USD in 1997, the problem is, it is not a notable fact (well, I have not seen any source for that information, but I assume it is true). We have already said, that there are forums and wikis out there which are reliable sources, but as long as you do not give specific examples of what you want to include, we are not getting anywhere. Could you please give a specific example? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) THI, yes, some software developers do use wikis, blogs, fora, etc. Arguably, we might wish to modify WP policy to allow such, but to do that you'd go to the RS noticeboard, or village pump, and make a case for the change. Currently, however, WP policy on reliable sources strongly discourages use of same, see Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Questions_about_the_reliability_of_specific_sources. Changing policy is not something we can do here, and nothing we decide here can stand against policy--simply put, we cannot choose to ignore policy. That being said, if you have some data you feel can be reliably sourced, post it, and we'll take a look. If you're serious about formal mediation, you might wish to review the relevant policies--I doubt they'd take the case. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn, maybe you are confusing the examples page with the actual policy. Policy is "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Notice the detail, "open wikis", "personal websites". Does not apply to closed wikis and commercial or organizational websites. Comment that have seen several times same issue in page discussion on software. Confusion over the format of the site, wiki/forum/etc., with the content source. Who is providing the info controls reliability, not the format. With open wiki we don't know who provided info, no reliability. Not case with closed wikis. If you know of policy against closed wiki reliability, please. Also, invite more discussion and back and forth on this, to arrive at carefully thought through consensus. THI (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you taling about Eccowiki.com? That is *not* a closed wiki as we define it, a closed wiki would one like the ones that IBM manage which are restricted to members of their staff and the identities of all are known. Eccowiki is open in the same way that wikipedia is. The fact that IPs cannot edit it does not make it closed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Note, the sentence is, "Policy is "self-published media are largely not acceptable.", it then gives as examples "—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—". It is still a self-published website, THI. But if you have a specific wiki in mind, for specific information, please go to WP:RS/N and get a second, independent, opinion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if accepted, it could be altered by parties with vested interests to literally source anything in the article - the very reason we only allow self-published materials to be used in very very limited situations. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More note. THI, the actual policy is "For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable.". You appear to be quoting an old version of policy (I already thought that it was indeed unclear and prone to misunderstanding, and was considering to discuss a change, but it is already done. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note have found ecco references looking over my stack of InfoWorld mags. Unsure if available on-line. THI (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now we are talking, that is not a problem. If you could forward us the issue numbers, page numbers, etc. etc. (i.e. full bibliographic information), then we can discuss these and see what can be used and what is in there. Thanks, THI, that was really helpful. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out. Nuujinn (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look as well. Not much on the inner workings for as far as I could see. A bit about interaction with other software ('we've tested the interaction of product X with product A, product B, Ecco Pro, product D, etc.), and some other little things (that netmanage abandoned the software is somewhere mentioned alongside). Helpful, but for as far as I could see, nothing really new or additional. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should take a second look. Much more there. One question raised: To what extent are we willing to reference to Netmanage's own statements about the product ? THI (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THI, that depends on the specific cases. And my quick browse indeed showed quite a number, and I checked quite a handful of them. I agree, I may have missed some. I would suggest that you make a list, and see what can be used for what. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps useful material from Dr. Mario Norbis' (dept. of Management, Quinnipiac University) "Personal Knowledge Management" paper presented at the '08 Cambridge Conference on Knowledge, Culture and Change in Organisations:

• Ecco is "proprietary software now free to download."
• Ecco runs in Microsoft Windows
• Ecco provides a "Hierarchic outline with assignment to multiple folders, one parent per folder. Information is presented in a dingle pane with a folder grid." and supports "Intranet, group calendar, organizer." allowing users to "Share info, schedules, documents, and to-dos across your company, group, or organization."
• Both Ecco 1997 and Info Select 2007 permit the "definition of forms to impose some order on anarchy." "a data item can participate in more than one hierarchy. Thus for example an appointment for a meeting can appear in an overall agenda or calendar, but also be linked to the name of each participant in the meeting. Effectively, the same datum is classified in more than one way. To the extent that knowledge is a product of the recognition by intelligent agents of connections between information otherwise not explicitly linked," this kind of tool can be used as a mechanism for storing knowledge.
• In Ecco, "a grid can be superimposed on the outline. The column headers of the grid are the names of folders, that is, named sets of data values."
• Ecco combines "very powerful data structuring with relatively easy to use (and understand) basic PIM “functionality” in terms of diary, contact management and the like." THI (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find this paper - do you mean

