![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the [[Talk:|current talk page]]. |
Archive 1 |
The /e/ project has created a new functioning mobile operating system, is run through a public interest French-registered trust, and has an active community of supporters. It has an upward battle in a mobile operating system world strongly dominated by two players: Apple, who claim high ideas with regard to privacy but have everything locked in proprietary formats, and Google who give away plenty of free services in exchange for colossal data harvesting. The /e/ project aims to deliver a privacy-oriented open-source mobile operating system to provide a real alternative to those who don't want to be locked in to either Apple or Google. I'm just a volunteer in the community, but we've been fielding comments wondering where our wikipedia page is, hence Manoj's contribution here. Neither of us are experts at Wikipedia; if there are specific changes needed to make the page acceptable, please let us know. Russell. 49.3.11.211 ( talk) 12:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Please note there is a page dedicated to /e/ project on Wikipedia in German [1]. Please can someone from the editorial team explain why different standards are being applied, to the same topic with similar references but in different languages.As mentioned by Russell above in case there is any issue in the formatting or template please let us know. The references quoted are all from national newspapers and popular websites from across the world. Manoj Nair ( talk) 12:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
References
This discussion is continued from User talk:Yae4 § /e/ (operating system).
Yae4, thanks for refraining from using forum posts with your most recent edits. However, the following additions are still not neutral.
Ironically, in January 2018 Duval acknowledged using Google Adwords to analyze and improve "driving people to my two different landing pages." [1]
With the word Ironically, you are using a non-neutral and unencyclopedic tone in your prose. Additionally, the above sentence is unrelated to the subject of the article (the operating system), and should be removed from the article as undue weight.
As of August 2019, half the resulting issues were still open in Gitlab. [2]
This type of criticism, sourced to a primary source, is a form of original research that is undue in the article. If this were covered by a reliable secondary source in a way that is pertinent to the article content, then it can be added to the article, but primary sources should not be used to form controversial conclusions that are not supported by secondary sources.
Please also take some time to review Wikipedia's no original research policy. In particular, we should prefer reliable secondary sources as the basis for the majority of the article's content. — Newslinger talk 19:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
References
These issues were addressed. "Ironically" was deleted. The sentence is related to background of the Kickstarter campaign, which was already included, so it should remain for balanced presentation of "non-Google" development.
"Original research" sentence was deleted.
InfoSec Handbook should be allowed as a 2nd party independent reference. Self-published PR by e foundation calls them experts, and InfoSec Handbook is one of few (or only one) to publish detailed investigation with professional form.
-- Yae4 ( talk) 10:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Re: Gitlab tracking of Issues from InfoSec Handbook. For future reference, at:
https://medium.com/hackernoon/leaving-apple-google-how-is-e-actually-google-free-1ba24e29efb9 https://www.indidea.org/gael/blog/leaving-apple-google-how-is-e-actually-google-free/
Duval published the following supplement comment, referring to /e/'s tracking of the issues in their GitLab:
"Gaël Duval April 29, 2019
All those points have been converted to issues in our GitLab: https://gitlab.e.foundation/search?group_id=&project_id=&repository_ref=&scope=issues&search=Infosec+Handbook+Review "
Therefore, referring to Gitlab tracking of the issues is NOT original research. -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
"still"). If you review articles on similar topics ( LineageOS, CyanogenMod, and Android (operating system)) or just about any other open-source software article on Wikipedia, you'll see that none (or almost none) of them mention the proportion of open/closed issues in the tracker. Including this information when it's only cited to a primary source would significantly deviate from the norms on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 22:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)I agree FossForce and LiveMint are poor sources. However, I also think 1-5 are not much better. Infosec-handbook.eu is the only place I've found independent, professional looking, detailed coverage of /e/ that does not simply parrot or regurgitate the primary source info' for details on /e/.
Some notes on the list of references, and whether they are on the "reliable sources" list.
Linux Journal - No. Also, author Glyn Moody wrote book, Rebel Code: Linux And The Open Source Revolution, which has a chapter on Duval and Mandrake, and is highly praised in Duval's blog about page. This could indicate some lack of independence, collaboration, or favorable bias. In addition, the article has several links to hackernoon (non-reliable, primary source) and indidea (Duval's personal blog).
ZDNet - Yes. However, the article uses indidea (Duval's blog) and kickstarter links as the main source for details.
Tech Republic - No. Also references hackernoon and e's gitlab for details.
The Register - Yes, "reliable." However, also references hackernoon and e's gitlab for details.
Medium - Yes, but Non reliable.
Foss Force - No. Only 4 writers. Articles on /e/ are by Christine Hall, editor. So who edits the editor? Also references indidea (Duval blog) and e's kickstarter.
Live Mint - No. Also, Mostly uses kickstarter as source. -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
"As of April 2019, the issues were being tracked in /e/'s Gitlab", is better, but I don't think it's necessary. Articles on open-source projects generally just put a link to the repository in the infobox, and there's no need to mention this in the article body unless the fact that the project is on GitLab is remarkable in some way.
Reliable sources do not have to be independent, and an author or journalist does not become non-independent when they cover a subject, even if they do so favorably. Glyn Moody is a notable author and Rebel Code is a notable book that was published by Basic Books, a reputable publisher. I don't see any valid reason to exclude the Linux Journal piece.
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines govern articles on Wikipedia, and not the articles we cite. For example, original research is prohibited in Wikipedia articles, but the secondary sources we cite are expected to use original research as the basis for their content. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an article that provides a link to a subject, even if that linked web page would not be a suitable source for Wikipedia. Links don't "contaminate" sources in this way. — Newslinger talk 19:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
repo
parameter in {{
Infobox OS}} for the
software repository, and moved the repository link from the External links section to the infobox. —
Newslinger
talk
14:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)I'm open to revising the statements from the apparently reliable source, to give due weight to its views. I'm not open to ignoring it.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90385283/these-startups-aim-to-smash-apple-and-googles-smartphone-duopoly
This source, Fast_Company, gives a fairly thorough coverage of e foundation and Purism/PureOS/Librem 5, and compares and contrasts the two. Partly because it includes similar info' as published by Free Software Foundation, the following was chosen for this article.
"Until e Foundation can offer its own hardware designed from scratch, it will have to rely on third-party hardware drivers that it doesn’t control. Avoiding that liability is one of the main goals of Purism and its forthcoming smartphone, the Librem 5."
Other comparisons not included in this article so far:
"Its eOS aspires to be a Google-free version of Android that has a wide range of device support. It’s not a new idea:..."
"Purism has been shipping laptops with a strong focus on security and privacy since 2015. It’s used the revenue from its laptops to fund development of its first smartphone. Like its previous devices, the phone runs Purism’s own version of Linux, giving it even more distance from the Google ecosystem than e Foundation’s Android-based system."
"With eOS, e Foundation is taking a Google-like approach, by trying to get its software on as many smartphones as possible in order to reach ubiquity. Purism, by contrast, is pursuing Apple-like vertical integration by developing its own operating system, optimizing hardware to run on it, and even launching a group of services under the banner of Librem One."
Suggestions for fair and neutral statements to include? -- Yae4 ( talk) 17:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The sentence "Avoiding that liability is one of the main goals of
Purism and its forthcoming smartphone, the
Librem 5."
is not relevant to the subject of /e/. However, we can use the paragraph from the piece that contrasts /e/'s "Google-like" approach to Purism's "Apple-like" approach. I've replaced the previous sentence with a summary of this comparison. —
Newslinger
talk
19:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I do not believe that an uncited block of features belong on an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, since it makes it seem like an advertisement, and probably doesn't fulfill WP:NOTABILITY (if that is applicable to content). Oldosfan ( talk) 11:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I added a liliputing reference without giving it too much thought, but now that infosec handbook has been challenged, and I noticed the liliputing article was based on an XDA Developers article, and none of the 3 is in /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources , I'd appreciate some help with comparing and contrasting why one is a good source but the other isn't, because I'm not seeing it. Here's my start.
