![]() | This user page was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2016. The result of the discussion was userfy to User:Zazpot. |
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Unusual circumstances: very few people at the moment have the technical knowledge to provide clear and accurate information on this page (non-technical editing of course welcome and completely desirable). Therefore the author of the standard, in order to ensure technical accuracy, feels compelled to edit the page. Already several misunderstandings and confusion have been clarified (belief that EOMA68 is a physical product / device, restricted to "linux", or "free software" or "linux embedded devices", and several others as shown in the History).
Normally a "conflict of interest" would be declared. However, "normally" a standard would be prorietary, closed, restricted or require membership. It would certainly not be openly developed on a wikimedia web site (elinux.org) running exactly the same source code as wikipedia and having exactly the same Creative Commons License as wikipedia!
Looking through the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Declaring_an_interest definitions, none of the examples show what to do if:
The definitions make it clear that it's not about "personal bias" but is more about perception. However, those "perceptions" apply correctly to examples given such as "proprietary standards" or "information about a band, written by the band's manager"... I'm having a hard time ( Lkcl ( talk) 20:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)) working out how those "perceptions" could be applied to another *Creative Commons* page that specifically describes a clearly-declared *OPEN* standard that's clearly written by someone with a 20+ year track record and committment to the exact same principles on which Wikipedia was founded.
help appreciated! Lkcl ( talk) 20:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, ... which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety.
Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity.
If you become involved in an article where you have a general COI (including a financial COI) that does not involve being paid to edit Wikipedia, place the {{ connected contributor}} template at the top of affected talk pages. Fill it in as follows, and save:
{{Connected contributor|User1=Your username |U1-declared=yes| |U1-otherlinks=Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions.}}
"For the first time, the EOMA68 is a standard to work off for building freedom-friendly, privacy-respecting, and secure computing devices."
"The goal of this project is to introduce the idea of being ethically responsible about both the ecological and the financial resources required to design, manufacture, acquire and maintain our personal computing devices. This campaign therefore introduces the world’s first devices built around the EOMA68 standard, a freely-accessible royalty-free, unencumbered hardware standard formulated and tested over the last five years around the ultra-simple philosophy of “just plug it in: it will work.”
"This project is the beginning of a mass-volume OS-agnostic standard, EOMA68, where we recognise that it’s only going to make a huge environmental difference if it becomes mass-volume rather than niche."
The idea of deleting the page because it got too political is ridiculous. Whom does that serve? There's nothing wrong with having the author of a standard help to document it. And the idea of collaboration is to make the page more accurate over time, rather than less.
Editors: please quit meddling so that the actual work can be done. User:ecloud —Preceding undated comment added 10:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion below is copied from User talk:Zazpot#EOMA68_page. Essentially, the question is: should the EOMA-68 article only cover the EOMA-68 standard, or also notable implementations of that standard?
ok so clarification / summary of the above: EOMA68, being a standard (like ITX or COM-Express) should be separate from *compliant devices* with that standard. when we get some notable devices (e.g. the Libre Tea) then we can re-evaluate. Lkcl ( talk) 04:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
lkcl reverted my recent edit. HE rightly pointed out that the standard does not specify that the CPU must reside on the card. Indeed I confused between the standard and the common use (that should help clarify the rationale). It's nice writing that it is supposed to help reduce waste, but nowhere in the article did you explain how it was supposed to happen. I pointed out explicitly in that edit that this does not have to be the case. I changed my edit to note that it is the common use case. I'm not sure I have a specific source for it, besides almost all the cards built so far (IIRC) have been CPU cards in that sense with only a single pass-through card designed (but not yet built) and an FPGA card is mostly an idea (right?). Tzafrir ( talk) 07:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=EOMA-68&diff=738050214&oldid=738048344 - this is happening an awful lot. in the two short weeks since the page was created, this is the SIXTH example of someone adding false and misleading information into the page. EOMA68 is *NOT* a "CPU Board Standard" (four separate people - so far - have tried to add statements claiming that it is). EOMA68 is *NOT* a "computer" (two separate people - so far - tried to add statements claiming that it is) now, Nagle, i appreciate that you're trying to help - in this instance you'd like to see the page be "less promotional"... but you can't go replacing stuff on a wikipedia page that's still under construction with factually totally inaccurate statements! please read the standard, please do some research into the background, and if you're not sure what you're doing PLEASE ASK, okay? thank you. Lkcl ( talk) 17:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