• Gregory, M.R. & Norbis, M. (2008) 'The business of personal knowledge.' ? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard copy in my files entitled "Personal Knowledge Management". In Conference synopsis entitled "The Business of Personal Knowledge". Think is same paper. THI (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a conference proceeding, or are these the slides of a presentation? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formal paper presented at conference. THI (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are any conference proceeding - I found a copy of the paper on the web. I don't think it's been submitted to any journals for PR. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was presented at the conference. Respectfully, you know what this means, right ? THI (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No? what does it mean? Conference papers unless published are Self-published sources I think - however I'd have to check as it's been a while since I've used one... --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THI, is this the paper that you mean? It seems to contain different text than what you are quoting above, or did I miss parts. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link is to paper synopsis. Try download paper. On review original paper has differences with web copy, but all text on ecco from above is in web paper. THI (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The doc is linked from that page, and in my case, even displayed from scribd. I have looked through the doc, looking for the word 'ecco', and I did not find the things that you mention above. Are you sure it is the same document we are looking at? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At bottom of page link you list, is .doc. Download. Print out and read the old fashioned way. THI (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at the bottom. And I see the full text. I see I missed a part, most of the data you give is from a table. May I note you the point at the bottom "The sources include Wikipedia - Personal information management 2008, Keeping Found Things Found 2008 and our own developing research" (as well as some of the references), and Wikipedia:General Disclaimer? None of the references seem to be specific on Ecco (Pro) either. And then, there is still the point of it being a conference proceeding, not a peer-reviewed piece of information. I am sorry if I could not find the text earlier (I was using the scribd-view). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe recheck? Wikipedia sources noted in paper, not related to the ecco references. Those also explicitly about ecco pro. Academic paper presented at conference is compliant with wikipedia academic reference reliability. Note, some of the data listed from a detail table, not sure about 'most'. Also Note: if sci world magazine article stated water was composed of H3O and professor X in paper at Z conference published water was H2O, if editor with knowledge of subject should use H20 fact and reference. Otherwise, trading blind rule based editing for rationally sourced facts. THI (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academic paper presented at conference is compliant with wikipedia academic reference reliability. em... depends is the answer, I asked about this paper over at the reliable sources board and the view was that it might be or might not be. You might want to take it over there youself and see what people say. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I downloaded the .doc file, honestly, there's very little of use in it. THI, what do you want to add to the article that would use this as a reference? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bit askew this comparison, THI. It should be, "if no-one published that water is H₂O, and someone said once at some conference that water is H₂O, then it might indeed be H2O, but we are not really sure. We should wait for reliable sources to be able to verify whether it is really true." That is about the care that we have to take with this reference. But this lecture does not add too much anyway, there really is not too much in there that is useful. It only helps in establishing the notability a bit more (as in 'people talk about Ecco Pro'), but I don't think that is the problem, we all agree that it is notable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Ecco is notable. In reference to "if sci world magazine article stated water was composed of H3O and professor X in paper at Z conference published water was H2O, if editor with knowledge of subject should use H20 fact and reference", I would also point out that were that the case, we would, according to policy, not be able to resolve the dispute using an expert editor's opinion, that would constitute WP:OR. Instead, we would turn to other reliable sources, and barring additional sources, we'd have to cite both claims. Ironically, pure water is indeed composed partially of H₃O, in balance with HO. Nuujinn 13:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone object to replacing the functionality section currently in place with the draft I proposed? If you object, please say why, briefly, if possible. Thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - get that sucker in! --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, lets start with that, I have not heard any objections to the content, only some vague suggestions as to the expansion of it (apparently there is much more to tell). But what is there is at least properly referenced and useful and a great starting point for further discussion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I also recast the Scott Rosenburg reference to make it clear that it's his view. I'm thinking that that section needs general trimming as well. Nuujinn (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not make any sense for me and for our members to contribute further to the site. These discussions now over nearly a year are going nowhere. We recently contacted again the upper echelon of Micro Focus in the UK, the guys who purchased NetManage, there is no interest to further develop EccoPro nor is there any movement for even a "limited" copyright release of parts of the program. We are glad to be able to not only provide the last free Netmange version of 1997 but to also enable the over 7000 world-wide EccoPro users of Vista and Windows 7 (32-bit and 64-bit) to stick to their beloved program. We have a daily quote of 6 to 10 users signing up. Let me point you again to http://www.compusol.org/ecco/wikipedia.html and if you are interested to more history snippets of some of my works explore http://www.creativeservices.org.

