The purpose of this multi-part RFC is to determine whether particular sections should be included in David L. Jones.
Please reply Yes or Include or No or Exclude in the Survey for each section. Where there are two choices of content, please indicate which is preferred. Do not respond to the !votes of other editors in the Survey. Discussion should be in Threaded Discussion.
Current version: Currently, the article states:
On September 17, 2015, the Sydney Morning Herald published an article reporting on an upcoming battery booster product, the Batteriser, and controversy surrounding the claim that it could extend battery life by up to eight times. Dave Jones published at EEVBlog a detailed 40-minute theoretical 'takedown' of Batteroo's claims without having the product.. The CEO of Batteroo, the San Jose tech startup behind the Batteriser, stated that "every single one" of Jones' points was wrong, indicated that legal action against Jones was being considered, claimed that Jones had no formal electronic engineering credentials, and alleged that Jones was in the employ of Duracell (a claim that company denied). Three electronics and battery storage experts interviewed for the article concurred in finding the product claims of 8x battery life extension, misleading. [1] Earlier, on September 2, 2015, the EEVBlog channel received a number of "dislikes," which Jones alleged was an attempt to demote the rank of a second video criticizing the Batteriser—it was later discovered that other YouTube channels with videos critical of the Batteriser were similarly affected. [2] [3] A researcher at Dell SecureWorks noted that the majority of the dislikes arrived "all at once in massive spikes that did not correlate with an increase in the number of views to the videos being disliked," and explained that dislike spam is a way to manipulate YouTube's view recommendation system. [3]
Proposed version:
In mid 2015 Jones published a video blog disputing the claims made by the manufacturer of a then unreleased battery life extender, the Batteriser. Batteroo, the company behind the product, refuted Jones' arguments and published a number of demonstration videos in response. [1] Jones' videos received a number of "dislikes," which he alleged was an attempt to demote the their rank. [4]"
Proposed version comments:
A purely factual, undisputed account of what happened based on the limited and rather weak sources available. Caution is exercised due to this being a BLP article.
Should a section be included on the
Batteriser and associated controversy?
Should one of these (the current or proposed content) be included in the article? If so, which?
Current version: Currently, the states:
In 2008, Jones released the µWatch, a scientific calculator watch in kit form, [5] which he designed as a replacement for his defunct Casio CFX-400, [6] the last available scientific calculator watch since 1985. [7] Engadget " [8] and bit-tech" [9] published positive reviews. The µWatch may be built from off-the-shelf parts following DIY instructions. It has a 16-bit processor and 64K of flash memory, and uses open source software. [9] [10]"
Proposed version:
In 2008 Jones published open source plans for the "µWatch", a scientific calculator watch in kit form, [5] which he designed as a replacement for his defunct Casio CFX-400, [6]
Proposed version comments:
Based on a single primary source, since the suggested secondary sources don't even seem to have seen in watch in person, let alone used it, and are mostly just gushing filler pieces.
Should a section be included on the μWatch?
Should this section be included in the article?
Should one of these (the current or proposed content) be included in the article? If so, which?
COMMENT ON RfC
There is no sourcing for "published open source plans" - what publishing? what plans? -- Tsavage ( talk) 22:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Should a section be included on the μCurrent device?
Currently, the article states: "Jones designed the μCurrent, a precision current adapter for multimeters, [11] [12]"
(Does someone have a proposal for expansion or other changes? )
Proposed content #1:
Jones' exhaustive reviews, antics and pranks, and irreverent style have garnered a range of reactions from product manufacturers.
- Microchip Technology responded to one of Jones' largely negative reviews with a self-satirizing YouTube video spoof, responding to the design criticisms. [13]
- Tektronix collaborated with Jones on a April Fools prank video concerning a minor effect of gravity on the accuracy of one of their products. [14]
- Silicon Labs embedded the EEVBlog Tiny Gecko review episode on their web site, and recommended it as a good video guide to their product. [15]
- Extech Instruments responded to praise from Jones with a press release covering in detail the "exhaustive" EEVBlog product comparison. [16]
- On their web site, Cypress Semiconductor noted that Jones' had unpackaged their PSoC 5LP product in an EEVBlog "Mailbag" segment, and encourage readers to request a product review. [17]
Proposed content #2:
Jones' exhaustive reviews, antics and pranks, and irreverent style [18] have been the subject of reactions from product manufacturers.