Liliputing | Infosec Handbook |
---|---|
No wiki page | also no wiki page |
Used many times in wikipedia | Only once in wikipedia, so far |
Wide ranging | Security speciality |
5 staff in about | 4 staff in about |
popular articles | very detailed articles |
takes advertisements and donations | self-funded |
promotes products | no promotion |
More? -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
There should be a microG page; /e/ uses it... Could you help make the draft, Draft:MicroG, better? -- Yae4 ( talk) 18:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Yae4 is doing some repeated vandalism on this page. He has removed most of its content, and is acting repeatedly. His tone is not neutral, he is clearly trying to discretit the /e/ project. Caliwing ( talk) 06:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed mosly with comment above. Actually I'm afraid that it is worse: User:Yae4 edits on the /e/OS page is not neutral and according to what he's trying to post, he's clearly trying to advertize some (competing?) projects like Purism on this page. I think this can NOT be accepted on Wikipedia. Indidea ( talk) 07:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'd like to clarify that I'm not an administrator on Wikipedia. In content disputes, all involved editors (including administrators) have equal voices, and we are expected to reach a solution by consensus. Please note that sockpuppetry is not allowed on Wikipedia, and that everyone is limited to one account in most cases. Also, it is considered bad form to accuse other editors of sockpuppetry without adequate evidence ( "casting aspersions"). If there is clear-cut evidence of sockpuppetry, anyone can open a sockpuppet investigation with the evidence and post the link here.
For anyone who missed the discussion here and on the reliable sources noticeboard during the past week, a community discussion has concluded that there were significant portions of this article that did not meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline. We're in the process of removing content based on self-published sources and replacing it with content based on secondary reliable sources to better meet Wikipedia's quality standards. This means that much of the original content from the December 2018 version of the article must be replaced or rewritten.
If you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia's core content policies, please take some time to read the following pages:
Please feel free to ask any questions you may have. — Newslinger talk 16:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I've asked for help first on including /eOS technical info on Duval's bio page, and a look at recent edits. I don't know how ordinary editors could prove puppetry, but it also appears to me Caliwing and Indidea are unusually attached to Duval and his projects, and have similar behavior on Wikipedia, around the same times. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ga%C3%ABl_Duval -- Yae4 ( talk) 19:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
As suggested at the BLP noticeboard, discussion of conflict of interest has been raised for more participation here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#/e/_(operating_system). -- Yae4 ( talk) 11:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Following up: Users Indidea and Caliwing have now both been blocked, after Sockpuppet investigation. It was noted "All three of these accounts stopped editing when Indidea was blocked, which I find suspicious." and "Indidea and Caliwing are very Likely. Mnair69 is Unrelated."
Unrelated in terms of technical sockpuppetry; however, their common interest, and coordinated activities were noted. We all know Mnair is working with or for e foundation, which is run by Gael Duval (aka Indidea, aka Caliwing).
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Caliwing
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Indidea
Title of this talk section has been modified accordingly. -- Yae4 ( talk) 21:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
A few were recently added and deleted, in apparently random order. So, should they be in order of relevance or similarity to eOS, alphabetical, or other? Should it only be mobile operating systems or also include other organizations? Because the pull-downs at the page bottom include extensive lists, divided by types, my opinion is the See also section should only include Wiki pages connected by mention in this article text (and based on sources). eOS is not really in the same category as many now listed. I'd include other Android ROMs - CyanogenMod, CopperheadOS, LineageOS, and Replicant because they are all similarly Android-based or privacy oriented; and PureOS and Purism because of the FastCompany source comparison. The others at the top of the list now (FIrefox, Ubuntu Touch, KaiOS and Sailfish) are non-Android, without sourced comparisons. -- Yae4 ( talk) 11:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
My interpretation is you are trying to make eOS look more "unGoogled" and less Android than reality. eOS is Android-based, fork of LineageOS (rebranded CyanogenMod) as discussed in secondary sources. Comparison with non-Android OS is original research, and gives an appearance eOS is less of an Android/LineageOS OS fork than reality. I'd be OK with clarifying which are Android-based and which are not, but I think we should limit the list. -- Yae4 ( talk) 11:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article mention the fact that legal issues drove the change from eelo to /e/, and this is a repeat of history - legal issues drove the change from Mandrake to Mandriva? It seems like a notable fact. /info/en/?search=Mandriva_Linux#Name_changes /info/en/?search=Mandriva#History -- Yae4 ( talk) 00:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Caliwing asked some questions on my talk page (reproduced below), and I'd like to answer them here for the convenience of all interested editors.
Hi - maybe you didn't notice my question on the /e/'s history page, but I'd like to better understand and get your advice so that I can contribute better to the /e/ page and others. I think in some cases (probably for tech projects) some facts can clearly be checked from primary sources and you won't necessarily find content in secondary sources about it. Let me give an example in the /e/ case: the list of supported devices, like it was added recently by a user, is on their gitlab. That's a fact, it can be checked. Is there any issue with using such a primary source? Another case: reference to source code. Does it qualify as an acceptable source for a citation on a Wikipedia? Also, another case that comes to mind: /e/ have released their "cloud" part as a set of various software components that can be installed by users to self-host their /e/ services instead of relying on the /e/ cloud at ecloud.global. As this is rather new, there are no secondary sources about this news. However this kind of information is not a claim, it's factual and can easily be checked on the appropriate download page. In that case, is it acceptable to be mentioned and cited in an edit? Caliwing ( talk) 09:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Primary sources are allowed, but not preferred, in Wikipedia articles, and there are limitations on their use. WP:PSTS gives the big picture on preferred sourcing:
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.
The list of supported devices is hosted on /e/'s GitLab instance, which is a self-published primary source. The source is reliable in this context. However, unless reliable secondary sources also mention specific device models that are supported by /e/, this information is assigned reduced weight, and is generally not included in software articles. Many Wikipedia editors are averse to promotion, and prefer to exclude large blocks of content that can be construed as promotion (e.g. feature lists) unless they are backed by secondary sources. (Reliable tertiary sources would also help make the case for inclusion, although they are unlikely to be available for /e/ since it's new.)
The same applies to new features that are only covered in primary sources (e.g. press releases, blog posts, forum posts, and other self-published media). We should generally wait until they are covered in reliable secondary sources. Over the years, Wikipedia editors have decided that the encyclopedia's goal is not to reflect the bleeding edge of new developments ( WP:NOTNEWS), but instead the published content of reliable sources.
Specialized topics, including non-mainstream software, tend to receive less coverage in secondary reliable sources. Unfortunately, this doesn't allow us to relax our standards. We must do the best we can with the reliable sources that are available, even if this means that our coverage of the topic would not be comparable to that of a more popular topic.
This does not mean that primary sources should always be avoided. I'm urging for more caution because the article is short, and it would be best to expand it with content based on secondary sources. If, after expanding the article, there are gaps in the content coverage that could be filled with primary sources, it might make sense to include them. In general, we should be using secondary sources for the majority of the content and supplementing them with primary sources for small details, not the other way around. — Newslinger talk 10:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm a /e/(eelo) user and looking at its page on Wikipedia, I was surprised to see that IMHO it doesn't reflect well the project, and is very outdated. In particular it misses a lot of features that are present in /e/ and make it very interesting and innovative for some users as a full Google replacement on the mobile (well, for me at least :) ). So I was wondering why was the article so "light" when I discovered the history of edits with many added contents that was then deleted etc. I discovered discussion page here. It is very interesting to read and I see that there are people here that have been fighting a lot with different points of view! As I am quite new to Wikipedia, I don't know if it's a usual situation, however, I started to spend more time to examine edits. What I discovered is that only a few users did a lot of edits. Also, as some of these editors are super-active on this discussion page, I had a look at their personal edit history.