A general response to most of the above is that Wikipedia admins should police the edits a bit more (the ubiquitous "citation needed", for instance), rather than be too surprised when the EOMA68 specification's author weighs in on people making stuff up. Last time I edited this page, I actually added and fixed up citations to avoid "citation needed", which can be something of a bane when reviewing other pages I have contributed to (or know something about), but I guess everyone was too busy arguing on the talk page instead of helping to curate the content in that way. I've already noted elsewhere that external sources need to be more robust so that this page summarises the topic properly, and so I'd suggest that the more enthusiastic contributors of unsourced edits develop such content elsewhere. PaulBoddie ( talk) 20:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
So, I spend a fair while adding citations and then some bot just does an epic revert. Nice way to encourage constructive Wikipedia editing! If you don't want references to "primary sources", how about making the citation plugin look up the page's supposed primary sources, if they are even defined anywhere, and report the fact there and then? PaulBoddie ( talk) 22:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia's open standard article notes that there is no canonical definition of the term "open standard". Rather, there are numerous competing definitions. As far as I can tell, EOMA68 meets at least the following notable definitions of "open standard" as listed in that article:
Do other editors concur? Does my conclusion above violate WP:NOR, i.e. does Wikipedia need a reliable, independent secondary source to state that EOMA68 is an open standard, before that statement would be justified in Wikipedia? Let's try to find consensus :) Thanks! zazpot ( talk) 14:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Is EOMA68 really not patent-encumbered? This question can probably not be confirmed for any standard that’s younger than 20 years and other standards on Open_standard#Examples_of_open_standards do not mention patents either, but most articles listed there do not mention openness either. The list of example open standards explicitly says that the listed standards may fail some definitions of an open standard. It would still be nice to have a source that Rhombus Tech or other contributors (are there any?) do not believe there to be such patents or at least do not have patent claims of their own. Are there any restrictive patent claims to the required interfaces?
Another option is to not call it an open standard/open specification but instead explain the aspects of an open standard that EOMA68 fulfills. CC-BY-SA is mentioned already. Pelzflorian ( talk) 04:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
As for patents, I have no idea whether EOMA68 is patent-encumbered. As you note, this is really hard to determine. It is especially difficult to know whether any relevant submarine patents exist. (Cf. HTML5 again.) I would welcome any detective work you are able to do on that front within Wikipedia's guidelines, and I expect other editors would feel similarly grateful for such efforts.
I like your proposal to explain the aspects of an open standard that EOMA68 fulfils, but this would of course have to be done in a way that did not violate WP:NOR. Thanks again. zazpot ( talk) 05:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the article states, "Type I is reserved for computer cards which support up to 1920x1080 RGB/TTL video output; Type II is reserved for computer cards which support up to 1366x768 RGB/TTL video output, on the basis that a Type I 3.3mm card may fit into a Type II 5.0mm socket but not vice versa. Thus, a module with a lower-capacity video output will physically be prevented from being used with incompatible higher-resolution devices, preventing any possible confusion about interoperability." This does not make sense; at least, not to me. It would, however, make sense if the maximum resolution for Type I cards was less than or equal to that of Type II cards. As this information is sourced directly from the EOMA68 specification, it seems to me that there is a bug in the spec. It is obviously not Wikipedia's job to point out such bugs, but I think that perhaps Wikipedia should couch the rationale by pointing to it simply as being the stated intention of the spec, rather than parroting that intention. I.e. without using wording authoritative but potentially wrong information like "Thus, such-and-such a situation will be physically prevented from arising." That is because if the spec is buggy, and the devices are produced to spec, then such a situation would not be prevented, even if the intention of the spec was that it would. I will think on this and may edit the corresponding part of the article accordingly. zazpot ( talk) 10:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
the very first paragraph is almost 90% false and misleading facts and statements (in under 30 words there are no less than SIX false and misleading statements!). the reason why this false and misleading information is here is because a "review" was carried out by people who are experienced wikipedia editors but have absolutely zero technical knowledge. during the "review", a blatant violation of wikipedia policy (to trust contributors) was made, which allowed them to dismiss out-of-hand edits being made by people that are experienced in the technical subject matter (but not in wikipedia policy). efforts to revert the false and misleading facts were reverted not once but TWICE by administrator (JzG), who is directly responsible for ensuring that the page now contains false and misleading facts.
true
false.
false.
false.
misleading.
misleading by being critically incomplete.
wow! something that's true! wait... no, it's misleading. the standardisation effort has *NOT* received international media coverage: the FIRST CAMPAIGN which has five DESIGNS that are COMPLIANT with the eoma68 standard have received international media coverage.
and it won't be - ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkcl ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
true but misleading and incomplete. misleading, as it's an *open* technical standard, it's an open *computing* standard, and many many other adjectives which are completely missing, thus giving a false impression. requires clarification and expansion
true
false / misleading by way of being incomplete. it's not limited to "appliances": it can be used as part of designs intended for engineering purposes and many others. thus, mentioning *only* appliances is misleading.
