![]() | This page 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 current talk page. |
I don't know what's going on here, User:AngusWOOF, but this page now exists, and I've moved my edits (more sources) there. Maybe this draft could be binned now? -- Yae4 ( talk) 18:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
1. https://www.origo.hu/techbazis/20190403-grapheneos-android-alapu-biztonsagos-rendszer.html
3. https://andro4all.com/2019/06/grapheneos-alternativa-android-caracteristicas
-- Yae4 ( talk) 20:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
AngusWOOF, Below is more information supporting reliable sourcing.
I believe these, at least, demonstrate notability with reliable sources, based if nothing else, on many previous uses at Wikipedia. That's not always a guarantee, but combined with 3 sources having Wikipedia articles indicating decent reputations, I believe this should be sufficient. FYI, I have nothing to do with GrapheneOS (although I would give it a test run if I owned the right kind of phone). Could you please move this to an article? -- Yae4 ( talk) 18:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Times of India source lists 6 things to do to make your phone "hack proof." One of the 6 (17%) is install GrapheneOS. Yes, it's based on Snowden recommendation, which is why it got attention, but it is not just passing mention. Packt Hub source is focused almost only on GrapheneOS and Micay, and pre-dates the Snowden news. To me it doesn't look like a blog. Origo Hu source is solely on GrapheneOS and Micay. It's news, not blog. Der Standard is news, not blog. Yes, prompted by Snowden recommendation, but it's the only phone ROM recommended. Then there's several blog-like geek news sources that also covered it. For ROMs not actively doing PR (it appears), that's about as good as it gets. I don't know if precedents matter on Wikipedia, but sourcing for this article seems better than Resurrection_Remix_OS, OmniROM, and Smartisan_OS. -- Yae4 ( talk) 16:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
In the Smartisan OS article, the cited Engadget ( RSP entry) piece, "Smartisan OS unveiled in China, takes a fresh approach to Android UI design" provides a detailed overview of the software, and counts more toward the article's notability than any of the other sources mentioned so far. But, I agree that the sourcing of the articles you listed is not great. I've proposed deletion of the Resurrection Remix OS article, and tagged the others as needing more sources. — Newslinger talk 06:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Since significant coverage is difficult to define, you might find it informative to participate in some discussions at Articles for deletion. The instructions at WP:AFDFORMAT, along with the notability guidelines, policy on what Wikipedia is not, list of reasons for deletion, and list of arguments to avoid can help you get started. In AfD discussions, editors review the article and its sources, then express an opinion on the action that should be taken on the article (most commonly: keep, delete, redirect, or merge). The deletion sorting list for software and FOSS article alerts can help narrow down discussions of interest, and there's also a bot-maintained list of all deletion discussions.
Many of these discussions refer to the general notability guideline, and some contain analysis of whether certain sources meet the significant coverage requirement. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 00:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
To me it is a thorough review, but what seems to be a good source. -- Yae4 ( talk) 18:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The Articles for creation review process is optional for editors without a conflict of interest, so you can publish this article by moving it to GrapheneOS whenever you're ready. Keep in mind that the 7-day timer for "Did you know" starts immediately after you publish, if you're interested in submitting a hook for GrapheneOS. — Newslinger talk 05:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
For "Did you know", the quid pro quo requirement is waived for your first 5 DYK nominations. If you want to see GrapheneOS mentioned on the Main Page, DYK just needs a short, interesting fact about GrapheneOS that's supported by a reliable source. — Newslinger talk 23:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I recently undid this edit, which removed List of custom Android distributions from and added CopperheadOS to the "See also" section. This is because:
"In the long term, it aims to move beyond a hardened fork of the Android Open Source Project". Reliable sources are still describing GrapheneOS as Android-based (
" Android basierende"). Until there are substantial changes in GrapheneOS's software architecture, calling it an Android distribution is reasonable to me.
— Newslinger talk 00:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
GrapheneOS is explicitly not Android, because it deliberately doesn't conform to the Compatibility Definition Document and Compatibility Test Suite requirements for considering an OS to be part of the Android family. It's entirely possible to make an OS with an entirely different kernel and software stack that's allowed to be referred to as Android as long as it is fully meets the compatibility and other requirements. Those are the rules for using the trademark. I make fair use of that trademark by referring to GrapheneOS as being almost entirely fully compatible with Android apps. It's not entirely compatible though since it deliberately makes restrictions for privacy/security that are not permitted by the CDD / CTS. [...] However, that doesn't mean I can refer to GrapheneOS as literally being Android since it's not a matter of copyright law / software licenses.
So they are not actually distributing Android but something else. Perhaps the article List of custom Android distributions should be renamed but I think this talk page is not the place to discuss this and I do not have a "reliable" source other than the Android documentation ( https://source.android.com/compatibility/cdd).
Yes, I missed that link. 187.160.10.45 ( talk) 11:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)We're not supposed to add links to the "See also" section that duplicate links in the article body.
Quotes from golem.de source:
In balance, the article is saying it's a "one-man show" with a start of some other contributions. It does not support saying GrapheneOS has a team of developers. -- Yae4 ( talk) 16:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
(unindenting)@ Pitchcurve:
Long-standing wording, based on secondary sources. This says there is one main person. Readers understand there are others also involved. This is like Replicant, which lists a few names.
Your proposed wording for the infobox. This is too long, implies an organization, probably a company, with a leader and followers. To my knowledge (which is based on what I've seen in secondary sources, and looking briefly at github), this over-states, or exaggerates both the reality, and what secondary sources say.
To me this is also supported by secondary sources, but looks odd, because "and contributors" is obvious and understood (i.e. extraneous).
This is like CrDroid, AOKP, Paranoid Android.
This is like LineageOS or OmniROM.
I'm OK with either of Alternative 0, 3, or 4. Other opinions? -- Yae4 ( talk) 17:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
This is not discussed in the secondary sources. I've redone it and used their site as the source for the time being, which matches what is done for articles like /info/en/?search=Gentoo_Linux.
GrapheneOS itself refers to support for 32/64-bit ARM, 32/64-bit x86 and 32/64-bit MIPS at a source level. Official builds are only made available for a selection of devices they deem to meet their standards and have the resources to support. There are no official generic 64-bit ARM builds but rather that is only supported at a source level. The only official builds are for a selection of Pixel phones at the moment. It's not accurate to suggest that it has official builds targeting 64-bit ARM generically, when in fact 64-bit ARM has the same level of support as x86_64 including official Vanadium releases (multiple secondary sources cover Auditor and Vanadium so the article should probably mention those). 32-bit ARM, 32-bit x86 and 32/64-bit MIPS are supported at a lower tier, but are supported nonetheless.
Where is a source for it only supported 64-bit ARM to counter what their own site says about the project? In a case where a secondary source is not available, I do not think coming up with the information out of thin air rather than referencing the official documentation is appropriate. Most Wikipedia articles retrieve this assortment of trivia for the infobox (supported architectures, most recent release, etc.) from the project's own documentation / announcements.
The sources do not differentiate arm64 as having special support, other than Vanadium only having official builds for x86_64 / arm64. Official builds being available for a selection of devices that are arm64 devices does not imply that arm64 in general has special support. That is not stated by any available source, and is an inference being made here that's not correct. The reason I changed it from saying "ARM" to "64-bit ARM" is because that made even less sense. At least there's some basis for arm64 being special compared to the others i.e. the fact that the official builds are for devices that are arm64 - but generic arm64 releases are in the same state as x86_64.
Pitchcurve ( talk) 20:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
This inconsistency has been in the article since early versions. [1] I note the golem.de source says "free software" when discussing F-droid, It says "real open source project" (paraphrasing Micay) when discussing licensing terms. Which of the above two wiki-links is a better fit? Also, the infobox lists MIT and Apache licenses; are those the only two? -- Yae4 ( talk) 12:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
"In the test we could use GrapheneOS like any other Android. We enjoy the Google freedom, we don't notice the additional memory protection, but that's the way it should be. It is regrettable that the development of a secure Android was set back by the dispute of the Copperhead founders. We are also a bit worried about how few developers and maintainers are currently working on GrapheneOS - the project is currently more like a one-man show."