What I found is just awesome! User:Yae4 in particular, whose case has already been discussed here earlier without anybody apparently caring, is obviously non-neutral. If you look at his personal edition track since late August 2019 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/Yae4&dir=prev&target=Yae4) it all started with: "+1,818 /e/ (operating system) Add criticisms and controversy section" and later " /e/ (operating system) Criticism section with /e/'s published sources. "
Actually his edits are mostly "anti-/e/" or more subtle "/e/ FUD". He also tried to add some reference to some competing projects such as Purism/LibreM. Actually if you look at his edits from the start until September 9th, 90% of his contributions are anti-/e/ edit on the article and anti-/e/ actions on this discussion page. That's a deliberate and systematic behaviour.
Also, I discovered another editor here is interesting User:Oldosfan
Look at his edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/Oldosfan&dir=prev&target=Oldosfan
While he has been less active that User:Yae4, quickly after he started to edit on Wikipedia, most of his activity seemed to focus on anti-/e/ edits and comments. One notable thing is also that there is a small public group of /e/-haters on Telegram at: t.me/ewwlo and guess what? User:Oldosfan is moderator of this group and the most active member!!!
s
Yae4 is not visible in the members of this "ewwlo" group on Telegram but I would be surprised if he was not part of it using another nickname.
So, despite the apparent efforts of User:Newslinger to make this page balanced and factual, what we have now as a result is super-incomplete and outdated content, which is the result of a an edit war from a few guys, probably from competing projects, who are fighting the /e/ project and are manipulating Wikipedia. It is understandable that haters exist but how is it possible nobody stopped them here? Aren't there some procedure for this kind of case? 1984brave new world ( talk) 15:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
New proof that User:Yae4 is non-neutral and probably has a conflict of interest, his microG draft at /info/en/?search=Draft_talk:MicroG, where he doesn't mention /e/ as ROMs that include microG. 1984brave new world ( talk) 07:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
"While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest."This situation looks like a gray area, and any editor can escalate it to the conflict of interest noticeboard for review. — Newslinger talk 22:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
FYI, on the questions of being a member or admin of an ewwlo.xyz discussion group, or having negative opinions of e foundation and its Wikipedia practices, WP:POVEDITOR says, "A cause-driven editor may edit articles whether related to the cause or not. Caution is advised, but permission stands." It's not the same as COI. Clearly 1984brave_new_world believes it's OK to be a member and a spy in such groups, and participate at talk pages here. It's my opinion Oldosfan is OK to stay involved here, with caution. -- Yae4 ( talk) 18:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
"moderator"position involved, but that aspect makes me less certain of whether this is considered a conflict of interest. Uninvolved editors might be able to clarify this in the conflict of interest noticeboard discussion. — Newslinger talk 19:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@ User:1984brave_new_world, Re: "One notable thing is also that there is a small public group of /e/-haters on Telegram at: t.me/ewwlo"... To clarify, are you suggesting this meets Wikipedia notability requirements and should be added to this article?
After you "started to spend more time to examine edits," don't you have any concerns or comments on the sockpuppet editing by Caliwing and Indidea?
Is it purely unrelated coincidence you and Caliwing both edited in early September, did nothing for most of September-October, and became active again around now? I hesitate to cast aspersions, but your writings look similar to me, and the timing is...coincidental. -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The Reception section seems a bit hostile. Of the five sources quoted, four are negative and one neutral. The negative ones are just opinion, not fact-based.
I've never used /e/ and don't know any of the people involved, but it seems obvious to me that (1) there is a need for a cellphone that doesn't send its users' private data to Google or Apple, and (2) there are some very wealthy players (billion-dollar corporations) who don't want /e/ to succeed. Longitude2 ( talk) 14:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The opening sentence of this article's lead section clearly states /e/ is a free and open source project. Just like every other such project, including Wikipedia, anyone is able and encouraged to contribute to the development and improvement in all manner of ways so as to achieve the project's aims. It is therefore unnecessary in the lead section to give an example of any one specific area of development. The relative emphasis on the /e/ project's privacy aims is best achieved here by quoting the project's mission, referencing its website in line with WP:PRIMARYCARE. This edit is also more in line with Wikipedia's Manual of Style on the Opening Paragraph, which confirms the first paragraph shoud not be too specific.
By emphasising one specific aspect of the project's development aims in such depth of detail and prominence of placement, the previous part seemed not to conform with Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight. Cymrodor ( talk) 06:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The only difference between the two versions is the last sentence of the opening paragraph.
From Special:Permalink/952002983:
/e/ is presented as privacy software that does not contain proprietary Google apps or services, [1] and challenges the public to "find any parts of the system or default applications that are still leaking data to Google." [2]
From Special:Permalink/951848778:
/e/'s mission is to "make technology that respects user privacy accessible to everyone" [3] and it aims to do so by developing and offering privacy software that does not contain proprietary Google apps or services. [1]
References
{{
cite web}}
: More than one of |work=
and |website=
specified (
help)
I understand the
undue weight concerns, and I agree that it makes sense to move the "challenges the public..."
part into the "History" section of the article. It's okay to mention /e/'s goals, but it would be best to paraphrase a
secondary source, rather than repeat a mission statement from a
primary source. Is there a secondary source that contains the relevant information? —
Newslinger
talk
05:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of a list of default apps, but the reasons I put in the edit summary was not kept in the edit history: It added a list of non-notable original research based only on a primary source, with several red links. -- Yae4 ( talk) 11:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi y'all, I found out about the /e/ project recently and wanted to rework the Wikipedia page to cover some of the more important features of the project. Hopefully having another contributor will help with some of the bias issues this page has encountered so far. Let me know if you have any feedback, and I'm sure I'll see you 'round. Ph03n1x77 ( talk) 17:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Since it's easier to examine smaller edits instead of larger edits, could you please create a separate subsection in this discussion explaining each change you would like to make, so we can evaluate it individually? — Newslinger talk 05:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)</P
For others who may not understand Ph03n1x77's statement, "Unfortunately, when I attempted to source the criticism, the .xyz site was not allowed" in 17:06 19 January 2021 edit summary: I believe this vaguely refers to ewwlo.xyz. FYI, the live domain has changed to other stuff (i.e. click-bait, advertising), but the original site is mirrored at https://ewwlo.void.partidopirata.com.ar/ and archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20200731155921/https://ewwlo.xyz/ . -- Yae4 ( talk) 17:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
As stated on their website, near their manifesto ( https://e.foundation/about-e/) The E Foundation is a non-profit. It's also mentioned in this review.
I'd like to add that to the heading, or at least somewhere in the body. In fact, for now, I think it would be worth having information on the Foundation on this page, since they probably don't meet the notoriety requirements to have their own page, but there might be enough sources to create a subheading on them here. Ph03n1x77 ( talk) 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Is e Foundation a non-profit or a corporation? e Foundation is a non-profit organization created to host, develop, support and promote pro privacy tech solutions. Some partner companies handle the commercial side of the project and help finance e Foundation.
