Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mozilla Firefox/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 23:39, 10 February 2007.

Mozilla Firefox[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Messages left at Andrevan, Linux and Computing. Sandy (Talk) 21:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the article Mozilla Firefox for a featured article review because it no longer meets attributes 1(a), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), and 4 of the featured article criteria. There is an edit war going on, and editors are making poorly-sourced edits based on original research and in violation of Wikipedia:NPOV. The page has been flagged with {{NPOV}} and {{weasel}}, and includes many technical details which are unnecessary, citing pages from mozilla.org. Because of this, the article can also no longer be considered "Well written", since the prose is not necessarily compelling, and definitely not brilliant. This article needs significant amounts of work in order to maintain its featured article status. Vir4030 08:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Are you neutral, or a participant in this edit war and blatantly using FAR as a means to annoy those you're warring against? LuciferMorgan 14:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - from what I can see, the nominator has been registered since August 2005 and has not taken part in any editing of the Mozilla Firefox article or its talk page. I can't say anything about the IP addresses the nominator uses because I can't see them. Let's try and keep things WP:CIVIL. --tgheretford (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am neutral. I am certainly not a participant in an edit war, and I have never "warred against" anyone. As far as I know, I have been nothing but a positive contributor to Wikipedia, and I would appreciate a little good faith. If we can get to the point, though, what did you think of the article? Vir4030 19:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have the right to ask such a question - nominators don't usually cite 5 violations of the FA criteria. Additionally, the nominator didn't say whether he was a participant or not. On a final note, wikilinking to guideline pages is rather tiring - numerous editors do it, and there's no point. It's like people are assuming I know nothing, which is rather derogatory. Rather than quote chapter and verse, how about common sense? LuciferMorgan 21:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tone you're taking here is not called for, in relation to anything Vir4030 has written. I also have found some of your other comments on FAR potentially unfair to or angry toward others (e.g. Raul's recent FAR). I'm not an active participant here (though I still read), and the atmosphere is why. –Outriggr § 06:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think LuciferMorgan needs to chill out. Anyway, it seems that the article is nowhere near as good as it was when it became a FA. Some serious copyediting is needed. Andre (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I think differently - I asked a question which was taken the wrong way. LuciferMorgan 22:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the reasons so many people interpreted your question as being unnecessarily aggressive may have been your use of the word blatantly. Udzu 15:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page is protected do to an edit war (1e). It's perfectly acceptable to list a disputed FA here as well as cite 5 criterion. Accusing the nominator of bias is barely assuming good faith. -- Selmo (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Asking and accusing are different things - perhaps in good faith you could believe me when I say I was merely asking for clarification of the matter. LuciferMorgan 21:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there is something wrong with the tone you are using, ok? The guy wrote some links and you took it as a personal insult. That's not assuming good faith either. PureRumble 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Quoting WP:CIVIL wasn't meant in good faith at all - and I didn't take it as a personal insult. Your assuming I took it as a personal insult. LuciferMorgan 13:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get one thing straight here, I can respond to your latest comment with a whole load of things that I have to say, but I won't. Discussing your behavior and the comments you have written here is not the purpose of this nomination; reviewing the article about the web-browser Firefox in order to see if it still embodies the criteria of a featured article is. Now you have the answer to your initial question; you know the nominator is not biased and he tried to list those attributes of FAstatus that the article violates in good faith. Let us move on. PureRumble 16:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to respond to your last comment PureRumble - it isn't worthy of my time for many reasons (I'm not gonna waste my time listing them for your pleasure). As for the article, it has short, choppy prose (1. a. violation) which needs addressing. Last time I checked, criterion 1. a. was on the latest chapter and verse you quoted - any other criteria you would like to comment upon regarding this article? LuciferMorgan 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is a objection or comment, then you should write it without indent and with the proper word written in bold. Otherwise I think people will just miss it, since they will think you are just continuing our initial discussion. PureRumble 07:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object to removal of FA status. Unsourced edits should be removed, warring parties should be blocked, or article protected. If edit wars could get articles defeatured, trolls could kill our supply of