The source does go on to discuss "compatible devices" and the "pity" there "are only a few." This article currently mentions devices becoming "garbage" in a neutral fashion; however, it does not balance it with the criticism. In conjunction with adding Pixel 4 and 4XL in Compatibility section based only on a primary source, this begins to look like adding advertising and ignoring criticism, which is non-neutral.
I am therefore re-instating previous wordings. -- Yae4 ( talk) 14:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Daniel micay has in the grapheneos matrix room stated that he wants and has nothing to do with us politics. So, he also wants nothing to do with other people selling phone with grapheneOS. But has stated if they misuse the trademark (grapheneOS logo), he will take legal action against them. It maybe suitable to say while they are using this OS as a base, the project owner has stated they don't agree with them with a clear no racism stance. But since it was in a chat room it cannot be linked as a source.
Mainly to discuss how to present this and what the developers stance is. Vodoyo ( talk) 16:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been removing these warnings placed here without any real justification:
I don't think these should be added back without a talk page discussion with an explanation of why it makes sense. This kind of thing is discouraging making improvements to the article, which it desperately needs.
See Talk:CopperheadOS#Connected_user_status_disagreement about accusations that have been made against editors to these two articles (including myself) in a way that drives away contributors. Many months ago, I was one of the people that Yae4 made accusations against. In the warning notice Yae4 added for User:Pitchcurve, Special:Diff/975851969 is given as the reason, which simply doesn't make any sense. I think it's unfortunate that the improvements to the article were reverted. This article shouldn't be treated as one person's territory rather than basing it on the sources and consensus-based decision making.
This is what an administrator said on the other talk page:
Yae, as far as I am concerned, your repeated focus on the contributors here, rather than the content of the article, has made this article a toxic environment to edit in, and amounts to disruptive editing.
Unfortunately, that appears to have persisted here despite ending for the CopperheadOS page.
I'll also note that they made a similar veiled accusation against me in their recent edit summary, similar to what they did before. 142.126.174.52 ( talk) 16:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I am working on it, so I would encourage keeping a link to indicate work in progress :) Greatder ( talk) 08:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
What if anything can be taken from these PDFs of letters and filings from Graphene and Copperhead? [8] [9] [10] -- Yae4 ( talk) 13:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a directory, (5) sales catalog or (7) simple listing, Ref. WP:NOTCATALOG. The list of "currently" supported devices is not encyclopedic, it is advertisement. Few ROM articles include device lists. Those that do, are more historical, for example OmniROM#Supported_Devices. However, without secondary sourcing, even that is probably not worthy of including. Therefore, I am deleting the detailed list and changing to a general statement more consistent with the secondary source. -- Yae4 ( talk) 21:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
The Golem.de source says "Android Hardening" in the original German version. Packtpub.com source says "AndroidHardening".
First, "Android Hardening" related to GrapheneOS does not seem notable for wikipedia. It is hard to find more than one or two reliable sources that mention it. If it is to be included in the article, I support "Android Hardening" for the following reasons.
Thus, if included, it should be "Android Hardening". -- Yae4 ( talk) 11:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The last added paragraph of Special:Diff/1094410995 may not do much beyond possibly establishing subject notability in a weak way. The article from Mascellino, published in Android Police (lacking encyclopedic notability as much as MakeUseOf), is not even a critical "review", it's restating what the primary sources already say (found from the "External links" section), not comparable to the previous paragraphs from more substantial publications ( netzpolitik.org et al.). I would remove the whole paragraph and two references from Mascellino. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 23:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Undid revision 1095522108 by 84.250.14.116and
Restoring "Features" section), based on your disagreement above (
per User:Yae4's objections to removal at Special:Diff/1095643963and
I disagree with this removal). Sorry about the lack of comma. However, I still disagree with moving it back to the reception section, because an overview without critical commentary doesn't fit the dictionary (Wiktionary) definition of reception. Please remember to WP:AGF; it could be moved to the reception section as a next step, this has been intermediate. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 14:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Regarding Special:Diff/1096795401/1096802922 from IP 84.250.14.116
Support release cycles aren't particularly "Compatibility" related either, I think the Golem.de source already said what's necessary?
I do agree that support release cycles aren't exactly related to compatibility; this information would be better addressed elsewhere. However, a portion of the original text — until they no longer receive updates from Google — is no longer accurate and I believe it should be removed. "As of 2019, GrapheneOS supports the most recent smartphone models in the Google Pixel product line" would be more accurate, however, that's a rather short paragraph. I'm not sure what a good resolution would be, but the current phrasing in present tense is simply incorrect.
According to the GrapheneOS website, the Pixel 3 (XL) and Pixel 3a (XL) devices receive additional extended security support releases of GrapheneOS (as of July 2022).
This is slightly misleading and does not fully represent the entire picture. Saying that they receive extended security support releases misleads readers into a false sense of security; as the GrapheneOS website states, "it's not possible to provide full security updates". They might contain some security patches, but there's a reason the authors call them "harm reduction" releases and omit "security" from "extended support". At the very least, "security" should be removed. Additionally, in its current state, the section implies that only four devices will receive extended support while the project has committed to providing ten devices with additional support. I believe this phrase should be revised to say either of the following (my preference is the latter).
According to the GrapheneOS website, the Pixel 3-5 devices will receive additional extended support releases of GrapheneOS (as of July 2022).
According to the GrapheneOS website, they will provide extended support releases for devices that Google has committed to supporting for three years, such as the Pixel 3, 4, and 5 series (as of July 2022).
Amolith ( talk) 20:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Because there was an edit war, I'll start this. Nothing in cited sources of Special:Diff/1094475710 (nevermind they are user-generated and therefore unreliable anyway) specifically says something to now be proprietary or only "partly" open-source. I don't think the editor in question (nor me) could even link to any source, primary or not, that would non-controversially support the statement that some parts of the project would now be proprietary. At least one of the cited sources seems like a I would like you to... request to remove some code from another project (or multiple projects) due to a schism (or schisms). With further inspection the messages on GitHub seem to be at least a little bit legitimate with deeper inspection (the GitHub issue's OP's profile links to a well-known author with contributions to GrapheneOS repositories), however a regular reader cannot make the correlations from the cited single page alone. I also cannot make that statement in the article, because I would be editorializing and that's not the purpose of Wikipedia; Wikipedia says what other third-party sources say (usually "reliable", even if the definition of "reliable sources" is arguably heavily weighted on "consensus" or virtue signalling with sometimes undue weight based on the language and culture of the wiki, e.g. biased towards Westerner viewpoints on enwiki). This needs reliable third-party sources to be uncontroversial. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 21:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The "not open source" change was actually first suggested, not by me, but by an IP editor [19]. I did not agree with the addition, [20] at first, but when 3 Github primary sources are readily found, not to mention a bunch of tweets (which are not appropriate for sources), it seems relevant to include some basic facts. Strcat and thestinger are nicknames used by Micay (as if anyone editing, or most people viewing this article don't know). GrapheneOS/Micay has tweeted and posted on github re: not wanting others to use their sources. This information is similar to other factoids included in this article and primary-sourced to GrapheneOS FAQ or other webpages. As previous licensing issues were also germane to CopperheadOS history, and are germane to GrapheneOS history, why not include info' on these statements? It is basic, relevant info' of interest to readers of this article. The statements are not editorializing; they are basic summary of statement by the primary source. -- Yae4 ( talk) 22:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Adding: Based on this edit [21] it seems we are, or should be, in agreement that limited basic "about self" factual statements are OK to include. We shouldn't be cherry picking only selected such statements, however. IMO, your edits have that appearance. -- Yae4 ( talk) 23:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
open-sourceword in lede (and infobox), possibly with a supporting quote in the citation template. I almost submitted an edit, but I don't know anymore why I didn't submit it (not thoughtful). I kept the original text because it supports what's said in the lede, even though I was not too happy to introduce a primary source (I'd be fine with removing that statement too), and it was easy to copy-paste from diffs (although doing that also introduced errors, which another contributor quickly fixed). I also don't know about CopperheadOS history in-depth, but as I see interpret it, there are no licensing issues in GrapheneOS (from those 3 GitHub issues), only schisms (where some parties seem to respect requests to remove code and some don't). However, as an editor I should not interpret primary sources ( WP:PSTS), so I can't interpret/make/synthesize/editorialize the statement that there are licensing issues - none of the sources stated explicitly say so. I don't see the statement
According to the GrapheneOS primary developer, they request CalyxOS and bromite developers not to use any GrapheneOS sources.as a problem, the problem is the sourcing – it's improperly sourced, and in the latest edit you seem to have also removed the "better source needed" tags. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 23:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking of having it as a footnote immediately after the
open-sourceword in lede (and infobox), possibly with a supporting quote in the citation template. I almost submitted an edit, but I don't know anymore why I didn't submit it (not thoughtful). I kept the original text because it supports what's said in the lede, even though I was not too happy to introduce a primary source (I'd be fine with removing that statement too), and it was easy to copy-paste from diffs (although doing that also introduced errors, which another contributor quickly fixed).