In "EEVblog #39 - Microchip PICkit 3 Programmer/Debugger Review" (9:54), Jones published a negative evaluation of the PICkit 3, commenting:
- "I reckon management took over ... designed it by committee, how can we do it different ... these MBA management types, that's what they're trained to do. ... So they completely dropped support for the really cool external programmer software ... and I don't reckon we'll ever get it back. Why? Because some dickhead manager at Microchip ... will never admit they're wrong. That dickhead is probably going to get promoted, too. ... I tried to find something good about this compared to the PICkit 2 but I can't really, it's worse in almost every respect. It wins the EEVBlog Retarded Product of the Week Award." [19]
Days later, Microchip Technology replied on YouTube with a spoof video, "Microchip Response to PICkit 3 Review from EEVblog #39" (7:40), where a fictional newly-hired manager with an MBA, D. Head (identified later in the video as Dick), reduces product quality and forces consumers to pay for upgrades in order to increase profits; the design engineers fight back by improving the product, and Mr. Head is eventually fired. [13] In a follow-up EEVblog episode, Jones gave Microchip his first Flying Pig Award, described receiving a phone call from Microchip CEO, Steve Sanghi ("thanking me for raising the issues"), and commented, "It really is incredible that a multi-billion dollar huge corporation like Microchip Technologies would actually care about what someone like me says in my blog." [20]
Extech Instruments covered the results of "EEVblog #91 - $50 Multimeter Shootout - Extech EX330, Amprobe AM220, Elenco, Vichy VC99, GS Pro-50" in a product press release, commenting on Jones' "candor, humor" and "characteristically irreverent and off-the-cuff style," and the "exhaustive 54-minute episode." The release includes frame grabs from the episode, and quotes liberally from the review. [16]
Silicon Labs embedded the "EEVblog #269 - Energy Micro Tiny Gecko" (29:54) review in a company blog post, "EFM32 Tiny Gecko meets EEVblog," with the caption, "Not sure where to start ... ? Here is a good video guide made by David L. Jones from EEVblog ... an electronics engineering video blog showing how to test various electronics design products in a unique and enthusiastic way." [15]
Tektronix supported Jones' concept for a 2015 April Fool's prank, resulting in "eevBLAB #8 - New Tektronix AGO3000 Oscilloscope" (8:24), an EEVBlog preview of an imaginary new product featuring a "mechanical, gravitational field sensor" intended to compensate for the effect of gravity on precise measurements (a real but non-problematic phenomenon), with Jones commenting, “Awesome, Tektronix leading the field yet again. Gravity compensation. Look out for gravity compensation." [14]
Proposed content #3:
* Microchip Technology staff responded to Jones' largely negative review with a self-satirizing YouTube video, responding to the design criticisms. [13]
Proposed content #3 comments:
Being mindful of BLP, these references are too weak to justify any content. Most are just corporate blogs and social media accounts, created for the sole purpose of promoting the company and liable to comment on and link to anything that mentions them. There are no good secondary sources and taken as a whole the ones presented don't suggest any kind of "industry reaction", merely typical commercial social media use. The one exception is the Microchip video, and the proposed text reflects the fact that it was one video and the response was by staff rather than a corporate level one.
Should a section be included on Industry Reception (of Jones by the industry)?
Should one of these be included in the article? If so, which?
(Does someone have a proposal for the section? Should we use one from Talk:David_L._Jones#Industry_reaction_section?)