FA's far too easily. - Mgm|(talk) 11:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still has a POV tag, footnotes are not correctly formatted, doesn't follow WP:GTL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - there is a minor issue with Image:Minefield-3.0a1-20060922.png. It's uploaded and tagged "copyrighted, but free software", but the image contains Microsoft's copyrighted Windows Media Center skin. It should be retaken on a free operating system for it to be truly a free (and therefore non-fair use) or it should be tagged as fair use. Given, this isn't really valid criticism for this article's FA star to be taken away, but an FA article should not have any copyright issues, so I believe that this should be fixed to make a stronger case for the FA star to stay. —msikma (user, talk) 12:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a major issue with the image too. It currently shows the Places UI which has been scraped in favor restoring the firefox <2 history and bookmarks UI while still using a SQLite database [1]. Kbrosnan 05:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are writing 1(a), citations 1(c), POV 1(d), stability 1(e), and focus (4). Marskell 21:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Besides other concerns, references need extensive work - it doesn't look like anyone is taking it on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If reference formatting is the main citation issue, I'll take it on. I can't help much with the other concerns, but this much I can do. I've just noticed this is already FARC. I'll finish the refs anyway (about halfway done) and keep out. Fvasconcellos 20:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • References done, to the best of my ability. Fvasconcellos 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per Sandy's concerns. LuciferMorgan 22:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can hold off on closing this after some work by Fva. Are the refs good for you now Sandy? Writing next. Marskell 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold pending further review - Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs) has tuned up the refs, POV tag is gone, striking my remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are some cites for whole paragraphs? LuciferMorgan 13:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is there no definite criticism section? Is that a violation of NPOV itself? Darthnader37 00:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you know of some criticism that isn't included and should be? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote is still a remove if anyone is wondering, based on insufficient citations. I asked if the citations were for whole paragraphs, though nobody responded. LuciferMorgan 03:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're basing a remove on an unanswered question, you might ping FVasoncellos and ask him. I know him to be a thorough citer, so I'm not concerned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never edited this article before FARC, so I'm not familiar with its history; I simply formatted and checked the existing citations—none of them are actually "mine". I suppose I could do a little verification. Are there any paragraphs you are particularly concerned with? Fvasconcellos 13:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • uh, oh. I didn't realize you hadn't cited it yourself - this could be a problem. Maybe Lucifer can let us know what else needs citation, with fact tags, and we can see where that leads. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Had another look - the prose is atrocious and there's a "confusing" tag I agree with. I have no idea what that section is trying to say, and it's completely unreferenced. If no one addresses these issues prontissimo, I'm a remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Update: I have since personally referenced :) several statements as per LuciferMorgan's concerns, Ubernostrum (talk · contribs) has rewritten and referenced the "Licensing" section and an unlikely rumor has just been removed. As of now, only one uncited statement remains, which I'll tackle as soon as time permits. I believe this warrants a fresh look, even if it's just to cement everyone's opinions. diff Fvasconcellos 12:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before reading any further, I need to understand why a wiki is used as a source? It's a wiki - what makes it reliable? [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For one thing, it's not anon-editable. Secondly, a sample of a few random users (very scientific, I know :/) showed mostly Mozilla developers, and a member of the Mozilla Foundation board. Still, it's a wiki, and subject to vandalism. If it's not to be used as a source anymore, I don't know where to go from here—it's apparently the source for official documentation; they even post their meeting minutes on the site. Damn community spirit :) Fvasconcellos 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • hmmm, tough call. What do we do with this? Sounds like it could be reliable even though it's a wiki? Would you be willing to make a post at the talk page of WP:RS, describing the site, to see if we can get some consensus there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure, since you asked nicely :) First I'll try to learn some more about the website, so as not to put my foot in my mouth. I'll be very busy with work the next few days, so I will probably have to put Wikipedia on the back burner. Don't worry, though—I won't forget about it... Asked, albeit uninspiredly. I hope some editors will pick up on it. Fvasconcellos 01:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just looking at this issue, at the very least we should link to a specific version of a page (or even a diff, although that might be a bit confusing), otherwise the source is too unstable. By that I mean link to this instead of that. Trebor 12:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Good idea IMHO. I've let Sandy know, let's see what she and other reviewers think. Fvasconcellos 13:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I can tell, it's used as a primary source, not as a secondary source. Even without referencing a specific version, if the retrieval date is included (which it is) this strikes me as a non-issue. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • My thoughts exactly. If this is where developers discuss the product's progress, this is the best primary source we could have, Wiki or not; however, I'm still not sure we can circumvent this guideline. Fvasconcellos 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • My suggestion about a specific version was based on the fact that webpages may be archived only once a month, whereas it's possible for a wiki to change much more often. I don't see a particular problem with using it as a source; I think this s one of the places where we have to ignore the guideline and use common sense. We know with reasonable certainty who wrote this information, and what it means; I can't think of a compelling reason not to use it. Trebor 19:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specific unaddressed concerns?[edit]

Can somebody summarize (or even better list) the remaining unaddressed concerns about this article? My assumption is concerns need to be specific and addressable (same rules as FAC). I'm willing to work on this, but vague, unaddressable criticisms (e.g. "the prose is atrocious") seem a bit unfair. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Curious that concern that we sort out whether a source is reliable isn't a specific enough concern? As to prose, disentangle this - yes, it's all one sentence - typical of the prose I encountered when I first read the article:
    • For distributions which wish to modify the code without using the official branding (for example, in order to produce a derivative work unencumbered by restrictions on the Firefox trademark), the Firefox source code contains a "branding switch"; this switch allows the code to be compiled without the official logo and name, which are replaced with a generic globe logo — which is freely redistributable — and the name of the release series from which the modified version was derived (e.g. "Deer Park" for derivatives of Firefox 1.5 and "Bon Echo" for derivatives of Firefox 2.0).
  • SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue of using the Mozilla wiki as a reference is amply specific (I should have listed it here as one that was being worked). Are there more examples of awkward prose, or is the paragraph you mention above the only one? And are there any other issues you or anyone else has with the article? -- Rick Block (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a sample only - the first section I read somewhere in the middle of the article. I don't typically re-read every article under review in its entirety when there are still referencing and copyedit problems to be worked out; I gave a sample to indicate a serious copyedit is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:V is pretty clear that primary sources can be used in specific circumstances. Is that the barometer we're using here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pedantic point: the semi-colon in Sandy's example actually indicates two sentences. The prose is awful there, however. sneaks away... Marskell 12:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rick Block is at work on the prose. If the prose can be cleaned up, I won't object to Keeping this article, but I won't support it either - I just can't go there with a wiki used as a source. In other words, I'll abstain if prose is cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I'm working on the prose (I've revised the paragraph quoted above and made some changes in the lead so far). -- Rick Block (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • To see if the Mozilla wiki has safeguards we don't (that is, not to be a dick in regards to this review) I started an account and just made two edits to the section you're citing. (Not vandalism—just changed a tense.) I'm sorry Rick, but wikis are not reliable sources. The only argument I could see is "Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s)". This might apply if we had a page specifically about the Mozilla wiki and used a couple of sections from it for "colour"—but not for assertions of fact. Marskell 20:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've replaced three Wiki cites with secondary sources; one of these, however, is ad-supported. Would replacing the rest of them with equivalent secondary sources be acceptable? )For the record, I still think the Wikis are better sources, and linking to stable, vandalism-free revisions eliminates the issues raised by Marskell, but this is my humble opinion) Fvasconcellos 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can someone who knows the topic determine if the info cited to the Wiki can just be removed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see only four uses remaining, one of which can definitely go as it's a double cite. To Fva, if the source is otherwise reliable, an ad-supported source is preferable to a wiki and changing them would be appreciated. (The Times is ad-supported, after all.) This probably does seem a bit uptight, so three explanations:
            • a) I'm sure the wiki probably does appear a better source, because it's closer to the subject, but unless there's a locked, stable version we can't know who wrote it. See the general disclaimer for the site: "Satisfaction is not guaranteed."[3] Obviously tongue-in-cheek, but it also suggests "ya, this is our wiki, take it with a grain of salt."