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.I don't see the license as a subject of contest in question, I see schisms. Vanadium / LICENSE – GPL-2.0 is on OSI's approved licenses list. The argument proposed by unregistered contributor that this is not "open source" by OSI definition is not convincing me. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 00:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
#2102
citation, which is anchored to the comment which says (among other things): collaborating with a group (Calyx) involved in a substantial misinformation and harassment/bullying campaign directed towards our project and developers– this is according to
thestinger, but no "reliable" sources (by Wikipedia's standards) exist to reference in support of these statements, so the source is very questionable without the appropriate context (hence removal as original research). It doesn't simply say GrapheneOS doesn't want Calyx to use our sources in support of the original statement, it also goes beyond to make other claims (which are more challenging for an uneducated reader to verify and trust the sources) – nevermind its also not easy for an uneducated reader to understand thestinger to (likely) be Daniel Micay. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 00:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
In response to User:Yae4:
saying they wish for CalyxOS and bromite developers to stop using their code (and will be changing licenses to push it).
Wikipedia misleads readers to simply say GrapheneOS is Open Source, and not mention non-open-source behaviors
"License issues", Controversies, or similar
#2102
anchored comment should not be used as a reference, because it involves extraordinary claims about Calyx not published in third-party sources Wikipedia considers "reliable").GrapheneOS is less than fully open source in action
improving the article by removing MORE primary sources
Micay transitioned to work on GrapheneOS) or may have been misinterpreted and the scope should be clarified for involvements prior to 2019 (renaming in the "AndroidHardening project" to GrapheneOS).
the [GrapheneOS] FAQ clearly indicates there is ongoing dispute over code ownership and licensing[in GrapheneOS]
the GrapheneOS site is biased and not reliable for much more than some technical facts.
84.250.14.116 ( talk) 13:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Micay [...] ask[s] other projects to, in essence, ignore the licenses
? That's not what the three user-generated sources you added said. If "thestinger" is Micay, then Micay says in the bromite thread the license will be strictly enforced with legal action taken if it's not followed
, but we've gone too far to interpret these sources anyway. I don't claim the requests to not use their sources
to be fringe, I said your deviating viewpoints of what is the definition of "open source" may be fringe (in context of this conversation and using the fringe viewpoint as a basis to say something isn't "open source"). I don't want to involve myself in this much further.
The edits I've done have attempted to fill omissions –
publication bias? – which are supported by both primary and third-party sources (particularly the gap of events between the CopperheadOS schism and the announcement or "rebranding" to GrapheneOS) – the omission of the Android Hardening project (mentioned in the Golem.de source) could give the different impression of the history, inception or continuity, which would not be supported by sources. In sense, I have pushed this article to match more accurately both Graphene and Golem's version of events, not only Golem's Yae4's version of the events. I still see it could be improved to state both viewpoints neutrally, if there remains any confusion I've yet to understand to be inaccurate.
I saw no objection in this discussion to remove the
WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims made by thestinger on GitHub about Calyx developers in the bromite #2102
citation, so I removed that citation there:
Special:Diff/1094693770.
84.250.14.116 (
talk)
01:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks
|
---|
and it needs to be noted that you have a substantial personal investment in this article due your personal feud with Daniel Micay. You're clearly not able to participate in editing the article or even here on the talk page without acting out this personal feud. You're continuing to make unsourced accusations about Daniel Micay both here, in the article itself and elsewhere. You filed an investigation into multiple accounts which was rejected. You're turning this whole talk page into being about your personal feud with Micay and are trying to insert it into the article with unsourced claims that are your own inaccurate interpretation of things that have banned. It's completely inappropriate and further intervention by an admin is desperately needed at this point. Your talk page history shows you have been repeatedly warned about your involved in the CopperheadOS and GrapheneOS articles along with elsewhere, but it's only getting worse. |
142.126.170.15 ( talk) 06:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Proposing to non-admin close this discussion following the consensus: 2 editors in favour of removing it as original research (particularly on the alias and identity of thestinger), 1 editor in favour to keep the current revision. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 10:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Partly regarding: "nevermind its also not easy for an uneducated reader to understand thestinger to (likely) be Daniel Micay." 84.250.14.116 (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect, hogwash. Self-published, primary, marginally reliable info at Graphene repository linked in this article infobox says thestinger is Micay. [29] This is not a secret, it is not hard to see and understand, and it is not in doubt. I don't think this is WP:OR for editors to read and summarize a little of the self-published info by the subject of the article about itself. Is LinuxReviews a reliable, independent, secondary source on Linux topics? If so, they say so too. [30] There is no doubt. What is in doubt is significant coverage by reliable sources. Micay/thestinger is also concerned about this, and Wikipedia coverage generally, understandably. June 13, and 25, 2022 saw creation and 3 revisions of a list of "notability" sources for wikipedia, with a little commentary included. [31] Relevant points for this article: Timing - started around the beginning of the latest "swarm" of IDs and IPs to this article, around June 13. Wiki-knowlege: Micay confuses notability of a source and reliability of a source, and this is exactly the same confusion demonstrated here by 84.250.14.116. Another example - lack of understanding of significance of "Forbes Contributors" WP:FORBESCON, by listing a Forbes Contributor's post as a "notable" source, when they are explicitly not reliable sources (without at least providing arguments supporting the author's expertise). -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't hold, nor disagree with those beliefs. But I (too) could register an account on GitHub, contribute to GrapheneOS repositories and later change my profile name to be "Micay" and make (questionable) claims about third-parties. I'll wait for reliable sources (there is no rush) – actually I've been waiting for a bit longer, and I'm still waiting, and in the meantime trying to get a closure or more opinions to a discussion to remove (dubious) user-generated views (which are not at least supported by reliable sources), until such claims are proper verifiable (and not mere beliefs of editors) and not come from an unnamed "GrapheneOS primary developer" in WP:WEASEL words.
If you would consider LinuxReviews or anything else to be a reliable source for information about thestinger, add it, to support other statements in the article. This is not currently done, because such non-questionable sources don't exist (and only because of these arguments for consensus, the requests not to use GrapheneOS sources is temporarily allowed – with maintenance tags). I highly doubt LinuxReviews to be reliable and will recommend you not to do add it, because it's a WP:UGC source – anyone could've created or edited that LinuxReviews page, and can edit at any time, to push their viewpoint. Somebody has surely explained WP:UGC to me better in the past.