I've included the two proposals from the article talk page. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Currently, the article contains a section titled "EEVBlog". It includes the following, followed by a subsection for Batterizer:
EEVBlog was launched as a YouTube channel on 4 April 2009. [21] As of November 2015, the channel includes over 900 videos, has more than 290,000 subscribers, and a total of over 50 million views, recently averaging over 65,000 views per day; [22]
Proposed alternative:
The EEVBlog YouTube channel was started on 4 April 2009. [21]
Proposed alternative comment:
"Lunched" isn't accurate, there was no "launch" event to speak of. The stats are already out of date and are available on the YouTube channel, so there is little reason to include them here other than to try to sound impressive. Again, BLP, best to stick to accurate, uncontroversial facts.
Should this content be included on the EEVBlog, regardless of the Batterizer content whether or not the Batteriser subsection is included?
Alternative question: Should this be included as a section, or as a sentence in the header, or not at all?
Current version: "On September 17, 2015, the Sydney Morning Herald published an article reporting on an upcoming battery booster product, the Batteriser, and controversy surrounding the claim that it could extend battery life by up to eight times. Dave Jones published at EEVBlog a detailed 40-minute theoretical 'takedown' of Batteroo's claims without having the product.. The CEO of Batteroo, the San Jose tech startup behind the Batteriser, stated that "every single one" of Jones' points was wrong, indicated that legal action against Jones was being considered, claimed that Jones had no formal electronic engineering credentials, and alleged that Jones was in the employ of Duracell (a claim that company denied). Three electronics and battery storage experts interviewed for the article concurred in finding the product claims of 8x battery life extension, misleading. [1]
Earlier, on September 2, 2015, the EEVBlog channel received a number of "dislikes," which Jones alleged was an attempt to demote the rank of a second video criticizing the Batteriser—it was later discovered that other YouTube channels with videos critical of the Batteriser were similarly affected. [23] [3] A researcher at Dell SecureWorks noted that the majority of the dislikes arrived "all at once in massive spikes that did not correlate with an increase in the number of views to the videos being disliked," and explained that dislike spam is a way to manipulate YouTube's view recommendation system. [3]"
Proposed version: "In mid 2015 Jones published a video blog disputing the claims made by the manufacturer of a then unreleased battery life extender, the Batteriser. Batteroo, the company behind the product, refuted Jones' arguments and published a number of demonstration videos in response. [1] Jones' videos received a number of "dislikes," which he alleged was an attempt to demote the their ranking. [24]"
Current version: "In 2008, Jones released the µWatch, a scientific calculator watch in kit form, [5] which he designed as a replacement for his defunct Casio CFX-400, [6] the last available scientific calculator watch since 1985. [7] Engadget " [8] and bit-tech" [9] published positive reviews. The µWatch may be built from off-the-shelf parts following DIY instructions. It has a 16-bit processor and 64K of flash memory, and uses open source software. [9] [10]"
Proposed version:' "In 2008 Jones published open source plans for the "µWatch", a scientific calculator watch in kit form, [5] which he designed as a replacement for his defunct Casio CFX-400, [6]"
ゼーロ's notes: Puffery removed. You can still buy modern scientific calculator watches on AliExpress/eBay, so the statement about the CFX-400 being the last available since 1985 is clearly nonsense. There is no need for too much technical detail here, interested parties can check the uWatch site. The Engadget and Bit-Tech sites seem to be based entirely off the primary source, and the authors don't even have the watch on hand. Filler at best. ゼーロ ( talk) 16:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
The AGO3000 prank came about when Jones approached Tektronix ... We agreed and hope you do to.
Here is a good video guide made by David L. Jones from EEVblog.
He opened it on camera and is asking his viewers if they'd like to see him do a full PSoC 5LP review on a future show.
Cite error: A
list-defined reference named "eevblogyoutube" is not used in the content (see the
help page).
Cite error: A
list-defined reference named "hackaday" is not used in the content (see the
help page).
Cite error: A
list-defined reference named "CCiview" is not used in the content (see the
help page).
Cite error: A
list-defined reference named "Leung2011" is not used in the content (see the
help page).