Fdohmann (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Fdohmann, that post just boils down to it, does it not. Your language is so typical here, we don't care where it can be downloaded, how many people download it, how much it costs (or even, if it is for free). Are you here to write something knowledgeable about Ecco Pro, based on reliable sources, telling Wikipedia readers what the program is and does, or are you here so that the page can link to your site, so you get more people in to download it. Wikipedia is NOT for promoting software or whatever product. We are writing an encyclopedia here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just made one, cleaned up some prose, removed an unsupported claim, took out the code weavers section, copy edits. Just a head's up. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having watched editors who feel confident of their knowledge of wikipedia policy, and vast 'expertience' 'editing' wikipedia articles, must say that result shows editors ignorant of a topic cannot produce an accurate, informative, and helpful article on the subject.

The article has been modified to be radically inaccruate. The intro, "Ecco Pro is a Personal Information Manager based on a grid based outliner similar to a spreadsheet, and supporting "checkmark folders", which allowed filtering and sorting of information on user defined criteria.[1]" Is horrid. First of all, does not even mention that this is a software program. Secondly, is factually erroneous, ecco is not grid based, and while it supports 'folders' checkmarks are only one type, and the context based cross-reference value of ecco, as well as PIM functionality is ignored.

The 'wikipedia policy' based 'edits' seem not to care about accuracy, "truth is not our purpose", and reflect a very strange value system as to references (magazine article mentioning software is more reliable than software's reference manual, etc.).

YSWT (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like core policy at wikipedia, head over to the policies pages and try and change it (which has no chance of actually happening but if you want to waste your time...). --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't like your personally directed comments. Just because editors 'edit' often does not mean they understand-- at all-- wikipedia policies. The result in this article speaks for itself. YSWT (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, do you mean that we, or at least a number of us, do not understand-- at all-- wikipedia policies? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to improve it, YSWT. But note that if you include things which are not policy or guideline based, they will be reverted. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple of edits based on his comments, and pulled the COI template (since we're free of that now I think). Yes, YSWT, truth is not our purpose, sorry about that. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To make this a bit laughable .. YSWT, are you aware the the second sentence clearly showed already that we were talking about a computer program .. you'r right, it wasn't in the first sentence, but well .. there is soo much not in the first sentence. I'm going to update the text as such. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

once again the active development of this freeware software is 'redacted' in most places from this article, once again insertion of pay-to-access compusol site.

The legitimate sites, such as public domain DDE, and freeware/free to access lists such as the eccowiki and eccotools sites are absent and once again reader is directed to compusol.