I try to WP:AGF here, but these arguments (like this one, based on LinuxReviews) using user-generated sources and original research is a bit tiring to rehearse policy. After taking the extended effort to read all the cited sources (some which you've formerly added yourself) – which I did not originally plan on, intend, or want to read extensively, but I did – and write what those multiple sources agree on (hoping to at least improve accuracy, to represent a neutral viewpoint for everyone) and making a conscious effort to follow WP:DUE and other policies, here we are still talking about "POV pushing". I'd say most of the significant coverage with reliable sources concerns were solved today, versus no coverage or inaccurate/biased coverage with questionable sources that this article had a week ago.
I don't know enough to understand how the last things you mentioned has any significance here (for the current state of the article, or since you were partially blocked, when I started contributing to this article), or what faith that message wants to assume about unregistered contributors. (Seemed only like one IP-address around "June 13", which got reverted for adding original research about the "open sourceness" of the project – and I agreed with that revert. No correlation whatsoever around the 25th.) I'm not connected to any project with a Wikipedia article either – personally I don't own and have not owned a smartphone for the past decade, to begin with (you'll have to take my word on it).
I would recommend to read WP:V's first paragraph in its entirety, maybe also get more feedback from persons involved in WikiProjects, etc.
And as User:Awilley once said (paraphrased from your talk page): Make Wikipedia better by making sure it reflects the highest quality reliable sources (vs my POV). I've assumed good faith too and changed several points of contention you've brought up here, one example being deprecating using Packt Hub as a source (a citation was not originally added by me). Keep the suggestions coming.
84.250.14.116 ( talk) 19:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks
|
---|
You're acting out the very apparent personal feud you have with Daniel Micay here. You should really not be editing an article about an open source project where you have a personal feud with the developer and are unable to refrain from posting your completely unsourced original research where you are very clearly misinterpreting posts on GitHub. You've been repeatedly warned by admins about your behavior on this article and elsewhere, and an admin needs to intervene here. You're treating the article as your property and have blocked people from improving it by adding better sources and content. You've scared off most people from editing it now. |
142.126.170.15 ( talk) 06:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks
|
---|
|
142.126.170.15 ( talk) 06:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Re: This edit [37]. Setting aside earlier discussion of "partly" open source, do we really need to discuss FOSS versus OSS? At best GrapheneOS is permissively licensed OSS. Only the kernel is FOSS, unless I'm mistaken; not familiar with every detail, but do have the big picture. -- Yae4 ( talk) 14:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
LICENSE
files in repositories). I wouldn't go as far as calling it "free and open-source software" (or "free, libre and open-source software") until the significant sources do. I'm not familiar what proprietary firmware is involved, so I abstain giving an opinion on it.
84.250.14.116 (
talk)
15:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
generally unacceptable, and possibly WP:FRINGE interpretation of the OSI definitions. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 17:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks
|
---|
based on your personal feud / conflict with Daniel Micay where you cite their comments on GitHub while omitting the context of CalyxOS kicking GrapheneOS out of AOSP Alliance / ending their code sharing and in the case of Bromite, Bromite disallowing GrapheneOS / Vanadium from using their code. None of this is covered in any reliable sources, and your attempt at pushing a highly one sided editorialized story based on your own interpretation is clearly not appropriate. GrapheneOS is very clearly open source licensed and arguments on GitHub about whether projects are welcome to use each other's code have nothing to do with the licensing. You're talking about abusive behavior while you have spent years holding back this article acting out a personal conflict with the developer. |
142.126.170.15 ( talk) 06:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
A factual statement or note regarding "open source" positions is relevant.4 citations in the article supporting the statement with various levels of reliability and counting. Giving you the benefit of doubt, discount one for Origo. It's quite clear the editors here disagree with the latter interpretation as original research, so I'll not rehash. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 14:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Doing... I'll start fresh and review the events I'm aware of again. Please wait. I doubt I will be able to help in this case alone, but I'll review it with the best of intentions to assume good faith.
84.250.14.116 (
talk)
02:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
"Ted Talk" on articles histories
|
---|
I may be omitting a lot of information where I have been reverted myself by User:Yae4. This list will not be complete, I do not have the time or patience. [w] Yae4: After doing this (incomplete and somewhat biased) review, I have to say I appreciate most of this and sincerely understand you've assumed good faith, it must've been difficult to deal with this. I'm patient about making personal claims (as some editors here have accused you of bias), even if the civility and patience may not always be shared (and why I may not always have the patience to reply or argue, but there is no AN/I section about you). In my short-sighted opinion, the article integrity may have started falling apart sometime around December 2019–January 2022, [x] and there have been many attempts of promotional or COI editing in the past before that date. Unfortunately since then received some opposition to critical review by other editors, but it is better now than it was in late June 2022. [y] I also don't understand what this "AOSPAlliance" is, how it relates to GitHub, GrapheneOS, CalyxOS, etc. I understand bromite is a web browser (?), but also don't understand how that relates to any of this. The GitHub sources don't tell me enough information to know what has happened in 2021/2022, how these editors got into a conflict, why they got into a conflict, who is right and what sources are involved (if any). I understand Vanadium is also a web browser and in someway related to the dispute, but its license seems be GPL-2.0+WebView exception - perhaps a deliberate license incompatibility with bromite's GPL-3.0(+)? I see the secondary sources report "open-source", and I see open-source licenses (with potential license incompatibilities), but more importantly, I see the secondary sources report "open-source". So I say: Okay, "open-source" it is. What should I say? I can't think of a way to help you much Yae4, if this shows how several editors who have disagreed with you re: GitHub sources and my swing vote may not turn it around, if new and single-purpose account editors should be given less weight. [z] Know that I'm not happy with all of the editors either at least, and it's a bit troubling to see this happen at this article. If there's something I can do, it's probably to give you a little bit of more leeway and tolerance for your edits, continued patience and assuming good faith, and give less weight to opinions of the new editors. That's what should be done. [aa] I want to end this by with a remark I have also noticed some sources talk about "based on Android Open Source Project", without explicitly mentioning "open-source" as a definition. There's also an open side-question the article has left me unanswered: How does one verify there is "proprietary firmware" in GrapheneOS? 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 07:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC) References
|
Ignoring the way the information was summarized in the article for now, this edit [41] added a source to heise.de, which gives a transcript of a Youtube video. There is a disclaimer at the bottom, saying (translated): c't 3003 is the YouTube channel of c't. The videos on c't 3003 are standalone content and independent of the articles in c't magazine. Editor Jan-Keno Janssen and video producers Johannes Börnsen and Şahin Erengil publish a video every week. This source then appears to be contrary to WP:RSPYT. The source and statement(s) it goes with should be removed. Note: It does not escape notice that this is one of the sources suggested off-wiki by Micay at Github. [42] -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks
|
---|
Yae4 has been repeatedly including their original research and has a personal feud with Daniel Micay resulting in them being unable to edit the article or participate in these talk page discussions without substantial bias, but in this case despite their inaccurate claims about a GitHub Gist and their regular personal attacks and accusations directed towards Daniel Micay which are pervasive in their involvement here, they are not wrong that this really shouldn't be included. My suggestion is that if you're going to be editing this article and others regularly, make an account so that it's easier for people to remember who you are and refer to you, and then ask for an admin to look at Yae4's involvement here over the years and the multiple warnings / bans they have received about their highly POV editing across multiple articles including the CopperheadOS article and this one. They make it very clear in their comments here and with their editing to the article that they are here with motivations not simply based on editing the article. It appears they got into conflict with Daniel Micay about the Wikipedia article and now both of them are fighting about it across platforms. It really needs to step, and Yae4 seems unlikely to realize on their own that they are highly personally involved and making biased edits. |
142.126.170.15 ( talk) 06:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks
|
---|
Yae4, you have made it clear that you have a personal feud with Micay and are unable to participate without being heavily biased against GrapheneOS and Daniel Micay. The research that you're doing and your interpretations of it are very clearly highly biased and not based on the content of what you cite. |
142.126.170.15 ( talk) 06:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks
|
---|
|
![]() | This page 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 current talk page. |
I don't know what's going on here, User:AngusWOOF, but this page now exists, and I've moved my edits (more sources) there. Maybe this draft could be binned now? -- Yae4 ( talk) 18:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
1. https://www.origo.hu/techbazis/20190403-grapheneos-android-alapu-biztonsagos-rendszer.html
3. https://andro4all.com/2019/06/grapheneos-alternativa-android-caracteristicas
-- Yae4 ( talk) 20:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
AngusWOOF, Below is more information supporting reliable sourcing.