I'm not sure how to describe this, but here are some notes, with a pattern of, well, please help me describe it. ArsTechnica Apr 2020 has a lot of "interesting" info. Re phones for sale, by whom: where saying you can buy a pre-loaded version, they link to "/e/'s website" (at e.foundation), but it now re-directs to ESolutions SAS website. Same thing again for "refurbished Samsung phones pre-loaded". How would we describe this tactic? [7]
ZDNet/Vaughan-Nichols May 2020 says "many smartphones, such as apple iphone, are built by poorly paid temporary workers" but overlooks the facts that e is taking donations to one organization, while selling for profits at others. Using volunteer contributors on one side. Not being clear how well they pay the staff in India, if at all, or what the deal is with "cleanapk" operators. Again, ZDNet linked to "/e/'s website" (at e.foundation) for pre-loaded phone sales, but it now re-directs to Esolutions SAS website. [8] -- Yae4 ( talk) 02:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Ecorp SAS website, legal footer. [9] A couple Authors files in gitlab, including Ecorp. [10] [11] Registration info for Ecorp SAS, beginning July 2018, and naming principals, including Duval. [12] [13] Esolutions SAS website, which is selling devices, legal notice. [14] Registration info for Esolutions SAS, formed 2020, naming principals, including Duval. [15] [16] -- Yae4 ( talk) 12:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Beginning to look at some of /e/'s features, their custom app store is probably the most important one, and one that Wikipedia readers will want to know about. In my previous discussions I cited ZDnet for that, I should have clarified that it was the 2019 article "What this means is that you can run some Android apps, which normally only work on a fully Google-enabled Android phone on an /e/ phone." The Register goes even further in depth into how that process works, through which technologies, and which apps they currently support "including current top hits like Among Us and Roblox. What you will not find is any paid-for apps..." In general, the Register also addresses the importance of a good app store.
While we're on the topic, I'd like to add that one unique feature of this app store are the privacy ratings. That is mentioned on The Register article, as well as this ZDnet review of the Fairphone 3
There has also been criticism about the closed-source nature of the store, which I'd like to mention. I found that supported in a passing comment from this PCMag review "They also need to be much clearer about where the apps in their app store are coming from, or just offer someone else's store." Ph03n1x77 ( talk) 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to add that The E Foundation created their own launcher, Bliss, which they made available through F-Droid as foss. It's mentioned most in-depth in this blog/review by Obscured Narration. What do y'all think about that source?
In addition, FDroid's website has a page for the Bliss Launcher, as do some reviews of the best alternative launchers, like this one from DataOverhaulers
The launcher is also mentioned in the disputed MakeUseOf article, and in this article by Infosec-Handbook. Infosec possibly deserves a special consideration, since their article was mentioned/linked in the Oct 2019 PCMag review "Infosec Handbook [link] found some deep-down places where /e/ may be leaking little bits of data to Google, but in /e/'s defense, the group took the criticism to heart and has been working on it in public bug threads anyone can read online." Ph03n1x77 ( talk) 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The Nov 2019 ZDnet article mentions "a Samsung Galaxy S9+ with pre-installed /e/ OS. This refurbished dual-SIM phone with 64GB of storage, along with other Samsung models, is available in Europe. According to /e/ founder, Gaël Duval, phones in Australia and New Zealand will be coming shortly, and arrangements for offering used /e/ powered phones in the US are ongoing."
Actually, Android Authority published an article specifically about those refurbished phones, which should probably be good enough for including that information.
So, let's start with those changes! Let me know what you think. Ph03n1x77 ( talk) 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Filed under Today I Learned: these two software projects are not at all related. While this becomes apparent from a read through the article(s), especially the history section of this article, I think a hatnote might make it more readily obvious that /e/ isn't port/adaptation of yet another F/OSS desktop environment to a mobile form factor. Something like this, perhaps:
Am I alone in this, or do others think it would be a worthy clarification?
Dhraakellian ( talk) 19:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Most "popular" sources I've seen are giving summaries of this paper, but I could find no signs of it being published anywhere other than on Leith's university home page, and no signs of peer review. In addition, The Register has published an Addition [20] because LineageOS spokesperson reported a major flaw in assumptions used in the paper. I note the previous similar unpublished report methodology was also challenged by Google. [21] Isn't this report therefore self-published, demonstrated faulty, and therefore unreliable and unsuitable for reference at Wikipedia? -- Yae4 ( talk) 21:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
In addition, the self-published "Nervuri" report on concerns with privacy issues in E's apps store app, and with data also shared with F-Droid, are two open issues being tracked by E staff. These issues were reported (i.e. known) to E in May, before the study paper was self-published. So, overlooking this data transmitted to 3rd parties by E ROM was another flaw in the report methodology. With known flaws for LineageOS and for E OS, the results from the self-published study report should be deleted as unreliable. -- Yae4 ( talk) 20:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Documenting this off-wiki recruitment for a "specific project looking for contributors" here (archive org): [22] They say they want more "honnest" (sic) contents, among other things. -- Yae4 ( talk) 16:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Privacy App is published under GPL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckduckgoUser ( talk • contribs) 20:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Murena Phone and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 2#Murena Phone until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Yae4 (
talk)
23:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Murena One and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 2#Murena One until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Yae4 (
talk)
23:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Should the content in the
"3G phone sales" section, reproduced below, be removed from the article? —
Newslinger
talk
23:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
3G phone salesIn 2022 an issue arose because in 2021, customers in the USA were sold Samsung phones that lost cellular network connectivity after about a year, because of 3G shutdowns. Partial refunds may be given, according to foundation staff. [1]
References
I would like to draw attention to the reception section of this article /info/en/?search=/e/_(operating_system)#Reception
The content in the section are indicative of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking with the intention of portraying /e/OS in a negative light. The purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia of information gets defeated with such one-sided editing. As an employee of the organization behind /e/OS, I am unable to make the changes myself, I feel this article would benefit greatly if some editors without Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (declared or undeclared) can add content, keeping in mind a Wikipedia:NPOV. — Mnair69 ( talk) 01:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Since the quoted author Ferdinand Thommes has meanwhile also tested the Murena One smartphone and software, a new paragraph would further contribute to complete his overall verdict:
"The compromise that Duval makes with the Murena One and /e/OS V1 shows how difficult it is to realize a smartphone without Google's octopus arms. So far, I like the Murena One, which is supposed to be available for 349 Euros from the end of June, exceptionally well. [...] The marketing slogan de-Gooled is, in my opinion, a bit overstated because Google inevitably plays into it in some places. Nevertheless, the Murena One and the concept behind it provide more data protection and privacy than a conventional Android, and that at an acceptable price and with sufficient performance in everyday use. [31]"
And after further coverage popped up in the wake of the Murena One's launch, especially in German-speaking countries, I would also include a paragraph citing Matthias Kremp's test from Germany's biggest news magazine DER SPIEGEL as a source:
"The Murena One is not a smartphone for everyone. Rather, it is a pleasantly simple and convenient way to fulfill the dream of an Android smartphone without Google, without having to give up cherished apps. Despite its seemingly low price of just under 350 Euros, it is no bargain in view of the outdated hardware. [...] Those who are nevertheless enthusiastic about a smartphone with preinstalled Android without Google should rather spend a bit more and choose, for example, a Fairphone 4 with /e/OS, which is also available in Murena's online store." [32] Flovieh ( talk) 12:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
Ferdinand Thommes underwent several tests of /e/OS in the past years and came to the conclusion in "Linux User" in November 2022 that the Murena One with /e/OS "covers the usual purposes well". He also highlighted the aspect that the developers managed to achieve a uniform look for the preinstalled apps that come from different sources. Apart from minor inconsistencies, he stated that the hardware and software work without any problems and are therefore a serious alternative for "people who don't want to leave their data to Google, but don't have the desire, time or knowledge to purchase a smartphone to install and maintain an operating system on it that suits their needs."
The same author was previously cited, however, the new reference is more up-to-date and appeared in a publication recognized as a reliable source.