The purpose of this multi-part RFC is to determine whether particular sections should be included in David L. Jones.
Please reply Yes or Include or No or Exclude in the Survey for each section. Where there are two choices of content, please indicate which is preferred. Do not respond to the !votes of other editors in the Survey. Discussion should be in Threaded Discussion.
Current version: Currently, the article states:
On September 17, 2015, the Sydney Morning Herald published an article reporting on an upcoming battery booster product, the Batteriser, and controversy surrounding the claim that it could extend battery life by up to eight times. Dave Jones published at EEVBlog a detailed 40-minute theoretical 'takedown' of Batteroo's claims without having the product.. The CEO of Batteroo, the San Jose tech startup behind the Batteriser, stated that "every single one" of Jones' points was wrong, indicated that legal action against Jones was being considered, claimed that Jones had no formal electronic engineering credentials, and alleged that Jones was in the employ of Duracell (a claim that company denied). Three electronics and battery storage experts interviewed for the article concurred in finding the product claims of 8x battery life extension, misleading. [1] Earlier, on September 2, 2015, the EEVBlog channel received a number of "dislikes," which Jones alleged was an attempt to demote the rank of a second video criticizing the Batteriser—it was later discovered that other YouTube channels with videos critical of the Batteriser were similarly affected. [2] [3] A researcher at Dell SecureWorks noted that the majority of the dislikes arrived "all at once in massive spikes that did not correlate with an increase in the number of views to the videos being disliked," and explained that dislike spam is a way to manipulate YouTube's view recommendation system. [3]
Proposed version:
In mid 2015 Jones published a video blog disputing the claims made by the manufacturer of a then unreleased battery life extender, the Batteriser. Batteroo, the company behind the product, refuted Jones' arguments and published a number of demonstration videos in response. [1] Jones' videos received a number of "dislikes," which he alleged was an attempt to demote the their rank. [4]"
Proposed version comments:
A purely factual, undisputed account of what happened based on the limited and rather weak sources available. Caution is exercised due to this being a BLP article.
Should a section be included on the
Batteriser and associated controversy?
Should one of these (the current or proposed content) be included in the article? If so, which?
Current version: Currently, the states:
In 2008, Jones released the µWatch, a scientific calculator watch in kit form, [5] which he designed as a replacement for his defunct Casio CFX-400, [6] the last available scientific calculator watch since 1985. [7] Engadget " [8] and bit-tech" [9] published positive reviews. The µWatch may be built from off-the-shelf parts following DIY instructions. It has a 16-bit processor and 64K of flash memory, and uses open source software. [9] [10]"
Proposed version:
In 2008 Jones published open source plans for the "µWatch", a scientific calculator watch in kit form, [5] which he designed as a replacement for his defunct Casio CFX-400, [6]
Proposed version comments:
Based on a single primary source, since the suggested secondary sources don't even seem to have seen in watch in person, let alone used it, and are mostly just gushing filler pieces.
Should a section be included on the μWatch?
Should this section be included in the article?
Should one of these (the current or proposed content) be included in the article? If so, which?
COMMENT ON RfC
There is no sourcing for "published open source plans" - what publishing? what plans? -- Tsavage ( talk) 22:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Should a section be included on the μCurrent device?
Currently, the article states: "Jones designed the μCurrent, a precision current adapter for multimeters, [11] [12]"
(Does someone have a proposal for expansion or other changes? )
Proposed content #1:
Jones' exhaustive reviews, antics and pranks, and irreverent style have garnered a range of reactions from product manufacturers.
- Microchip Technology responded to one of Jones' largely negative reviews with a self-satirizing YouTube video spoof, responding to the design criticisms. [13]
- Tektronix collaborated with Jones on a April Fools prank video concerning a minor effect of gravity on the accuracy of one of their products. [14]
- Silicon Labs embedded the EEVBlog Tiny Gecko review episode on their web site, and recommended it as a good video guide to their product. [15]
- Extech Instruments responded to praise from Jones with a press release covering in detail the "exhaustive" EEVBlog product comparison. [16]
- On their web site, Cypress Semiconductor noted that Jones' had unpackaged their PSoC 5LP product in an EEVBlog "Mailbag" segment, and encourage readers to request a product review. [17]
Proposed content #2:
Jones' exhaustive reviews, antics and pranks, and irreverent style [18] have been the subject of reactions from product manufacturers.