This first paragraph requires an enormous amount of care to ensure that it's comprehensively correct. The problem stems from the fact that it's not actually a noun. Imagine trying to say "Hello, I'd like a USB please", or "Hello, I'd like a PCI Express". if you went into a store and said that, they'd think you were trying to use those as a euphemism for drugs or kinky sex or something.
Basically it is necessary to do a comprehensive review of at least the following pages before going any further, and analyse them (and others) carefully for appropriate phrases:
remember: this was the original text that was destroyed by the witch-hunt aka "review":
this paragraph (preserved before the witch-hunt) was still a work-in-progress but is a hell of a lot better and is closer to the (much better) example of USB, by way of describing its intent, purpose, who wrote it, who's responsible for it, why it was designed, and many other aspects which give a far more comprehensive, accurate and complete picture of what EOMA68 is actually about.
look at the corresponding paragraphs for USB:
does that make sense? can you see how similar those are, and how much better (despite containing some incomplete statements)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkcl ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This user page was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2016. The result of the discussion was userfy to User:Zazpot. |
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Unusual circumstances: very few people at the moment have the technical knowledge to provide clear and accurate information on this page (non-technical editing of course welcome and completely desirable). Therefore the author of the standard, in order to ensure technical accuracy, feels compelled to edit the page. Already several misunderstandings and confusion have been clarified (belief that EOMA68 is a physical product / device, restricted to "linux", or "free software" or "linux embedded devices", and several others as shown in the History).
Normally a "conflict of interest" would be declared. However, "normally" a standard would be prorietary, closed, restricted or require membership. It would certainly not be openly developed on a wikimedia web site (elinux.org) running exactly the same source code as wikipedia and having exactly the same Creative Commons License as wikipedia!
Looking through the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Declaring_an_interest definitions, none of the examples show what to do if:
The definitions make it clear that it's not about "personal bias" but is more about perception. However, those "perceptions" apply correctly to examples given such as "proprietary standards" or "information about a band, written by the band's manager"... I'm having a hard time ( Lkcl ( talk) 20:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)) working out how those "perceptions" could be applied to another *Creative Commons* page that specifically describes a clearly-declared *OPEN* standard that's clearly written by someone with a 20+ year track record and committment to the exact same principles on which Wikipedia was founded.
help appreciated! Lkcl ( talk) 20:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, ... which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety.
Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity.
If you become involved in an article where you have a general COI (including a financial COI) that does not involve being paid to edit Wikipedia, place the {{ connected contributor}} template at the top of affected talk pages. Fill it in as follows, and save:
{{Connected contributor|User1=Your username |U1-declared=yes| |U1-otherlinks=Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions.}}
"For the first time, the EOMA68 is a standard to work off for building freedom-friendly, privacy-respecting, and secure computing devices."
"The goal of this project is to introduce the idea of being ethically responsible about both the ecological and the financial resources required to design, manufacture, acquire and maintain our personal computing devices. This campaign therefore introduces the world’s first devices built around the EOMA68 standard, a freely-accessible royalty-free, unencumbered hardware standard formulated and tested over the last five years around the ultra-simple philosophy of “just plug it in: it will work.”
"This project is the beginning of a mass-volume OS-agnostic standard, EOMA68, where we recognise that it’s only going to make a huge environmental difference if it becomes mass-volume rather than niche."
The idea of deleting the page because it got too political is ridiculous. Whom does that serve? There's nothing wrong with having the author of a standard help to document it. And the idea of collaboration is to make the page more accurate over time, rather than less.
Editors: please quit meddling so that the actual work can be done. User:ecloud —Preceding undated comment added 10:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion below is copied from User talk:Zazpot#EOMA68_page. Essentially, the question is: should the EOMA-68 article only cover the EOMA-68 standard, or also notable implementations of that standard?