[1] Flovieh ( talk) 15:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
References
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
In the Data Leakage incident section, the correct number of impacted users is 379. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220803021339/https://community.e.foundation/t/e-foundation-ecloud-security-notice-june-15-2022/42420 Mnair69 ( talk) 07:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The RfC at § RfC: 3G phone sales concluded that the "3G phone sales" subsection should be removed, which was done in Special:Diff/1125171602 in December 2022. As there is currently no opposition to the removal of the "Data leakage incident" subsection (due to the opposing editor being community banned in July 2023), I have removed the subsection in Special:Diff/1176803027. — Newslinger talk 02:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the [[Talk:|current talk page]]. |
Archive 1 |
The /e/ project has created a new functioning mobile operating system, is run through a public interest French-registered trust, and has an active community of supporters. It has an upward battle in a mobile operating system world strongly dominated by two players: Apple, who claim high ideas with regard to privacy but have everything locked in proprietary formats, and Google who give away plenty of free services in exchange for colossal data harvesting. The /e/ project aims to deliver a privacy-oriented open-source mobile operating system to provide a real alternative to those who don't want to be locked in to either Apple or Google. I'm just a volunteer in the community, but we've been fielding comments wondering where our wikipedia page is, hence Manoj's contribution here. Neither of us are experts at Wikipedia; if there are specific changes needed to make the page acceptable, please let us know. Russell. 49.3.11.211 ( talk) 12:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Please note there is a page dedicated to /e/ project on Wikipedia in German [1]. Please can someone from the editorial team explain why different standards are being applied, to the same topic with similar references but in different languages.As mentioned by Russell above in case there is any issue in the formatting or template please let us know. The references quoted are all from national newspapers and popular websites from across the world. Manoj Nair ( talk) 12:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
References
This discussion is continued from User talk:Yae4 § /e/ (operating system).
Yae4, thanks for refraining from using forum posts with your most recent edits. However, the following additions are still not neutral.
Ironically, in January 2018 Duval acknowledged using Google Adwords to analyze and improve "driving people to my two different landing pages." [1]
With the word Ironically, you are using a non-neutral and unencyclopedic tone in your prose. Additionally, the above sentence is unrelated to the subject of the article (the operating system), and should be removed from the article as undue weight.
As of August 2019, half the resulting issues were still open in Gitlab. [2]
This type of criticism, sourced to a primary source, is a form of original research that is undue in the article. If this were covered by a reliable secondary source in a way that is pertinent to the article content, then it can be added to the article, but primary sources should not be used to form controversial conclusions that are not supported by secondary sources.
Please also take some time to review Wikipedia's no original research policy. In particular, we should prefer reliable secondary sources as the basis for the majority of the article's content. — Newslinger talk 19:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
References
These issues were addressed. "Ironically" was deleted. The sentence is related to background of the Kickstarter campaign, which was already included, so it should remain for balanced presentation of "non-Google" development.
"Original research" sentence was deleted.
InfoSec Handbook should be allowed as a 2nd party independent reference. Self-published PR by e foundation calls them experts, and InfoSec Handbook is one of few (or only one) to publish detailed investigation with professional form.
-- Yae4 ( talk) 10:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Re: Gitlab tracking of Issues from InfoSec Handbook. For future reference, at:
https://medium.com/hackernoon/leaving-apple-google-how-is-e-actually-google-free-1ba24e29efb9 https://www.indidea.org/gael/blog/leaving-apple-google-how-is-e-actually-google-free/
Duval published the following supplement comment, referring to /e/'s tracking of the issues in their GitLab:
"Gaël Duval April 29, 2019
All those points have been converted to issues in our GitLab: https://gitlab.e.foundation/search?group_id=&project_id=&repository_ref=&scope=issues&search=Infosec+Handbook+Review "
Therefore, referring to Gitlab tracking of the issues is NOT original research. -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
"still"). If you review articles on similar topics ( LineageOS, CyanogenMod, and Android (operating system)) or just about any other open-source software article on Wikipedia, you'll see that none (or almost none) of them mention the proportion of open/closed issues in the tracker. Including this information when it's only cited to a primary source would significantly deviate from the norms on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 22:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)I agree FossForce and LiveMint are poor sources. However, I also think 1-5 are not much better. Infosec-handbook.eu is the only place I've found independent, professional looking, detailed coverage of /e/ that does not simply parrot or regurgitate the primary source info' for details on /e/.
Some notes on the list of references, and whether they are on the "reliable sources" list.
Linux Journal - No. Also, author Glyn Moody wrote book, Rebel Code: Linux And The Open Source Revolution, which has a chapter on Duval and Mandrake, and is highly praised in Duval's blog about page. This could indicate some lack of independence, collaboration, or favorable bias. In addition, the article has several links to hackernoon (non-reliable, primary source) and indidea (Duval's personal blog).
ZDNet - Yes. However, the article uses indidea (Duval's blog) and kickstarter links as the main source for details.
Tech Republic - No. Also references hackernoon and e's gitlab for details.
The Register - Yes, "reliable." However, also references hackernoon and e's gitlab for details.
Medium - Yes, but Non reliable.
Foss Force - No. Only 4 writers. Articles on /e/ are by Christine Hall, editor. So who edits the editor? Also references indidea (Duval blog) and e's kickstarter.
Live Mint - No. Also, Mostly uses kickstarter as source. -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
"As of April 2019, the issues were being tracked in /e/'s Gitlab", is better, but I don't think it's necessary. Articles on open-source projects generally just put a link to the repository in the infobox, and there's no need to mention this in the article body unless the fact that the project is on GitLab is remarkable in some way.
Reliable sources do not have to be independent, and an author or journalist does not become non-independent when they cover a subject, even if they do so favorably. Glyn Moody is a notable author and Rebel Code is a notable book that was published by Basic Books, a reputable publisher. I don't see any valid reason to exclude the Linux Journal piece.
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines govern articles on Wikipedia, and not the articles we cite. For example, original research is prohibited in Wikipedia articles, but the secondary sources we cite are expected to use original research as the basis for their content. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an article that provides a link to a subject, even if that linked web page would not be a suitable source for Wikipedia. Links don't "contaminate" sources in this way. — Newslinger talk 19:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
repo
parameter in {{
Infobox OS}} for the
software repository, and moved the repository link from the External links section to the infobox. —
Newslinger
talk
14:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)I'm open to revising the statements from the apparently reliable source, to give due weight to its views. I'm not open to ignoring it.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90385283/these-startups-aim-to-smash-apple-and-googles-smartphone-duopoly
This source, Fast_Company, gives a fairly thorough coverage of e foundation and Purism/PureOS/Librem 5, and compares and contrasts the two. Partly because it includes similar info' as published by Free Software Foundation, the following was chosen for this article.
"Until e Foundation can offer its own hardware designed from scratch, it will have to rely on third-party hardware drivers that it doesn’t control. Avoiding that liability is one of the main goals of Purism and its forthcoming smartphone, the Librem 5."
Other comparisons not included in this article so far:
"Its eOS aspires to be a Google-free version of Android that has a wide range of device support. It’s not a new idea:..."
"Purism has been shipping laptops with a strong focus on security and privacy since 2015. It’s used the revenue from its laptops to fund development of its first smartphone. Like its previous devices, the phone runs Purism’s own version of Linux, giving it even more distance from the Google ecosystem than e Foundation’s Android-based system."
"With eOS, e Foundation is taking a Google-like approach, by trying to get its software on as many smartphones as possible in order to reach ubiquity. Purism, by contrast, is pursuing Apple-like vertical integration by developing its own operating system, optimizing hardware to run on it, and even launching a group of services under the banner of Librem One."
Suggestions for fair and neutral statements to include? -- Yae4 ( talk) 17:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The sentence "Avoiding that liability is one of the main goals of
Purism and its forthcoming smartphone, the
Librem 5."
is not relevant to the subject of /e/. However, we can use the paragraph from the piece that contrasts /e/'s "Google-like" approach to Purism's "Apple-like" approach. I've replaced the previous sentence with a summary of this comparison. —
Newslinger
talk
19:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I do not believe that an uncited block of features belong on an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, since it makes it seem like an advertisement, and probably doesn't fulfill WP:NOTABILITY (if that is applicable to content). Oldosfan ( talk) 11:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I added a liliputing reference without giving it too much thought, but now that infosec handbook has been challenged, and I noticed the liliputing article was based on an XDA Developers article, and none of the 3 is in /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources , I'd appreciate some help with comparing and contrasting why one is a good source but the other isn't, because I'm not seeing it. Here's my start.