YSWT (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted both, problem solved. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Scott, you're quite the optimist. (; Thanks, --Nuujinn (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now the legitimate, established by external sources ecco_pro user group external link which was used as justification for excluding other links, eg., 'they are listed at the user group home page', has been removed on the basis that the pay-to-access bootleg distribution 'compusol' site is objectionable ? YSWT (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh) Compusol is also mentioned in at least one reliable source. My feeling is that there are two groups still supporting the software, one free and one subscription based. We include the one, we should include the other. Or we include neither. Honestly, I don't care which option we take. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compusol is a pay-to-access website, not a group, and has no active ('still') user forum. The eccomagic forums and the eccotools board are examples of 'free' forums still supporting the software. Other than the social engineering compusol engaged in, what is basis to exclude those others from external links list ? Also, 'we include the link I want or we include none' does not seem to be a policy based argument for inclusion or removal of an external link. In fact, seems to be an inappropriate argument. Do you have any policy support for that argument ? Also, isn't there a policy against links to pay-to-join sites ? YSWT (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notably, if we are going to have a helpful external links list to sites relevant to the software, including the eccomagic, eccotools, and eccowiki sites, then have no problem with the compusol site as well (beyond the pirate software issue). My problem is with having the article funnel readers to a pay-to-download bootleg site. Seems very POV or agenda driven to argue solely for 'compusol' when same agruments apply in the 'rejection' of sites like eccowiki, eg., not link farm, site is listed as link in ecco_pro user group, etc. My primary concern is funneling reader to pay-to-access pirate software site. If sufficient alternative links also included in external links, that is not an issue. If desire is to avoid excluding any particular relevant forum or 'support' site, and the mutliple relevant sites are included, the funnel issue is negated. Notably, it was myself who first added compusol as a link, prior to the piracy issues being raised. Beyond that, if there is any reference for active development at the 'compusol' site, let's discuss. There is clearly such reference and contribution of documentation by users in the group, etc., for the ecco_pro forum. YSWT (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final note, it is not helpful to wikipedia to push links to sites with pirated software. If you read the compusol site you see it is offering (for a pay-to-access fee, and aside from bootleg of 90's version of ecco) software such as "Intellilink 3.1.1 Combo click here. Intellilink works only with ECCO Version 3... but it's worth it. It saves many steps getting data in and out of ECCO. Intellilink links Ecco with ACT, ASCII text delimited, CaLANdar, Casio devices, Commence, dBase, Franklin, HP OmniBook and HP 95LX, Lotus Organizer, Excel, Schedule, Word, PackRat, Paradox, Psion 3 and 3A, many Sharp devices, Sharp Zaurus, Sidekick, Tandy devices, Windows Cardfile and WordPerfect. Of course, Intellilink was written in the mid-90's and might not work with your present operating system. ... The Intellilink Version 3.1.1 is the last version which supported EccoPro". Since current push for 'compusol' link seems not to come for those with knoweldge of subject, point out that Intellilink Version 3.1.1 is not freeware, nor developed by nor licensed to 'compusol'. It is a bootleg of an 'old' software from the '90s. Bootleg of 'old' software is still bootleg. Promotion of links to this type of site is not what wikipedia is about. YSWT (talk) 8:17 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Johnuniq attempted to remove this part of the discussion Diff. If there is policy reference to support such action, please provide. The facts will not 'go away' by attempting to cover them up. YSWT (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I _think_ Johnuniq's point was that you are making legal accusations without providing sources for same. Can you provide any sources supporting your allegations? --Nuujinn (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Specifically, while it would obviously be unacceptable to put an unsourced statement into an article saying "Company X sells pirated software", it is also unacceptable to make such claims on talk pages. If a highly reliable source were available, it may be acceptable to say "According to a report at Y, company X sells pirated software". The issue has been discussed before, for example at Talk:Ecco Pro/Archive 1#Response to warez claims. I support the removal of such unsourced commentary. I mentioned "U.S." in my edit summary because while it may not be feasible to take action against a website in some places, persistent copyright violations in the U.S. would be easily handled, thus making the claims unlikely. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this horse not dead yet .. YSWT, besides that you don't have any source saying that Compusol is doing anything illegal, the differences are merely that on the forum there is a free version, and on compusol is a version which you have to pay for (and some slight version differences). Wikipedia does not care about that, we link as well to Microsoft for its Windows distrubution (which is NOT free), as to the various Linux versions which can be downloaded for free (but for most specific distributions you have to pay in a shop). That it is not free is not a reason not to link, that it is free is also not a reason to link to it. IF, and only if, it can be proven that Compusol is actually doing something illegal, something that is only suggested by you (but for which you have, as usual, not given ANY independent source), then linking to Compusol from Wikipedia would be bad. I would suggest to close and blank this discussion. As a besides, I also support removal of all external links to free and non-free download sites, in the external links section, in the infobox (... and in the image ...). Lets stop these continuous attempts to promote these sites, we are writing an encyclopedia here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the allegation--it's in the history if anyone needs to see it. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I have removed the remaining link, and one images which showed the urls (feel free to make a new version with e.g. example.com), and one which used only promotional language (also for that one, feel free to make one with a less promotional text). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently some editors feel at liberity to edit other's comments on this page. I believe that violates wikipedia policy. Once again, a concerted effort has been made to remove from this software article all links to the official distribution site of the actively developed software. I do not have the time for this now, but hope someone will take care of this. YSWT (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, YSWT, making unsubstantiated remarks is also not allowed on talkpages. Can you provide the sources asked for. And when you do, also provide a source that the links that were there were of the official distribution site .. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:TALK is where you want to be. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every source that mentions the active development (there are at least 3 discussed previously) sources the distribution and development to the ecco_pro users's group. My 'remarks' were referenced directly to the compusol website. Moreover, my remarks were not directed at legality, bootleg software might be legal to distribute where the site is located, that was not the issue. The issue is links to download sites for pirated software is not helpful for wikipedia. Similarly, having a software article without a link to the official distribution site of the actively developed software is not helpful for wikipedia, at least in my opinion. The argument that, either you agree to have an external link to a bootleg software site, or we'll strip all the links to the actively developed software's distribution site, seems very much against the core editing rules of this wiki.