I believe these, at least, demonstrate notability with reliable sources, based if nothing else, on many previous uses at Wikipedia. That's not always a guarantee, but combined with 3 sources having Wikipedia articles indicating decent reputations, I believe this should be sufficient. FYI, I have nothing to do with GrapheneOS (although I would give it a test run if I owned the right kind of phone). Could you please move this to an article? -- Yae4 ( talk) 18:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Times of India source lists 6 things to do to make your phone "hack proof." One of the 6 (17%) is install GrapheneOS. Yes, it's based on Snowden recommendation, which is why it got attention, but it is not just passing mention. Packt Hub source is focused almost only on GrapheneOS and Micay, and pre-dates the Snowden news. To me it doesn't look like a blog. Origo Hu source is solely on GrapheneOS and Micay. It's news, not blog. Der Standard is news, not blog. Yes, prompted by Snowden recommendation, but it's the only phone ROM recommended. Then there's several blog-like geek news sources that also covered it. For ROMs not actively doing PR (it appears), that's about as good as it gets. I don't know if precedents matter on Wikipedia, but sourcing for this article seems better than Resurrection_Remix_OS, OmniROM, and Smartisan_OS. -- Yae4 ( talk) 16:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
In the Smartisan OS article, the cited Engadget ( RSP entry) piece, "Smartisan OS unveiled in China, takes a fresh approach to Android UI design" provides a detailed overview of the software, and counts more toward the article's notability than any of the other sources mentioned so far. But, I agree that the sourcing of the articles you listed is not great. I've proposed deletion of the Resurrection Remix OS article, and tagged the others as needing more sources. — Newslinger talk 06:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Since significant coverage is difficult to define, you might find it informative to participate in some discussions at Articles for deletion. The instructions at WP:AFDFORMAT, along with the notability guidelines, policy on what Wikipedia is not, list of reasons for deletion, and list of arguments to avoid can help you get started. In AfD discussions, editors review the article and its sources, then express an opinion on the action that should be taken on the article (most commonly: keep, delete, redirect, or merge). The deletion sorting list for software and FOSS article alerts can help narrow down discussions of interest, and there's also a bot-maintained list of all deletion discussions.
Many of these discussions refer to the general notability guideline, and some contain analysis of whether certain sources meet the significant coverage requirement. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 00:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
To me it is a thorough review, but what seems to be a good source. -- Yae4 ( talk) 18:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The Articles for creation review process is optional for editors without a conflict of interest, so you can publish this article by moving it to GrapheneOS whenever you're ready. Keep in mind that the 7-day timer for "Did you know" starts immediately after you publish, if you're interested in submitting a hook for GrapheneOS. — Newslinger talk 05:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
For "Did you know", the quid pro quo requirement is waived for your first 5 DYK nominations. If you want to see GrapheneOS mentioned on the Main Page, DYK just needs a short, interesting fact about GrapheneOS that's supported by a reliable source. — Newslinger talk 23:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I recently undid this edit, which removed List of custom Android distributions from and added CopperheadOS to the "See also" section. This is because:
"In the long term, it aims to move beyond a hardened fork of the Android Open Source Project". Reliable sources are still describing GrapheneOS as Android-based (
" Android basierende"). Until there are substantial changes in GrapheneOS's software architecture, calling it an Android distribution is reasonable to me.
— Newslinger talk 00:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
GrapheneOS is explicitly not Android, because it deliberately doesn't conform to the Compatibility Definition Document and Compatibility Test Suite requirements for considering an OS to be part of the Android family. It's entirely possible to make an OS with an entirely different kernel and software stack that's allowed to be referred to as Android as long as it is fully meets the compatibility and other requirements. Those are the rules for using the trademark. I make fair use of that trademark by referring to GrapheneOS as being almost entirely fully compatible with Android apps. It's not entirely compatible though since it deliberately makes restrictions for privacy/security that are not permitted by the CDD / CTS. [...] However, that doesn't mean I can refer to GrapheneOS as literally being Android since it's not a matter of copyright law / software licenses.
So they are not actually distributing Android but something else. Perhaps the article List of custom Android distributions should be renamed but I think this talk page is not the place to discuss this and I do not have a "reliable" source other than the Android documentation ( https://source.android.com/compatibility/cdd).
Yes, I missed that link. 187.160.10.45 ( talk) 11:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)We're not supposed to add links to the "See also" section that duplicate links in the article body.
Quotes from golem.de source:
In balance, the article is saying it's a "one-man show" with a start of some other contributions. It does not support saying GrapheneOS has a team of developers. -- Yae4 ( talk) 16:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
(unindenting)@ Pitchcurve:
Long-standing wording, based on secondary sources. This says there is one main person. Readers understand there are others also involved. This is like Replicant, which lists a few names.
Your proposed wording for the infobox. This is too long, implies an organization, probably a company, with a leader and followers. To my knowledge (which is based on what I've seen in secondary sources, and looking briefly at github), this over-states, or exaggerates both the reality, and what secondary sources say.
To me this is also supported by secondary sources, but looks odd, because "and contributors" is obvious and understood (i.e. extraneous).
This is like CrDroid, AOKP, Paranoid Android.
This is like LineageOS or OmniROM.
I'm OK with either of Alternative 0, 3, or 4. Other opinions? -- Yae4 ( talk) 17:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
This is not discussed in the secondary sources. I've redone it and used their site as the source for the time being, which matches what is done for articles like /info/en/?search=Gentoo_Linux.
GrapheneOS itself refers to support for 32/64-bit ARM, 32/64-bit x86 and 32/64-bit MIPS at a source level. Official builds are only made available for a selection of devices they deem to meet their standards and have the resources to support. There are no official generic 64-bit ARM builds but rather that is only supported at a source level. The only official builds are for a selection of Pixel phones at the moment. It's not accurate to suggest that it has official builds targeting 64-bit ARM generically, when in fact 64-bit ARM has the same level of support as x86_64 including official Vanadium releases (multiple secondary sources cover Auditor and Vanadium so the article should probably mention those). 32-bit ARM, 32-bit x86 and 32/64-bit MIPS are supported at a lower tier, but are supported nonetheless.
Where is a source for it only supported 64-bit ARM to counter what their own site says about the project? In a case where a secondary source is not available, I do not think coming up with the information out of thin air rather than referencing the official documentation is appropriate. Most Wikipedia articles retrieve this assortment of trivia for the infobox (supported architectures, most recent release, etc.) from the project's own documentation / announcements.
The sources do not differentiate arm64 as having special support, other than Vanadium only having official builds for x86_64 / arm64. Official builds being available for a selection of devices that are arm64 devices does not imply that arm64 in general has special support. That is not stated by any available source, and is an inference being made here that's not correct. The reason I changed it from saying "ARM" to "64-bit ARM" is because that made even less sense. At least there's some basis for arm64 being special compared to the others i.e. the fact that the official builds are for devices that are arm64 - but generic arm64 releases are in the same state as x86_64.
Pitchcurve ( talk) 20:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
This inconsistency has been in the article since early versions. [1] I note the golem.de source says "free software" when discussing F-droid, It says "real open source project" (paraphrasing Micay) when discussing licensing terms. Which of the above two wiki-links is a better fit? Also, the infobox lists MIT and Apache licenses; are those the only two? -- Yae4 ( talk) 12:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
"In the test we could use GrapheneOS like any other Android. We enjoy the Google freedom, we don't notice the additional memory protection, but that's the way it should be. It is regrettable that the development of a secure Android was set back by the dispute of the Copperhead founders. We are also a bit worried about how few developers and maintainers are currently working on GrapheneOS - the project is currently more like a one-man show."