Liliputing | Infosec Handbook |
---|---|
No wiki page | also no wiki page |
Used many times in wikipedia | Only once in wikipedia, so far |
Wide ranging | Security speciality |
5 staff in about | 4 staff in about |
popular articles | very detailed articles |
takes advertisements and donations | self-funded |
promotes products | no promotion |
More? -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
There should be a microG page; /e/ uses it... Could you help make the draft, Draft:MicroG, better? -- Yae4 ( talk) 18:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Yae4 is doing some repeated vandalism on this page. He has removed most of its content, and is acting repeatedly. His tone is not neutral, he is clearly trying to discretit the /e/ project. Caliwing ( talk) 06:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed mosly with comment above. Actually I'm afraid that it is worse: User:Yae4 edits on the /e/OS page is not neutral and according to what he's trying to post, he's clearly trying to advertize some (competing?) projects like Purism on this page. I think this can NOT be accepted on Wikipedia. Indidea ( talk) 07:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'd like to clarify that I'm not an administrator on Wikipedia. In content disputes, all involved editors (including administrators) have equal voices, and we are expected to reach a solution by consensus. Please note that sockpuppetry is not allowed on Wikipedia, and that everyone is limited to one account in most cases. Also, it is considered bad form to accuse other editors of sockpuppetry without adequate evidence ( "casting aspersions"). If there is clear-cut evidence of sockpuppetry, anyone can open a sockpuppet investigation with the evidence and post the link here.
For anyone who missed the discussion here and on the reliable sources noticeboard during the past week, a community discussion has concluded that there were significant portions of this article that did not meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline. We're in the process of removing content based on self-published sources and replacing it with content based on secondary reliable sources to better meet Wikipedia's quality standards. This means that much of the original content from the December 2018 version of the article must be replaced or rewritten.
If you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia's core content policies, please take some time to read the following pages:
Please feel free to ask any questions you may have. — Newslinger talk 16:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I've asked for help first on including /eOS technical info on Duval's bio page, and a look at recent edits. I don't know how ordinary editors could prove puppetry, but it also appears to me Caliwing and Indidea are unusually attached to Duval and his projects, and have similar behavior on Wikipedia, around the same times. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ga%C3%ABl_Duval -- Yae4 ( talk) 19:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
As suggested at the BLP noticeboard, discussion of conflict of interest has been raised for more participation here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#/e/_(operating_system). -- Yae4 ( talk) 11:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Following up: Users Indidea and Caliwing have now both been blocked, after Sockpuppet investigation. It was noted "All three of these accounts stopped editing when Indidea was blocked, which I find suspicious." and "Indidea and Caliwing are very Likely. Mnair69 is Unrelated."
Unrelated in terms of technical sockpuppetry; however, their common interest, and coordinated activities were noted. We all know Mnair is working with or for e foundation, which is run by Gael Duval (aka Indidea, aka Caliwing).
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Caliwing
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Indidea
Title of this talk section has been modified accordingly. -- Yae4 ( talk) 21:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
A few were recently added and deleted, in apparently random order. So, should they be in order of relevance or similarity to eOS, alphabetical, or other? Should it only be mobile operating systems or also include other organizations? Because the pull-downs at the page bottom include extensive lists, divided by types, my opinion is the See also section should only include Wiki pages connected by mention in this article text (and based on sources). eOS is not really in the same category as many now listed. I'd include other Android ROMs - CyanogenMod, CopperheadOS, LineageOS, and Replicant because they are all similarly Android-based or privacy oriented; and PureOS and Purism because of the FastCompany source comparison. The others at the top of the list now (FIrefox, Ubuntu Touch, KaiOS and Sailfish) are non-Android, without sourced comparisons. -- Yae4 ( talk) 11:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
My interpretation is you are trying to make eOS look more "unGoogled" and less Android than reality. eOS is Android-based, fork of LineageOS (rebranded CyanogenMod) as discussed in secondary sources. Comparison with non-Android OS is original research, and gives an appearance eOS is less of an Android/LineageOS OS fork than reality. I'd be OK with clarifying which are Android-based and which are not, but I think we should limit the list. -- Yae4 ( talk) 11:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article mention the fact that legal issues drove the change from eelo to /e/, and this is a repeat of history - legal issues drove the change from Mandrake to Mandriva? It seems like a notable fact. /info/en/?search=Mandriva_Linux#Name_changes /info/en/?search=Mandriva#History -- Yae4 ( talk) 00:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Caliwing asked some questions on my talk page (reproduced below), and I'd like to answer them here for the convenience of all interested editors.
Hi - maybe you didn't notice my question on the /e/'s history page, but I'd like to better understand and get your advice so that I can contribute better to the /e/ page and others. I think in some cases (probably for tech projects) some facts can clearly be checked from primary sources and you won't necessarily find content in secondary sources about it. Let me give an example in the /e/ case: the list of supported devices, like it was added recently by a user, is on their gitlab. That's a fact, it can be checked. Is there any issue with using such a primary source? Another case: reference to source code. Does it qualify as an acceptable source for a citation on a Wikipedia? Also, another case that comes to mind: /e/ have released their "cloud" part as a set of various software components that can be installed by users to self-host their /e/ services instead of relying on the /e/ cloud at ecloud.global. As this is rather new, there are no secondary sources about this news. However this kind of information is not a claim, it's factual and can easily be checked on the appropriate download page. In that case, is it acceptable to be mentioned and cited in an edit? Caliwing ( talk) 09:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Primary sources are allowed, but not preferred, in Wikipedia articles, and there are limitations on their use. WP:PSTS gives the big picture on preferred sourcing:
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.
The list of supported devices is hosted on /e/'s GitLab instance, which is a self-published primary source. The source is reliable in this context. However, unless reliable secondary sources also mention specific device models that are supported by /e/, this information is assigned reduced weight, and is generally not included in software articles. Many Wikipedia editors are averse to promotion, and prefer to exclude large blocks of content that can be construed as promotion (e.g. feature lists) unless they are backed by secondary sources. (Reliable tertiary sources would also help make the case for inclusion, although they are unlikely to be available for /e/ since it's new.)
The same applies to new features that are only covered in primary sources (e.g. press releases, blog posts, forum posts, and other self-published media). We should generally wait until they are covered in reliable secondary sources. Over the years, Wikipedia editors have decided that the encyclopedia's goal is not to reflect the bleeding edge of new developments ( WP:NOTNEWS), but instead the published content of reliable sources.
Specialized topics, including non-mainstream software, tend to receive less coverage in secondary reliable sources. Unfortunately, this doesn't allow us to relax our standards. We must do the best we can with the reliable sources that are available, even if this means that our coverage of the topic would not be comparable to that of a more popular topic.
This does not mean that primary sources should always be avoided. I'm urging for more caution because the article is short, and it would be best to expand it with content based on secondary sources. If, after expanding the article, there are gaps in the content coverage that could be filled with primary sources, it might make sense to include them. In general, we should be using secondary sources for the majority of the content and supplementing them with primary sources for small details, not the other way around. — Newslinger talk 10:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm a /e/(eelo) user and looking at its page on Wikipedia, I was surprised to see that IMHO it doesn't reflect well the project, and is very outdated. In particular it misses a lot of features that are present in /e/ and make it very interesting and innovative for some users as a full Google replacement on the mobile (well, for me at least :) ). So I was wondering why was the article so "light" when I discovered the history of edits with many added contents that was then deleted etc. I discovered discussion page here. It is very interesting to read and I see that there are people here that have been fighting a lot with different points of view! As I am quite new to Wikipedia, I don't know if it's a usual situation, however, I started to spend more time to examine edits. What I discovered is that only a few users did a lot of edits. Also, as some of these editors are super-active on this discussion page, I had a look at their personal edit history.