To my view, as someone who understands the topic and subject of this article, the article has been 'hijacked'. I also believe that the deletion of my comments from this page violates core wikipedia policies. When time permits I will deal with the matter in more depth. I will leave it to others to fix the article if they so desire. YSWT (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I've restored your allegations that compusol is distributing bootleg software and that it is a site for pirated software, since you insist on making those claims without providing any supporting sources. In regard to the rest of your comments, I'll point out that the ecco yahoo group is in no way an "official distribution site", and the software itself is not being actively developed do to licensing issues--it is rather being manipulated via the programs API, in the same manner as a plugin adds additional functionality to a browser. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn, you really hurt the credibility of Wikipedia. You are a key editor to this article and you've responded to one of the developers involved in re-coding ecco's object code telling him that he is not doing what he is doing. Since I use it I can tell you personally, Ecco is actively developed. The actual program code is new. I am a member of both the Ecco user groups, and you are wrong again. The Ecco_Pro group is the official distribution site, and the only site you can download the latest developments. New "API" Add-ons that you are referring to are at the EccoTools.com site. In any case, the factual errors in this article are embarrassing and do a lot to discredit Wikipedia as an accurate source of information about things. 82.81.207.127 (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is disturbing. I made the above comment, and about 20 seconds later it was deleted. I see this has happened to other editors who expressed similar views. I am emailing a note about this to Wikipedia. 82.81.207.127 (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. Once again my comments instantly vanish. Is it like 'illegal' here to point out the factual errors of the article ? So, not only are the Wikipedia articles grossly erroneous factually, but discussion about that is instantly deleted ? 82.81.207.127 (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

82.81.207.127. Having unreferenced, original research is what hurts Wikipedia. Any reliable, secondary or tertiary, sources stating that the developers are actually altering the source code of the software, or the binary code of the program itself is developed (as opposed to patched)? Actually, my .exe is not changed (but that is also original research)

No, it is not the official distribution site, it is a distribution site. Anyone can open a forum and give software for download, that it is there does not make it official. I could easily download the software from the site and offer it for download somewhere else and claim that I have the official download site. What exactly makes this the official site (and I want an explanation for the word official - what makes it official).

82.81.207.127. Your edits were reverted as you damage many threads here on this page. If you would have just posted here, nothing would have happened and you would have gotten an answer, as I did now. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC) (adapted --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Also, I would add that according to reliable sources, the source code for Ecco Pro has not been released to the public. From what I have read, what work is being done with it extends and modifies what the program does via it's API, similar in approach to how a plugin works with Firefox. So as far as we have been able to determine, based on reliable sources, the Ecco Pro program code itself is not being modified, although new code is being developed for use with it. Personally, I think that's way cool, and unusual since commercial software is generally not freely available and often they lack an API or the API is not documented. But there's little discussion of this aspect of Ecco Pro in reliable sources. Also, as an aside, I'm still confused as to the degree of ire between the compusol folks and the ecco user group, but my gut tells me there's a history there that's not public. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn, clearly you do not understand the subject of this article, or 'reliable sources' in connection with the subject. Since the software's official distribution is the yahoo ecco_pro forum, and the official documentation is the eccowiki.com wiki, those are the reliable sources for technical specs of the software, just as microsoft is cited as source for tec specs of products developed by microsoft. The 'work being done' is program code modification. It is not via API. Most of updates are applied 'in-line' that is, at the time the program is loaded into memory, as opposed to updating file on the disk. Some, such as LightenUP! at the eccotools.com board, change the physical disk file code. Since your understanding is 100% wrong, your 'reliable sources' cannot be very reliable. The problem is that you are an indictment to wikipedia generally. If the information in this article is so completely INACCURATE, how can any information on wikipedia be trusted. Replies like, 'truth' is not our purpose, just proves the point. The fact that you'all are so active in other articles, also proves the point. A little knowledge is dangerous. You have confused requirments for notoriety (self-notoriety is worthless) with reliable sources for info on sources (developer specs about software, generally highly reliable). Accordingly, the premis of reliable information be so far off base, the information in the article ends up off base. Add that to Ego involvement and need for 'control', led to removal of relevant links, DDE API extensions, free add-ons, tech specs, etc. All in all, you have made this article a poster child to demonstrate that wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Maybe that has something to do with the recent 'please contribute money to us, we are in trouble' ads that now greet visitors. YSWT (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YSWT, you do not get the point, do you. The Yahoo Ecco_pro forum is NOT the official distribution point for the software, and the eccowiki.com wiki is not the official documentation point - since there is nothing that says that they are the official sites. So there is where you are 100% wrong. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]