In "EEVblog #39 - Microchip PICkit 3 Programmer/Debugger Review" (9:54), Jones published a negative evaluation of the PICkit 3, commenting:
- "I reckon management took over ... designed it by committee, how can we do it different ... these MBA management types, that's what they're trained to do. ... So they completely dropped support for the really cool external programmer software ... and I don't reckon we'll ever get it back. Why? Because some dickhead manager at Microchip ... will never admit they're wrong. That dickhead is probably going to get promoted, too. ... I tried to find something good about this compared to the PICkit 2 but I can't really, it's worse in almost every respect. It wins the EEVBlog Retarded Product of the Week Award." [19]
Days later, Microchip Technology replied on YouTube with a spoof video, "Microchip Response to PICkit 3 Review from EEVblog #39" (7:40), where a fictional newly-hired manager with an MBA, D. Head (identified later in the video as Dick), reduces product quality and forces consumers to pay for upgrades in order to increase profits; the design engineers fight back by improving the product, and Mr. Head is eventually fired. [13] In a follow-up EEVblog episode, Jones gave Microchip his first Flying Pig Award, described receiving a phone call from Microchip CEO, Steve Sanghi ("thanking me for raising the issues"), and commented, "It really is incredible that a multi-billion dollar huge corporation like Microchip Technologies would actually care about what someone like me says in my blog." [20]
Extech Instruments covered the results of "EEVblog #91 - $50 Multimeter Shootout - Extech EX330, Amprobe AM220, Elenco, Vichy VC99, GS Pro-50" in a product press release, commenting on Jones' "candor, humor" and "characteristically irreverent and off-the-cuff style," and the "exhaustive 54-minute episode." The release includes frame grabs from the episode, and quotes liberally from the review. [16]
Silicon Labs embedded the "EEVblog #269 - Energy Micro Tiny Gecko" (29:54) review in a company blog post, "EFM32 Tiny Gecko meets EEVblog," with the caption, "Not sure where to start ... ? Here is a good video guide made by David L. Jones from EEVblog ... an electronics engineering video blog showing how to test various electronics design products in a unique and enthusiastic way." [15]
Tektronix supported Jones' concept for a 2015 April Fool's prank, resulting in "eevBLAB #8 - New Tektronix AGO3000 Oscilloscope" (8:24), an EEVBlog preview of an imaginary new product featuring a "mechanical, gravitational field sensor" intended to compensate for the effect of gravity on precise measurements (a real but non-problematic phenomenon), with Jones commenting, “Awesome, Tektronix leading the field yet again. Gravity compensation. Look out for gravity compensation." [14]
Proposed content #3:
* Microchip Technology staff responded to Jones' largely negative review with a self-satirizing YouTube video, responding to the design criticisms. [13]
Proposed content #3 comments:
Being mindful of BLP, these references are too weak to justify any content. Most are just corporate blogs and social media accounts, created for the sole purpose of promoting the company and liable to comment on and link to anything that mentions them. There are no good secondary sources and taken as a whole the ones presented don't suggest any kind of "industry reaction", merely typical commercial social media use. The one exception is the Microchip video, and the proposed text reflects the fact that it was one video and the response was by staff rather than a corporate level one.
Should a section be included on Industry Reception (of Jones by the industry)?
Should one of these be included in the article? If so, which?
(Does someone have a proposal for the section? Should we use one from Talk:David_L._Jones#Industry_reaction_section?)