The source does go on to discuss "compatible devices" and the "pity" there "are only a few." This article currently mentions devices becoming "garbage" in a neutral fashion; however, it does not balance it with the criticism. In conjunction with adding Pixel 4 and 4XL in Compatibility section based only on a primary source, this begins to look like adding advertising and ignoring criticism, which is non-neutral.
I am therefore re-instating previous wordings. -- Yae4 ( talk) 14:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Daniel micay has in the grapheneos matrix room stated that he wants and has nothing to do with us politics. So, he also wants nothing to do with other people selling phone with grapheneOS. But has stated if they misuse the trademark (grapheneOS logo), he will take legal action against them. It maybe suitable to say while they are using this OS as a base, the project owner has stated they don't agree with them with a clear no racism stance. But since it was in a chat room it cannot be linked as a source.
Mainly to discuss how to present this and what the developers stance is. Vodoyo ( talk) 16:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been removing these warnings placed here without any real justification:
I don't think these should be added back without a talk page discussion with an explanation of why it makes sense. This kind of thing is discouraging making improvements to the article, which it desperately needs.
See Talk:CopperheadOS#Connected_user_status_disagreement about accusations that have been made against editors to these two articles (including myself) in a way that drives away contributors. Many months ago, I was one of the people that Yae4 made accusations against. In the warning notice Yae4 added for User:Pitchcurve, Special:Diff/975851969 is given as the reason, which simply doesn't make any sense. I think it's unfortunate that the improvements to the article were reverted. This article shouldn't be treated as one person's territory rather than basing it on the sources and consensus-based decision making.
This is what an administrator said on the other talk page:
Yae, as far as I am concerned, your repeated focus on the contributors here, rather than the content of the article, has made this article a toxic environment to edit in, and amounts to disruptive editing.
Unfortunately, that appears to have persisted here despite ending for the CopperheadOS page.
I'll also note that they made a similar veiled accusation against me in their recent edit summary, similar to what they did before. 142.126.174.52 ( talk) 16:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I am working on it, so I would encourage keeping a link to indicate work in progress :) Greatder ( talk) 08:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
What if anything can be taken from these PDFs of letters and filings from Graphene and Copperhead? [8] [9] [10] -- Yae4 ( talk) 13:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a directory, (5) sales catalog or (7) simple listing, Ref. WP:NOTCATALOG. The list of "currently" supported devices is not encyclopedic, it is advertisement. Few ROM articles include device lists. Those that do, are more historical, for example OmniROM#Supported_Devices. However, without secondary sourcing, even that is probably not worthy of including. Therefore, I am deleting the detailed list and changing to a general statement more consistent with the secondary source. -- Yae4 ( talk) 21:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
The Golem.de source says "Android Hardening" in the original German version. Packtpub.com source says "AndroidHardening".
First, "Android Hardening" related to GrapheneOS does not seem notable for wikipedia. It is hard to find more than one or two reliable sources that mention it. If it is to be included in the article, I support "Android Hardening" for the following reasons.
Thus, if included, it should be "Android Hardening". -- Yae4 ( talk) 11:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The last added paragraph of Special:Diff/1094410995 may not do much beyond possibly establishing subject notability in a weak way. The article from Mascellino, published in Android Police (lacking encyclopedic notability as much as MakeUseOf), is not even a critical "review", it's restating what the primary sources already say (found from the "External links" section), not comparable to the previous paragraphs from more substantial publications ( netzpolitik.org et al.). I would remove the whole paragraph and two references from Mascellino. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 23:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Undid revision 1095522108 by 84.250.14.116and
Restoring "Features" section), based on your disagreement above (
per User:Yae4's objections to removal at Special:Diff/1095643963and
I disagree with this removal). Sorry about the lack of comma. However, I still disagree with moving it back to the reception section, because an overview without critical commentary doesn't fit the dictionary (Wiktionary) definition of reception. Please remember to WP:AGF; it could be moved to the reception section as a next step, this has been intermediate. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 14:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Regarding Special:Diff/1096795401/1096802922 from IP 84.250.14.116
Support release cycles aren't particularly "Compatibility" related either, I think the Golem.de source already said what's necessary?
I do agree that support release cycles aren't exactly related to compatibility; this information would be better addressed elsewhere. However, a portion of the original text — until they no longer receive updates from Google — is no longer accurate and I believe it should be removed. "As of 2019, GrapheneOS supports the most recent smartphone models in the Google Pixel product line" would be more accurate, however, that's a rather short paragraph. I'm not sure what a good resolution would be, but the current phrasing in present tense is simply incorrect.
According to the GrapheneOS website, the Pixel 3 (XL) and Pixel 3a (XL) devices receive additional extended security support releases of GrapheneOS (as of July 2022).
This is slightly misleading and does not fully represent the entire picture. Saying that they receive extended security support releases misleads readers into a false sense of security; as the GrapheneOS website states, "it's not possible to provide full security updates". They might contain some security patches, but there's a reason the authors call them "harm reduction" releases and omit "security" from "extended support". At the very least, "security" should be removed. Additionally, in its current state, the section implies that only four devices will receive extended support while the project has committed to providing ten devices with additional support. I believe this phrase should be revised to say either of the following (my preference is the latter).
According to the GrapheneOS website, the Pixel 3-5 devices will receive additional extended support releases of GrapheneOS (as of July 2022).
According to the GrapheneOS website, they will provide extended support releases for devices that Google has committed to supporting for three years, such as the Pixel 3, 4, and 5 series (as of July 2022).
Amolith ( talk) 20:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Because there was an edit war, I'll start this. Nothing in cited sources of Special:Diff/1094475710 (nevermind they are user-generated and therefore unreliable anyway) specifically says something to now be proprietary or only "partly" open-source. I don't think the editor in question (nor me) could even link to any source, primary or not, that would non-controversially support the statement that some parts of the project would now be proprietary. At least one of the cited sources seems like a I would like you to... request to remove some code from another project (or multiple projects) due to a schism (or schisms). With further inspection the messages on GitHub seem to be at least a little bit legitimate with deeper inspection (the GitHub issue's OP's profile links to a well-known author with contributions to GrapheneOS repositories), however a regular reader cannot make the correlations from the cited single page alone. I also cannot make that statement in the article, because I would be editorializing and that's not the purpose of Wikipedia; Wikipedia says what other third-party sources say (usually "reliable", even if the definition of "reliable sources" is arguably heavily weighted on "consensus" or virtue signalling with sometimes undue weight based on the language and culture of the wiki, e.g. biased towards Westerner viewpoints on enwiki). This needs reliable third-party sources to be uncontroversial. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 21:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The "not open source" change was actually first suggested, not by me, but by an IP editor [19]. I did not agree with the addition, [20] at first, but when 3 Github primary sources are readily found, not to mention a bunch of tweets (which are not appropriate for sources), it seems relevant to include some basic facts. Strcat and thestinger are nicknames used by Micay (as if anyone editing, or most people viewing this article don't know). GrapheneOS/Micay has tweeted and posted on github re: not wanting others to use their sources. This information is similar to other factoids included in this article and primary-sourced to GrapheneOS FAQ or other webpages. As previous licensing issues were also germane to CopperheadOS history, and are germane to GrapheneOS history, why not include info' on these statements? It is basic, relevant info' of interest to readers of this article. The statements are not editorializing; they are basic summary of statement by the primary source. -- Yae4 ( talk) 22:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Adding: Based on this edit [21] it seems we are, or should be, in agreement that limited basic "about self" factual statements are OK to include. We shouldn't be cherry picking only selected such statements, however. IMO, your edits have that appearance. -- Yae4 ( talk) 23:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
open-sourceword in lede (and infobox), possibly with a supporting quote in the citation template. I almost submitted an edit, but I don't know anymore why I didn't submit it (not thoughtful). I kept the original text because it supports what's said in the lede, even though I was not too happy to introduce a primary source (I'd be fine with removing that statement too), and it was easy to copy-paste from diffs (although doing that also introduced errors, which another contributor quickly fixed). I also don't know about CopperheadOS history in-depth, but as I see interpret it, there are no licensing issues in GrapheneOS (from those 3 GitHub issues), only schisms (where some parties seem to respect requests to remove code and some don't). However, as an editor I should not interpret primary sources ( WP:PSTS), so I can't interpret/make/synthesize/editorialize the statement that there are licensing issues - none of the sources stated explicitly say so. I don't see the statement
According to the GrapheneOS primary developer, they request CalyxOS and bromite developers not to use any GrapheneOS sources.as a problem, the problem is the sourcing – it's improperly sourced, and in the latest edit you seem to have also removed the "better source needed" tags. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 23:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking of having it as a footnote immediately after the
open-sourceword in lede (and infobox), possibly with a supporting quote in the citation template. I almost submitted an edit, but I don't know anymore why I didn't submit it (not thoughtful). I kept the original text because it supports what's said in the lede, even though I was not too happy to introduce a primary source (I'd be fine with removing that statement too), and it was easy to copy-paste from diffs (although doing that also introduced errors, which another contributor quickly fixed).
