I started looking through this. There probably needs to be a flag, because there are inappropriate sources and this is an opinion piece in the ways Rob has noticed.
While browsing, In the prelude, the Apache License is described as among the weak copyleft licenses. It is not, and weak copyleft is not allowed in Apache source code either. (LGPL is the archetypical weak copyleft.) The well-known term is "reciprocal," and ALv2 is part of the same family as the modern BSD, the MIT license, etc. The sidebar on license is a muddle and there probably needs to be a bright line between OpenOffice.org as delivered prior to the contribution to Apache and Apache OpenOffice. I see this is discussed on the Talk:OpenOffice page. Also, the chronological information is a jumble throughout the article. I don't believe the statement about enterprise desktop penetration either. If simple events were reported without supposing reasons for them (i.e., only Oracle knows what led to the SGA to Apache, but the fact that it happened is incontrovertible), this article would be much cleaner. That's the case for numerous statements which should be reduced to the essential facts and not invented reasons. I suppose it is fair to say where there was controversy, but there are too many unsupported conclusions. I agree that the "In June 2011 ..." paragraph is garbage. The Governance thing is also strange. Was an "OpenOffice Foundation" ever established? After all that introductory strangeness, there is a great deal of technical detail. Under "Development" the Security section is simply strange. (LibreOffice has never bundled Java, AFAIK.) The full functionality requirement is not explained but it is apparently from a phrase in the AOO install instructions. That should be remedied if it is not about OpenOffice functionality but a dependency for extensions and database providers. The Talk:OpenOffice page is interesting. The article requires considerable curation to be in Wikipedia-acceptable encyclopedic form. David Gerard seems to be well-intended in his presence on the Talk:OpenOffice page, despite his excessive speculation and prognostication on the main page. I am not certain that is all his doing. Contributions from IBM employees are significant, IBMers being the largest contingent of paid developers. But the article overstates that, as if everything else is miniscule. All of the tipping toward LibreOffice is also meaningless and doesn't belong in this article anyhow. His tweeting that he's like more eyes on the article seems benign to me. I don't see "bragging" and certainly not about FUD. I do agree that there is far too much information about LibreOffice, since LibreOffice has its own article. Many of the declarations about that and how it came about, who has what developers, etc., is not needed in this article. The OpenOffice page is not appropriate for LibreOffice posturing/FUD. The OpenOffice article probably needs one of those notices that it is not up to standard, etc. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 15:47 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays I noticed David Gerard bragging about this on Twitter to Roy Schestowitz: https://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/293102313751584768 Take a look at the lovely new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice Some choice bits of distortion: [ ... ] Gerard is also pushing for the page to declare LO as the successor to OpenOffice: "LO as successor Per the naming discussion above - AOO has the trademark, but that's about all. There's about ten press sources in the article already to support a statement that OOo was succeeded by LO, and that AOO is a rump, a moribund shell; and only IBM sources seriously pretending AOO is a live project - as far as I can see looking through AOO commits, IBM hasn't even committed the Symphony code and it's supposed to come out in February. We'll see with AOO 4.0, but if it looks anything like Symphony (which I've used at work, and it's horrible), that will be the day old OOo users notice something has gone terribly wrong and it'll be appropriate to make this article all about OpenOffice.org and make Apache OpenOffice a separate article - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OpenOffice#Badly_in_need_of_copyediting_and_sensible_revision These are some of the same misstatements as in the Lwn.net article coming out later this week, btw. Is that what they are stooping to now? Are these the words of a neutral Wikipedia editor? Is that how they work? It seems rather odd to me for a notable detractor of Apache OpenOffice to have free hand in a revisionist rewrite of this Wikipedia page. Quite odd. I'm disappointed, but not surprised. -Rob