I've included the two proposals from the article talk page. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Currently, the article contains a section titled "EEVBlog". It includes the following, followed by a subsection for Batterizer:
EEVBlog was launched as a YouTube channel on 4 April 2009. [21] As of November 2015, the channel includes over 900 videos, has more than 290,000 subscribers, and a total of over 50 million views, recently averaging over 65,000 views per day; [22]
Proposed alternative:
The EEVBlog YouTube channel was started on 4 April 2009. [21]
Proposed alternative comment:
"Lunched" isn't accurate, there was no "launch" event to speak of. The stats are already out of date and are available on the YouTube channel, so there is little reason to include them here other than to try to sound impressive. Again, BLP, best to stick to accurate, uncontroversial facts.
Should this content be included on the EEVBlog, regardless of the Batterizer content whether or not the Batteriser subsection is included?
Alternative question: Should this be included as a section, or as a sentence in the header, or not at all?
Current version: "On September 17, 2015, the Sydney Morning Herald published an article reporting on an upcoming battery booster product, the Batteriser, and controversy surrounding the claim that it could extend battery life by up to eight times. Dave Jones published at EEVBlog a detailed 40-minute theoretical 'takedown' of Batteroo's claims without having the product.. The CEO of Batteroo, the San Jose tech startup behind the Batteriser, stated that "every single one" of Jones' points was wrong, indicated that legal action against Jones was being considered, claimed that Jones had no formal electronic engineering credentials, and alleged that Jones was in the employ of Duracell (a claim that company denied). Three electronics and battery storage experts interviewed for the article concurred in finding the product claims of 8x battery life extension, misleading. [1]
Earlier, on September 2, 2015, the EEVBlog channel received a number of "dislikes," which Jones alleged was an attempt to demote the rank of a second video criticizing the Batteriser—it was later discovered that other YouTube channels with videos critical of the Batteriser were similarly affected. [23] [3] A researcher at Dell SecureWorks noted that the majority of the dislikes arrived "all at once in massive spikes that did not correlate with an increase in the number of views to the videos being disliked," and explained that dislike spam is a way to manipulate YouTube's view recommendation system. [3]"
Proposed version: "In mid 2015 Jones published a video blog disputing the claims made by the manufacturer of a then unreleased battery life extender, the Batteriser. Batteroo, the company behind the product, refuted Jones' arguments and published a number of demonstration videos in response. [1] Jones' videos received a number of "dislikes," which he alleged was an attempt to demote the their ranking. [24]"
Current version: "In 2008, Jones released the µWatch, a scientific calculator watch in kit form, [5] which he designed as a replacement for his defunct Casio CFX-400, [6] the last available scientific calculator watch since 1985. [7] Engadget " [8] and bit-tech" [9] published positive reviews. The µWatch may be built from off-the-shelf parts following DIY instructions. It has a 16-bit processor and 64K of flash memory, and uses open source software. [9] [10]"
Proposed version:' "In 2008 Jones published open source plans for the "µWatch", a scientific calculator watch in kit form, [5] which he designed as a replacement for his defunct Casio CFX-400, [6]"
ゼーロ's notes: Puffery removed. You can still buy modern scientific calculator watches on AliExpress/eBay, so the statement about the CFX-400 being the last available since 1985 is clearly nonsense. There is no need for too much technical detail here, interested parties can check the uWatch site. The Engadget and Bit-Tech sites seem to be based entirely off the primary source, and the authors don't even have the watch on hand. Filler at best. ゼーロ ( talk) 16:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
The AGO3000 prank came about when Jones approached Tektronix ... We agreed and hope you do to.
Here is a good video guide made by David L. Jones from EEVblog.
He opened it on camera and is asking his viewers if they'd like to see him do a full PSoC 5LP review on a future show.
Cite error: A
list-defined reference named "eevblogyoutube" is not used in the content (see the
help page).
Cite error: A
list-defined reference named "hackaday" is not used in the content (see the
help page).
Cite error: A
list-defined reference named "CCiview" is not used in the content (see the
help page).
Cite error: A
list-defined reference named "Leung2011" is not used in the content (see the
help page).