            • b) It's verifiability, not truth. If Widgets Magazine has said Mozilla has said something, we should repeat that rather than simply quoting Mozilla itself (even if Mozilla itself seems more accurate.)
            • c) I'm concerned about the thin end of the wedge. We may trust User:Fvasconcellos and User:Rick Block in this instance, but I don't like imagining on some pop culture article in the future "ya, even our FAs use wikis, so what's the problem?" Best to lead by example.
            • Good work trying to take care of this. Marskell 08:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's three now :) OK, sorry for pushing the wiki thing this far. I have to agree with you on c), hadn't thought of that. As for ad-supported sources, I'm used to nuking ad-supported ELs, but I guess that's a different animal altogether—something for me to think about. Fvasconcellos 12:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Where there are secondary sources I think this is a fine approach. On the other hand, I disagree with the sentiment here that a wiki should never be used as a source. At least a few open source projects are using wikis as their development coordination and documentation mechanisms. Imagine trying to write an FA about Wikipedia's policies without referencing pages in the en:wikipedia! I think this will become a moot point here, but let's continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. My fear is that this restriction introduces a systemic bias against open source projects. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, not moot. The estimated release date of Nov 2007 for FF 3.0 is cited as from http://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=ReleaseRoadmap&oldid=40597. This is the internal planning wiki for the project, which includes the disclaimer "Please do not edit these pages without permission of the Mozilla project drivers. Your feedback and comments are welcomed on the discussion page.". In fact, the most recent two changes to this page are one that changes the Nov 2007 date to Jan 2007 and a revert of this "suspicious" change. I've found various other web references to the release date of FF 3.0, but they point back to this page (usually an older version). It seems to me referencing the internal planning document for a projected release date is about the best primary source that exists. For project convenience it's kept on a wiki. This page is monitored and apparently carefully controlled, and we're currently referencing a specific (non-vandalized) version. What are the reasons that this should not be cited? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've actually tried unsuccessfully to find a secondary source for this statement—the closest I got (a CNET article) mentioned "Fall 2007". Fvasconcellos 15:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bluhahah. I'm trying to compartmentalize the larger issue of Wikis and this particular review:
On Wikis generally, I very much disagree with the implication that "Where there are secondary sources" is decisive. We either allow wikis as sources or we don't, regardless of whether another source can be used. If a secondary source does not exist for a piece of factual info, then we have to consider not adding the information. I've had variations of this debate many times (as, I'm sure, have both of you) and I'm struck by the fact that a restraint on not adding "the immediate" is seen as greatest harm. No. Greatest harm is adding unverifiable information.
So: if the estimated release date has only been published on the Mozilla wiki, then it is, for our purposes, unverifiable. We shouldn't add it. This page can still keep its star for what that's worth, and when Widgets Magazine reports something, we can add the info. Remember: Wikipedia is broadly tertiary, not secondary. It describes what has been reported about things. Marskell 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A last, incidental point: "Imagine trying to write an FA about Wikipedia's policies without referencing pages in the en:wikipedia!" You couldn't make an FA, at present, about Wikipedia's policies that literally conformed to Wikipedia's rules. Not everything can be an FA and Wikipedia is not acceptable to itself (per V and RS). There'll be no FAs about Wikipedia until academics really start talking about Wikipedia (which has happened briefly, and will happen again more, IMO); the Wikipedia article itself lost FA status six or seven months ago. Marskell 20:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're making this too difficult. WP:V and WP:RS imply Wikipedia is generally tertiary, not secondary, and is generally based on secondary, not primary, sources. Adding these together to conclude no wiki can ever be used as a reference is a leap I don't think needs to be made. Certainly most wikis should not be used as sources, since they're often not verifiable and/or not reliable. Wikis that allow links to specific versions pretty much cover the verifiability requirement (actually better than most web pages) which leaves reliability as a potential issue. Openly editable wikis are generally not too reliable. Wikis used as part of a development process (like this use of the Mozilla wiki), are (IMO) a reliable primary source. The expected release date of FF 3.0 is November 2007. We know this because it is the date listed, as of today, in the wiki being used to plan the development. We further know that any secondary source that lists a different date (like http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061212-8409.html, which I'd bet you'd accept as a secondary source and lists the date as May 2007) is incorrect (or at least not current). In this case, any secondary source is less reliable than the primary source even though the primary source happens to be a wiki. I understand and support a general rule that says wikis can't be used as references (and support this). However, just as "generally based on secondary sources" doesn't mean primary sources can never be used, "generally don't use wikis as references" doesn't have to mean no wiki can ever be used as a reference.