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.I don't see the license as a subject of contest in question, I see schisms. Vanadium / LICENSE – GPL-2.0 is on OSI's approved licenses list. The argument proposed by unregistered contributor that this is not "open source" by OSI definition is not convincing me. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 00:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
#2102
citation, which is anchored to the comment which says (among other things): collaborating with a group (Calyx) involved in a substantial misinformation and harassment/bullying campaign directed towards our project and developers– this is according to
thestinger, but no "reliable" sources (by Wikipedia's standards) exist to reference in support of these statements, so the source is very questionable without the appropriate context (hence removal as original research). It doesn't simply say GrapheneOS doesn't want Calyx to use our sources in support of the original statement, it also goes beyond to make other claims (which are more challenging for an uneducated reader to verify and trust the sources) – nevermind its also not easy for an uneducated reader to understand thestinger to (likely) be Daniel Micay. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 00:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
In response to User:Yae4:
saying they wish for CalyxOS and bromite developers to stop using their code (and will be changing licenses to push it).
Wikipedia misleads readers to simply say GrapheneOS is Open Source, and not mention non-open-source behaviors
"License issues", Controversies, or similar
#2102
anchored comment should not be used as a reference, because it involves extraordinary claims about Calyx not published in third-party sources Wikipedia considers "reliable").GrapheneOS is less than fully open source in action
improving the article by removing MORE primary sources
Micay transitioned to work on GrapheneOS) or may have been misinterpreted and the scope should be clarified for involvements prior to 2019 (renaming in the "AndroidHardening project" to GrapheneOS).
the [GrapheneOS] FAQ clearly indicates there is ongoing dispute over code ownership and licensing[in GrapheneOS]
the GrapheneOS site is biased and not reliable for much more than some technical facts.
84.250.14.116 ( talk) 13:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Micay [...] ask[s] other projects to, in essence, ignore the licenses
? That's not what the three user-generated sources you added said. If "thestinger" is Micay, then Micay says in the bromite thread the license will be strictly enforced with legal action taken if it's not followed
, but we've gone too far to interpret these sources anyway. I don't claim the requests to not use their sources
to be fringe, I said your deviating viewpoints of what is the definition of "open source" may be fringe (in context of this conversation and using the fringe viewpoint as a basis to say something isn't "open source"). I don't want to involve myself in this much further.
The edits I've done have attempted to fill omissions –
publication bias? – which are supported by both primary and third-party sources (particularly the gap of events between the CopperheadOS schism and the announcement or "rebranding" to GrapheneOS) – the omission of the Android Hardening project (mentioned in the Golem.de source) could give the different impression of the history, inception or continuity, which would not be supported by sources. In sense, I have pushed this article to match more accurately both Graphene and Golem's version of events, not only Golem's Yae4's version of the events. I still see it could be improved to state both viewpoints neutrally, if there remains any confusion I've yet to understand to be inaccurate.
I saw no objection in this discussion to remove the
WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims made by thestinger on GitHub about Calyx developers in the bromite #2102
citation, so I removed that citation there:
Special:Diff/1094693770.
84.250.14.116 (
talk)
01:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks
|
---|
and it needs to be noted that you have a substantial personal investment in this article due your personal feud with Daniel Micay. You're clearly not able to participate in editing the article or even here on the talk page without acting out this personal feud. You're continuing to make unsourced accusations about Daniel Micay both here, in the article itself and elsewhere. You filed an investigation into multiple accounts which was rejected. You're turning this whole talk page into being about your personal feud with Micay and are trying to insert it into the article with unsourced claims that are your own inaccurate interpretation of things that have banned. It's completely inappropriate and further intervention by an admin is desperately needed at this point. Your talk page history shows you have been repeatedly warned about your involved in the CopperheadOS and GrapheneOS articles along with elsewhere, but it's only getting worse. |
142.126.170.15 ( talk) 06:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Proposing to non-admin close this discussion following the consensus: 2 editors in favour of removing it as original research (particularly on the alias and identity of thestinger), 1 editor in favour to keep the current revision. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 10:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Partly regarding: "nevermind its also not easy for an uneducated reader to understand thestinger to (likely) be Daniel Micay." 84.250.14.116 (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect, hogwash. Self-published, primary, marginally reliable info at Graphene repository linked in this article infobox says thestinger is Micay. [29] This is not a secret, it is not hard to see and understand, and it is not in doubt. I don't think this is WP:OR for editors to read and summarize a little of the self-published info by the subject of the article about itself. Is LinuxReviews a reliable, independent, secondary source on Linux topics? If so, they say so too. [30] There is no doubt. What is in doubt is significant coverage by reliable sources. Micay/thestinger is also concerned about this, and Wikipedia coverage generally, understandably. June 13, and 25, 2022 saw creation and 3 revisions of a list of "notability" sources for wikipedia, with a little commentary included. [31] Relevant points for this article: Timing - started around the beginning of the latest "swarm" of IDs and IPs to this article, around June 13. Wiki-knowlege: Micay confuses notability of a source and reliability of a source, and this is exactly the same confusion demonstrated here by 84.250.14.116. Another example - lack of understanding of significance of "Forbes Contributors" WP:FORBESCON, by listing a Forbes Contributor's post as a "notable" source, when they are explicitly not reliable sources (without at least providing arguments supporting the author's expertise). -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't hold, nor disagree with those beliefs. But I (too) could register an account on GitHub, contribute to GrapheneOS repositories and later change my profile name to be "Micay" and make (questionable) claims about third-parties. I'll wait for reliable sources (there is no rush) – actually I've been waiting for a bit longer, and I'm still waiting, and in the meantime trying to get a closure or more opinions to a discussion to remove (dubious) user-generated views (which are not at least supported by reliable sources), until such claims are proper verifiable (and not mere beliefs of editors) and not come from an unnamed "GrapheneOS primary developer" in WP:WEASEL words.
If you would consider LinuxReviews or anything else to be a reliable source for information about thestinger, add it, to support other statements in the article. This is not currently done, because such non-questionable sources don't exist (and only because of these arguments for consensus, the requests not to use GrapheneOS sources is temporarily allowed – with maintenance tags). I highly doubt LinuxReviews to be reliable and will recommend you not to do add it, because it's a WP:UGC source – anyone could've created or edited that LinuxReviews page, and can edit at any time, to push their viewpoint. Somebody has surely explained WP:UGC to me better in the past.