What I found is just awesome! User:Yae4 in particular, whose case has already been discussed here earlier without anybody apparently caring, is obviously non-neutral. If you look at his personal edition track since late August 2019 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/Yae4&dir=prev&target=Yae4) it all started with: "+1,818 /e/ (operating system) Add criticisms and controversy section" and later " /e/ (operating system) Criticism section with /e/'s published sources. "
Actually his edits are mostly "anti-/e/" or more subtle "/e/ FUD". He also tried to add some reference to some competing projects such as Purism/LibreM. Actually if you look at his edits from the start until September 9th, 90% of his contributions are anti-/e/ edit on the article and anti-/e/ actions on this discussion page. That's a deliberate and systematic behaviour.
Also, I discovered another editor here is interesting User:Oldosfan
Look at his edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/Oldosfan&dir=prev&target=Oldosfan
While he has been less active that User:Yae4, quickly after he started to edit on Wikipedia, most of his activity seemed to focus on anti-/e/ edits and comments. One notable thing is also that there is a small public group of /e/-haters on Telegram at: t.me/ewwlo and guess what? User:Oldosfan is moderator of this group and the most active member!!!
s
Yae4 is not visible in the members of this "ewwlo" group on Telegram but I would be surprised if he was not part of it using another nickname.
So, despite the apparent efforts of User:Newslinger to make this page balanced and factual, what we have now as a result is super-incomplete and outdated content, which is the result of a an edit war from a few guys, probably from competing projects, who are fighting the /e/ project and are manipulating Wikipedia. It is understandable that haters exist but how is it possible nobody stopped them here? Aren't there some procedure for this kind of case? 1984brave new world ( talk) 15:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
New proof that User:Yae4 is non-neutral and probably has a conflict of interest, his microG draft at /info/en/?search=Draft_talk:MicroG, where he doesn't mention /e/ as ROMs that include microG. 1984brave new world ( talk) 07:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
"While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest."This situation looks like a gray area, and any editor can escalate it to the conflict of interest noticeboard for review. — Newslinger talk 22:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
FYI, on the questions of being a member or admin of an ewwlo.xyz discussion group, or having negative opinions of e foundation and its Wikipedia practices, WP:POVEDITOR says, "A cause-driven editor may edit articles whether related to the cause or not. Caution is advised, but permission stands." It's not the same as COI. Clearly 1984brave_new_world believes it's OK to be a member and a spy in such groups, and participate at talk pages here. It's my opinion Oldosfan is OK to stay involved here, with caution. -- Yae4 ( talk) 18:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
"moderator"position involved, but that aspect makes me less certain of whether this is considered a conflict of interest. Uninvolved editors might be able to clarify this in the conflict of interest noticeboard discussion. — Newslinger talk 19:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@ User:1984brave_new_world, Re: "One notable thing is also that there is a small public group of /e/-haters on Telegram at: t.me/ewwlo"... To clarify, are you suggesting this meets Wikipedia notability requirements and should be added to this article?
After you "started to spend more time to examine edits," don't you have any concerns or comments on the sockpuppet editing by Caliwing and Indidea?
Is it purely unrelated coincidence you and Caliwing both edited in early September, did nothing for most of September-October, and became active again around now? I hesitate to cast aspersions, but your writings look similar to me, and the timing is...coincidental. -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The Reception section seems a bit hostile. Of the five sources quoted, four are negative and one neutral. The negative ones are just opinion, not fact-based.
I've never used /e/ and don't know any of the people involved, but it seems obvious to me that (1) there is a need for a cellphone that doesn't send its users' private data to Google or Apple, and (2) there are some very wealthy players (billion-dollar corporations) who don't want /e/ to succeed. Longitude2 ( talk) 14:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The opening sentence of this article's lead section clearly states /e/ is a free and open source project. Just like every other such project, including Wikipedia, anyone is able and encouraged to contribute to the development and improvement in all manner of ways so as to achieve the project's aims. It is therefore unnecessary in the lead section to give an example of any one specific area of development. The relative emphasis on the /e/ project's privacy aims is best achieved here by quoting the project's mission, referencing its website in line with WP:PRIMARYCARE. This edit is also more in line with Wikipedia's Manual of Style on the Opening Paragraph, which confirms the first paragraph shoud not be too specific.
By emphasising one specific aspect of the project's development aims in such depth of detail and prominence of placement, the previous part seemed not to conform with Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight. Cymrodor ( talk) 06:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The only difference between the two versions is the last sentence of the opening paragraph.
From Special:Permalink/952002983:
/e/ is presented as privacy software that does not contain proprietary Google apps or services, [1] and challenges the public to "find any parts of the system or default applications that are still leaking data to Google." [2]
From Special:Permalink/951848778:
/e/'s mission is to "make technology that respects user privacy accessible to everyone" [3] and it aims to do so by developing and offering privacy software that does not contain proprietary Google apps or services. [1]
References
{{
cite web}}
: More than one of |work=
and |website=
specified (
help)
I understand the
undue weight concerns, and I agree that it makes sense to move the "challenges the public..."
part into the "History" section of the article. It's okay to mention /e/'s goals, but it would be best to paraphrase a
secondary source, rather than repeat a mission statement from a
primary source. Is there a secondary source that contains the relevant information? —
Newslinger
talk
05:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of a list of default apps, but the reasons I put in the edit summary was not kept in the edit history: It added a list of non-notable original research based only on a primary source, with several red links. -- Yae4 ( talk) 11:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi y'all, I found out about the /e/ project recently and wanted to rework the Wikipedia page to cover some of the more important features of the project. Hopefully having another contributor will help with some of the bias issues this page has encountered so far. Let me know if you have any feedback, and I'm sure I'll see you 'round. Ph03n1x77 ( talk) 17:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Since it's easier to examine smaller edits instead of larger edits, could you please create a separate subsection in this discussion explaining each change you would like to make, so we can evaluate it individually? — Newslinger talk 05:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)</P
For others who may not understand Ph03n1x77's statement, "Unfortunately, when I attempted to source the criticism, the .xyz site was not allowed" in 17:06 19 January 2021 edit summary: I believe this vaguely refers to ewwlo.xyz. FYI, the live domain has changed to other stuff (i.e. click-bait, advertising), but the original site is mirrored at https://ewwlo.void.partidopirata.com.ar/ and archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20200731155921/https://ewwlo.xyz/ . -- Yae4 ( talk) 17:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
As stated on their website, near their manifesto ( https://e.foundation/about-e/) The E Foundation is a non-profit. It's also mentioned in this review.
I'd like to add that to the heading, or at least somewhere in the body. In fact, for now, I think it would be worth having information on the Foundation on this page, since they probably don't meet the notoriety requirements to have their own page, but there might be enough sources to create a subheading on them here. Ph03n1x77 ( talk) 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Is e Foundation a non-profit or a corporation? e Foundation is a non-profit organization created to host, develop, support and promote pro privacy tech solutions. Some partner companies handle the commercial side of the project and help finance e Foundation.