Are we better off not having this specific fact in this specific article? Rather than remove it based on a fear that wiki references will become rampant, I think we might be better off keeping it as a, perhaps extraordinarily rare, example of an appropriate reference to a wiki. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability, not truth. Fundamental policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this is verifiable (and true). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rick; we should be able to use common sense in these situations. If there's no reasonable doubt about where the information comes from, and the accuracy of it, then I don't see a problem. As above, ignoring the policies in this case would improve the encyclopaedia. Trebor 07:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting a touch circular; I thought I'd proven part of the point by going to the Mozilla wiki and editing it myself! Further, RS does not state "generally don't use wikis" but rather: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources." Your arstechnica link is not less reliable, it's less true, but truth doesn't matter. But if we need an exceedingly rare exception here, I'd suggest: "a release date of November 7 has been posted to the Mozilla wiki, but not yet confirmed by any official statement" etc. Marskell 08:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you edit the page with the release schedule (the one with the disclaimer about not editing it without permission of the Mozilla project drivers)? Focusing on the technology rather than the reliability and verifiability of the content seems wrong to me. In this case, the Mozilla wiki is the official statement, in much the same way that a post from Jimbo to a Wikipedia policy page would be "official". Seems like we may have to agree to disagree here. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...but not yet reported elsewhere" then, or some such thing; I want to flag it at least, with an inline attribution/qualifier. Is that too much? I notice the number of wiki refs is still around five. As for which I edited, I followed our link here. I wouldn't, incidentally, consider a post from Jimbo official, but rather the Wikipedia:press releases (I don't know if "canonical," locked copies exist for those).
On the bright side, the prose has continued to improve after more work today. Marskell 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really object to linking to clean revisions? If the problem is "anyone can edit and make the ref unreliable" and not just "this is a primary source", I'm sorry, but I don't get it. (If it's the fact it is a primary source I won't go there again.) An aside: an editor has mentioned that the EULA is only available in English; I moved it out of the article body and into the infobox. Is that a problem (i.e., relevance-wise)? Fvasconcellos 20:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main problem is that RS, and V implicitly, say we can't use it. Again, I know how these arguments go and how people get annoyed with wiki-lawyering. But, if not on FAC and FAR, then where do we have the highest bar? And again, I have no doubt a clean version is as close to true as we can find, but it doesn't make the source reliable (are there any locked versions?).
As for the primary source thing, it's been mis-represented above. If I cite a National Geographic from 1907 do describe cultural attitudes as represented in magazines in 1907, I'm using it as a primary source. If I cite it to back up a claim about Indonesia, I'm using it as a secondary source. The wiki cites are used as secondary sources in this article, when they should only be used descriptively as primary sources (e.g., when describing the Mozilla wiki directly, or when describing how developers went about their decision-making).
But note my last post was a compromise: can we at least flag the uses, inline? Marskell 20:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'd misunderstood then. Don't know about locked versions, don't think so. I wouldn't object to inline "flags". Fvasconcellos 21:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC) (We might want to dedent now)[reply]
(doing so) I still think this falls under "improving the encyclopaedia" so long as there's no reasonable date about the veracity of the information. I know it's "verifiability, not truth" but I always saw that as more of an attempt to stop original research, or people changing articles to put in their version of the "truth". For that reason, I don't think this is a V matter. RS is only a guideline, and as such should be taken with common sense. Would we rather an accurate encyclopaedia or one that strictly adheres to "the rules"? In the spirit of compromise though, an inline "flag" would be a passable solution. Trebor 21:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By "inline flag" I was thinking of altering the wording to specifically mention that a wiki is being used as a source ("X has said it is A" rather than "It is A"). Can someone familiar try that?