I try to WP:AGF here, but these arguments (like this one, based on LinuxReviews) using user-generated sources and original research is a bit tiring to rehearse policy. After taking the extended effort to read all the cited sources (some which you've formerly added yourself) – which I did not originally plan on, intend, or want to read extensively, but I did – and write what those multiple sources agree on (hoping to at least improve accuracy, to represent a neutral viewpoint for everyone) and making a conscious effort to follow WP:DUE and other policies, here we are still talking about "POV pushing". I'd say most of the significant coverage with reliable sources concerns were solved today, versus no coverage or inaccurate/biased coverage with questionable sources that this article had a week ago.
I don't know enough to understand how the last things you mentioned has any significance here (for the current state of the article, or since you were partially blocked, when I started contributing to this article), or what faith that message wants to assume about unregistered contributors. (Seemed only like one IP-address around "June 13", which got reverted for adding original research about the "open sourceness" of the project – and I agreed with that revert. No correlation whatsoever around the 25th.) I'm not connected to any project with a Wikipedia article either – personally I don't own and have not owned a smartphone for the past decade, to begin with (you'll have to take my word on it).
I would recommend to read WP:V's first paragraph in its entirety, maybe also get more feedback from persons involved in WikiProjects, etc.
And as User:Awilley once said (paraphrased from your talk page): Make Wikipedia better by making sure it reflects the highest quality reliable sources (vs my POV). I've assumed good faith too and changed several points of contention you've brought up here, one example being deprecating using Packt Hub as a source (a citation was not originally added by me). Keep the suggestions coming.
84.250.14.116 ( talk) 19:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks
|
---|
You're acting out the very apparent personal feud you have with Daniel Micay here. You should really not be editing an article about an open source project where you have a personal feud with the developer and are unable to refrain from posting your completely unsourced original research where you are very clearly misinterpreting posts on GitHub. You've been repeatedly warned by admins about your behavior on this article and elsewhere, and an admin needs to intervene here. You're treating the article as your property and have blocked people from improving it by adding better sources and content. You've scared off most people from editing it now. |
142.126.170.15 ( talk) 06:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks
|
---|
|
142.126.170.15 ( talk) 06:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Re: This edit [37]. Setting aside earlier discussion of "partly" open source, do we really need to discuss FOSS versus OSS? At best GrapheneOS is permissively licensed OSS. Only the kernel is FOSS, unless I'm mistaken; not familiar with every detail, but do have the big picture. -- Yae4 ( talk) 14:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
LICENSE
files in repositories). I wouldn't go as far as calling it "free and open-source software" (or "free, libre and open-source software") until the significant sources do. I'm not familiar what proprietary firmware is involved, so I abstain giving an opinion on it.
84.250.14.116 (
talk)
15:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
generally unacceptable, and possibly WP:FRINGE interpretation of the OSI definitions. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 17:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks
|
---|
based on your personal feud / conflict with Daniel Micay where you cite their comments on GitHub while omitting the context of CalyxOS kicking GrapheneOS out of AOSP Alliance / ending their code sharing and in the case of Bromite, Bromite disallowing GrapheneOS / Vanadium from using their code. None of this is covered in any reliable sources, and your attempt at pushing a highly one sided editorialized story based on your own interpretation is clearly not appropriate. GrapheneOS is very clearly open source licensed and arguments on GitHub about whether projects are welcome to use each other's code have nothing to do with the licensing. You're talking about abusive behavior while you have spent years holding back this article acting out a personal conflict with the developer. |
142.126.170.15 ( talk) 06:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
A factual statement or note regarding "open source" positions is relevant.4 citations in the article supporting the statement with various levels of reliability and counting. Giving you the benefit of doubt, discount one for Origo. It's quite clear the editors here disagree with the latter interpretation as original research, so I'll not rehash. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 14:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Doing... I'll start fresh and review the events I'm aware of again. Please wait. I doubt I will be able to help in this case alone, but I'll review it with the best of intentions to assume good faith.
84.250.14.116 (
talk)
02:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
"Ted Talk" on articles histories
|
---|
I may be omitting a lot of information where I have been reverted myself by User:Yae4. This list will not be complete, I do not have the time or patience. [w] Yae4: After doing this (incomplete and somewhat biased) review, I have to say I appreciate most of this and sincerely understand you've assumed good faith, it must've been difficult to deal with this. I'm patient about making personal claims (as some editors here have accused you of bias), even if the civility and patience may not always be shared (and why I may not always have the patience to reply or argue, but there is no AN/I section about you). In my short-sighted opinion, the article integrity may have started falling apart sometime around December 2019–January 2022, [x] and there have been many attempts of promotional or COI editing in the past before that date. Unfortunately since then received some opposition to critical review by other editors, but it is better now than it was in late June 2022. [y] I also don't understand what this "AOSPAlliance" is, how it relates to GitHub, GrapheneOS, CalyxOS, etc. I understand bromite is a web browser (?), but also don't understand how that relates to any of this. The GitHub sources don't tell me enough information to know what has happened in 2021/2022, how these editors got into a conflict, why they got into a conflict, who is right and what sources are involved (if any). I understand Vanadium is also a web browser and in someway related to the dispute, but its license seems be GPL-2.0+WebView exception - perhaps a deliberate license incompatibility with bromite's GPL-3.0(+)? I see the secondary sources report "open-source", and I see open-source licenses (with potential license incompatibilities), but more importantly, I see the secondary sources report "open-source". So I say: Okay, "open-source" it is. What should I say? I can't think of a way to help you much Yae4, if this shows how several editors who have disagreed with you re: GitHub sources and my swing vote may not turn it around, if new and single-purpose account editors should be given less weight. [z] Know that I'm not happy with all of the editors either at least, and it's a bit troubling to see this happen at this article. If there's something I can do, it's probably to give you a little bit of more leeway and tolerance for your edits, continued patience and assuming good faith, and give less weight to opinions of the new editors. That's what should be done. [aa] I want to end this by with a remark I have also noticed some sources talk about "based on Android Open Source Project", without explicitly mentioning "open-source" as a definition. There's also an open side-question the article has left me unanswered: How does one verify there is "proprietary firmware" in GrapheneOS? 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 07:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC) References
|
Ignoring the way the information was summarized in the article for now, this edit [41] added a source to heise.de, which gives a transcript of a Youtube video. There is a disclaimer at the bottom, saying (translated): c't 3003 is the YouTube channel of c't. The videos on c't 3003 are standalone content and independent of the articles in c't magazine. Editor Jan-Keno Janssen and video producers Johannes Börnsen and Şahin Erengil publish a video every week. This source then appears to be contrary to WP:RSPYT. The source and statement(s) it goes with should be removed. Note: It does not escape notice that this is one of the sources suggested off-wiki by Micay at Github. [42] -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks
|
---|
Yae4 has been repeatedly including their original research and has a personal feud with Daniel Micay resulting in them being unable to edit the article or participate in these talk page discussions without substantial bias, but in this case despite their inaccurate claims about a GitHub Gist and their regular personal attacks and accusations directed towards Daniel Micay which are pervasive in their involvement here, they are not wrong that this really shouldn't be included. My suggestion is that if you're going to be editing this article and others regularly, make an account so that it's easier for people to remember who you are and refer to you, and then ask for an admin to look at Yae4's involvement here over the years and the multiple warnings / bans they have received about their highly POV editing across multiple articles including the CopperheadOS article and this one. They make it very clear in their comments here and with their editing to the article that they are here with motivations not simply based on editing the article. It appears they got into conflict with Daniel Micay about the Wikipedia article and now both of them are fighting about it across platforms. It really needs to step, and Yae4 seems unlikely to realize on their own that they are highly personally involved and making biased edits. |
142.126.170.15 ( talk) 06:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks
|
---|
Yae4, you have made it clear that you have a personal feud with Micay and are unable to participate without being heavily biased against GrapheneOS and Daniel Micay. The research that you're doing and your interpretations of it are very clearly highly biased and not based on the content of what you cite. |
142.126.170.15 ( talk) 06:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks
|
---|
|