I'm not sure how to describe this, but here are some notes, with a pattern of, well, please help me describe it. ArsTechnica Apr 2020 has a lot of "interesting" info. Re phones for sale, by whom: where saying you can buy a pre-loaded version, they link to "/e/'s website" (at e.foundation), but it now re-directs to ESolutions SAS website. Same thing again for "refurbished Samsung phones pre-loaded". How would we describe this tactic? [7]
ZDNet/Vaughan-Nichols May 2020 says "many smartphones, such as apple iphone, are built by poorly paid temporary workers" but overlooks the facts that e is taking donations to one organization, while selling for profits at others. Using volunteer contributors on one side. Not being clear how well they pay the staff in India, if at all, or what the deal is with "cleanapk" operators. Again, ZDNet linked to "/e/'s website" (at e.foundation) for pre-loaded phone sales, but it now re-directs to Esolutions SAS website. [8] -- Yae4 ( talk) 02:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Ecorp SAS website, legal footer. [9] A couple Authors files in gitlab, including Ecorp. [10] [11] Registration info for Ecorp SAS, beginning July 2018, and naming principals, including Duval. [12] [13] Esolutions SAS website, which is selling devices, legal notice. [14] Registration info for Esolutions SAS, formed 2020, naming principals, including Duval. [15] [16] -- Yae4 ( talk) 12:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Beginning to look at some of /e/'s features, their custom app store is probably the most important one, and one that Wikipedia readers will want to know about. In my previous discussions I cited ZDnet for that, I should have clarified that it was the 2019 article "What this means is that you can run some Android apps, which normally only work on a fully Google-enabled Android phone on an /e/ phone." The Register goes even further in depth into how that process works, through which technologies, and which apps they currently support "including current top hits like Among Us and Roblox. What you will not find is any paid-for apps..." In general, the Register also addresses the importance of a good app store.
While we're on the topic, I'd like to add that one unique feature of this app store are the privacy ratings. That is mentioned on The Register article, as well as this ZDnet review of the Fairphone 3
There has also been criticism about the closed-source nature of the store, which I'd like to mention. I found that supported in a passing comment from this PCMag review "They also need to be much clearer about where the apps in their app store are coming from, or just offer someone else's store." Ph03n1x77 ( talk) 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to add that The E Foundation created their own launcher, Bliss, which they made available through F-Droid as foss. It's mentioned most in-depth in this blog/review by Obscured Narration. What do y'all think about that source?
In addition, FDroid's website has a page for the Bliss Launcher, as do some reviews of the best alternative launchers, like this one from DataOverhaulers
The launcher is also mentioned in the disputed MakeUseOf article, and in this article by Infosec-Handbook. Infosec possibly deserves a special consideration, since their article was mentioned/linked in the Oct 2019 PCMag review "Infosec Handbook [link] found some deep-down places where /e/ may be leaking little bits of data to Google, but in /e/'s defense, the group took the criticism to heart and has been working on it in public bug threads anyone can read online." Ph03n1x77 ( talk) 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The Nov 2019 ZDnet article mentions "a Samsung Galaxy S9+ with pre-installed /e/ OS. This refurbished dual-SIM phone with 64GB of storage, along with other Samsung models, is available in Europe. According to /e/ founder, Gaël Duval, phones in Australia and New Zealand will be coming shortly, and arrangements for offering used /e/ powered phones in the US are ongoing."
Actually, Android Authority published an article specifically about those refurbished phones, which should probably be good enough for including that information.
So, let's start with those changes! Let me know what you think. Ph03n1x77 ( talk) 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Filed under Today I Learned: these two software projects are not at all related. While this becomes apparent from a read through the article(s), especially the history section of this article, I think a hatnote might make it more readily obvious that /e/ isn't port/adaptation of yet another F/OSS desktop environment to a mobile form factor. Something like this, perhaps:
Am I alone in this, or do others think it would be a worthy clarification?
Dhraakellian ( talk) 19:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Most "popular" sources I've seen are giving summaries of this paper, but I could find no signs of it being published anywhere other than on Leith's university home page, and no signs of peer review. In addition, The Register has published an Addition [20] because LineageOS spokesperson reported a major flaw in assumptions used in the paper. I note the previous similar unpublished report methodology was also challenged by Google. [21] Isn't this report therefore self-published, demonstrated faulty, and therefore unreliable and unsuitable for reference at Wikipedia? -- Yae4 ( talk) 21:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
In addition, the self-published "Nervuri" report on concerns with privacy issues in E's apps store app, and with data also shared with F-Droid, are two open issues being tracked by E staff. These issues were reported (i.e. known) to E in May, before the study paper was self-published. So, overlooking this data transmitted to 3rd parties by E ROM was another flaw in the report methodology. With known flaws for LineageOS and for E OS, the results from the self-published study report should be deleted as unreliable. -- Yae4 ( talk) 20:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Documenting this off-wiki recruitment for a "specific project looking for contributors" here (archive org): [22] They say they want more "honnest" (sic) contents, among other things. -- Yae4 ( talk) 16:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Privacy App is published under GPL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckduckgoUser ( talk • contribs) 20:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Murena Phone and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 2#Murena Phone until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Yae4 (
talk)
23:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Murena One and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 2#Murena One until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Yae4 (
talk)
23:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Should the content in the
"3G phone sales" section, reproduced below, be removed from the article? —
Newslinger
talk
23:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
3G phone salesIn 2022 an issue arose because in 2021, customers in the USA were sold Samsung phones that lost cellular network connectivity after about a year, because of 3G shutdowns. Partial refunds may be given, according to foundation staff. [1]
References
I would like to draw attention to the reception section of this article /info/en/?search=/e/_(operating_system)#Reception
The content in the section are indicative of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking with the intention of portraying /e/OS in a negative light. The purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia of information gets defeated with such one-sided editing. As an employee of the organization behind /e/OS, I am unable to make the changes myself, I feel this article would benefit greatly if some editors without Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (declared or undeclared) can add content, keeping in mind a Wikipedia:NPOV. — Mnair69 ( talk) 01:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Since the quoted author Ferdinand Thommes has meanwhile also tested the Murena One smartphone and software, a new paragraph would further contribute to complete his overall verdict:
"The compromise that Duval makes with the Murena One and /e/OS V1 shows how difficult it is to realize a smartphone without Google's octopus arms. So far, I like the Murena One, which is supposed to be available for 349 Euros from the end of June, exceptionally well. [...] The marketing slogan de-Gooled is, in my opinion, a bit overstated because Google inevitably plays into it in some places. Nevertheless, the Murena One and the concept behind it provide more data protection and privacy than a conventional Android, and that at an acceptable price and with sufficient performance in everyday use. [31]"
And after further coverage popped up in the wake of the Murena One's launch, especially in German-speaking countries, I would also include a paragraph citing Matthias Kremp's test from Germany's biggest news magazine DER SPIEGEL as a source:
"The Murena One is not a smartphone for everyone. Rather, it is a pleasantly simple and convenient way to fulfill the dream of an Android smartphone without Google, without having to give up cherished apps. Despite its seemingly low price of just under 350 Euros, it is no bargain in view of the outdated hardware. [...] Those who are nevertheless enthusiastic about a smartphone with preinstalled Android without Google should rather spend a bit more and choose, for example, a Fairphone 4 with /e/OS, which is also available in Murena's online store." [32] Flovieh ( talk) 12:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
Ferdinand Thommes underwent several tests of /e/OS in the past years and came to the conclusion in "Linux User" in November 2022 that the Murena One with /e/OS "covers the usual purposes well". He also highlighted the aspect that the developers managed to achieve a uniform look for the preinstalled apps that come from different sources. Apart from minor inconsistencies, he stated that the hardware and software work without any problems and are therefore a serious alternative for "people who don't want to leave their data to Google, but don't have the desire, time or knowledge to purchase a smartphone to install and maintain an operating system on it that suits their needs."
The same author was previously cited, however, the new reference is more up-to-date and appeared in a publication recognized as a reliable source.
[1] Flovieh ( talk) 15:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
References
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
In the Data Leakage incident section, the correct number of impacted users is 379. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220803021339/https://community.e.foundation/t/e-foundation-ecloud-security-notice-june-15-2022/42420 Mnair69 ( talk) 07:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The RfC at § RfC: 3G phone sales concluded that the "3G phone sales" subsection should be removed, which was done in Special:Diff/1125171602 in December 2022. As there is currently no opposition to the removal of the "Data leakage incident" subsection (due to the opposing editor being community banned in July 2023), I have removed the subsection in Special:Diff/1176803027. — Newslinger talk 02:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)