"RS is only a guideline." Indeed it is, and I understand what you mean. RS is funny: V is hopelessly short without it; it's as widely cited as any P&G; people are very attached to it; but it's never actually been policy. Certain sentences and paras of it are definitely canonical for Wiki, if nothing else.
But this is a V matter—everytime you're talking about sources you're talking about V. It's not just about keeping OR, cranks, etc. out of weak articles; it's about setting an example of best practice on strong articles. But I've had enough meta discussions for today :). Marskell 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand your idea of an "inline flag" and think it would be a good enough solution. Trebor 21:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example: In the Version 3.0 section, how about replacing
The estimated release date for Firefox 3 is in November 2007.
with
According to information posted on the Mozilla Wiki "Release Roadmap" by Mozilla Vice-President of Products Christopher Beard, the estimated release date for Firefox 3 is in November 2007.
Thoughts? Fvasconcellos 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A post on the Mozilla Wiki "Release Roadmap" from President of Products Christopher Beard suggests a release in November 2007." Shorter, and avoids the troublesome word "information" (it is troublesome--let's not go there). "Suggests" is a great word--it deprecates the information without deprecating it :). Then have a note explaining what the Mozilla wiki is, why it is not fundamentally reliable, but why it is considered so in this context. Marskell 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm only suggesting a note describing the wiki for the first use of it.
I'm also thinking that, huffing and puffing aside, we may be devising a good template as to how to approach this issue on other articles. It's not all for nothing. Marskell 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK—why may it be considered reliable in this context? The fact we're linking to a specific revision, the fact Mozilla wiki is used for discussion of development, the fact somethings now cited to the wiki aren't yet adequately covered by the media/more conventional sources? I'm lost in the consensus :) I'll try and think of the appropriate wording tomorrow if no-one beats me to it. (feel free to though...) Fvasconcellos 00:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot. To clarify my clarification, I only expect a footnote once. Every sentence with a wiki a source should say, "according to the wiki" inline.
"why may it be considered reliable in this context". I guess better phrasing is why it is official, rather than reliable (because according to the letter, it's not actually reliable). You might say Mozilla doesn't do press releases (?) and that developers announce things on the wiki instead, then point to the disclaimer quoted by Rick. Marskell 12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a note to this effect. It's not at the first instance of Wiki citing (will change this later) and I'm not quite happy with the wording, please feel free to improve if you don't think it conveys the appropriate information. Fvasconcellos 19:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit?
  • Do you guys feel that a copyedit is a good idea here? — Deckiller 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, yes? Please? :) Fvasconcellos 22:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure thing. It's probably going to need an extra person because of the complexity of the subject. I'll see if someone else from the LoC is interested in helping. — Deckiller 23:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can ce along with somebody else, if people like. I read through it today; my main thought was "boring for John Q." because of all the acronyms, but that's inevitable for a subject like this. The prose is close to passable, IMO; the review has already removed the main clunkers. Marskell 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through and removed a bunch of redundancies. Want to tag team? — Deckiller 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's starting to look passable for the most part IMO. — Deckiller 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I chopped at that snake. Almost there. Marskell 08:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update
  • NPOV tag re-added by SqueakBox (talk · contribs). Fvasconcellos 01:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree with the NPOV tagging. This article has been operated on by some of Wikipedia's best, and if there are any issues with neutrality, they are extremely minor. — Deckiller 01:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed it, since no explanation was given. When good faith efforts have been underway for (what?) two months to rewrite the article, an editor having NPOV concerns should specifically detail them on the article talk page or on the FAR, with specific issues that can be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since everything has stabilized, I'll say keep. — Deckiller 19:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody else? Marskell 06:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I allowed to vote, having worked on the article? I'm new to this FAR thing :/ Fvasconcellos 14:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's where I tell you it's not a vote. You are perfectly free to make a vote-like-comment (as I call them :). Marskell 14:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course. Damn, I love WP :) I believe the prose has greatly improved, no statements remain uncited and the Wiki-as-RS discussion has been IMHO successfully resolved. I'm a keep. Fvasconcellos 15:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Mozilla_Firefox/archive1&oldid=1138477481"