ok so clarification / summary of the above: EOMA68, being a standard (like ITX or COM-Express) should be separate from *compliant devices* with that standard. when we get some notable devices (e.g. the Libre Tea) then we can re-evaluate. Lkcl ( talk) 04:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
lkcl reverted my recent edit. HE rightly pointed out that the standard does not specify that the CPU must reside on the card. Indeed I confused between the standard and the common use (that should help clarify the rationale). It's nice writing that it is supposed to help reduce waste, but nowhere in the article did you explain how it was supposed to happen. I pointed out explicitly in that edit that this does not have to be the case. I changed my edit to note that it is the common use case. I'm not sure I have a specific source for it, besides almost all the cards built so far (IIRC) have been CPU cards in that sense with only a single pass-through card designed (but not yet built) and an FPGA card is mostly an idea (right?). Tzafrir ( talk) 07:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=EOMA-68&diff=738050214&oldid=738048344 - this is happening an awful lot. in the two short weeks since the page was created, this is the SIXTH example of someone adding false and misleading information into the page. EOMA68 is *NOT* a "CPU Board Standard" (four separate people - so far - have tried to add statements claiming that it is). EOMA68 is *NOT* a "computer" (two separate people - so far - tried to add statements claiming that it is) now, Nagle, i appreciate that you're trying to help - in this instance you'd like to see the page be "less promotional"... but you can't go replacing stuff on a wikipedia page that's still under construction with factually totally inaccurate statements! please read the standard, please do some research into the background, and if you're not sure what you're doing PLEASE ASK, okay? thank you. Lkcl ( talk) 17:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
A general response to most of the above is that Wikipedia admins should police the edits a bit more (the ubiquitous "citation needed", for instance), rather than be too surprised when the EOMA68 specification's author weighs in on people making stuff up. Last time I edited this page, I actually added and fixed up citations to avoid "citation needed", which can be something of a bane when reviewing other pages I have contributed to (or know something about), but I guess everyone was too busy arguing on the talk page instead of helping to curate the content in that way. I've already noted elsewhere that external sources need to be more robust so that this page summarises the topic properly, and so I'd suggest that the more enthusiastic contributors of unsourced edits develop such content elsewhere. PaulBoddie ( talk) 20:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
So, I spend a fair while adding citations and then some bot just does an epic revert. Nice way to encourage constructive Wikipedia editing! If you don't want references to "primary sources", how about making the citation plugin look up the page's supposed primary sources, if they are even defined anywhere, and report the fact there and then? PaulBoddie ( talk) 22:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia's open standard article notes that there is no canonical definition of the term "open standard". Rather, there are numerous competing definitions. As far as I can tell, EOMA68 meets at least the following notable definitions of "open standard" as listed in that article:
Do other editors concur? Does my conclusion above violate WP:NOR, i.e. does Wikipedia need a reliable, independent secondary source to state that EOMA68 is an open standard, before that statement would be justified in Wikipedia? Let's try to find consensus :) Thanks! zazpot ( talk) 14:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Is EOMA68 really not patent-encumbered? This question can probably not be confirmed for any standard that’s younger than 20 years and other standards on Open_standard#Examples_of_open_standards do not mention patents either, but most articles listed there do not mention openness either. The list of example open standards explicitly says that the listed standards may fail some definitions of an open standard. It would still be nice to have a source that Rhombus Tech or other contributors (are there any?) do not believe there to be such patents or at least do not have patent claims of their own. Are there any restrictive patent claims to the required interfaces?
Another option is to not call it an open standard/open specification but instead explain the aspects of an open standard that EOMA68 fulfills. CC-BY-SA is mentioned already. Pelzflorian ( talk) 04:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
As for patents, I have no idea whether EOMA68 is patent-encumbered. As you note, this is really hard to determine. It is especially difficult to know whether any relevant submarine patents exist. (Cf. HTML5 again.) I would welcome any detective work you are able to do on that front within Wikipedia's guidelines, and I expect other editors would feel similarly grateful for such efforts.
I like your proposal to explain the aspects of an open standard that EOMA68 fulfils, but this would of course have to be done in a way that did not violate WP:NOR. Thanks again. zazpot ( talk) 05:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the article states, "Type I is reserved for computer cards which support up to 1920x1080 RGB/TTL video output; Type II is reserved for computer cards which support up to 1366x768 RGB/TTL video output, on the basis that a Type I 3.3mm card may fit into a Type II 5.0mm socket but not vice versa. Thus, a module with a lower-capacity video output will physically be prevented from being used with incompatible higher-resolution devices, preventing any possible confusion about interoperability." This does not make sense; at least, not to me. It would, however, make sense if the maximum resolution for Type I cards was less than or equal to that of Type II cards. As this information is sourced directly from the EOMA68 specification, it seems to me that there is a bug in the spec. It is obviously not Wikipedia's job to point out such bugs, but I think that perhaps Wikipedia should couch the rationale by pointing to it simply as being the stated intention of the spec, rather than parroting that intention. I.e. without using wording authoritative but potentially wrong information like "Thus, such-and-such a situation will be physically prevented from arising." That is because if the spec is buggy, and the devices are produced to spec, then such a situation would not be prevented, even if the intention of the spec was that it would. I will think on this and may edit the corresponding part of the article accordingly. zazpot ( talk) 10:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
the very first paragraph is almost 90% false and misleading facts and statements (in under 30 words there are no less than SIX false and misleading statements!). the reason why this false and misleading information is here is because a "review" was carried out by people who are experienced wikipedia editors but have absolutely zero technical knowledge. during the "review", a blatant violation of wikipedia policy (to trust contributors) was made, which allowed them to dismiss out-of-hand edits being made by people that are experienced in the technical subject matter (but not in wikipedia policy). efforts to revert the false and misleading facts were reverted not once but TWICE by administrator (JzG), who is directly responsible for ensuring that the page now contains false and misleading facts.
true
false.
false.
false.
misleading.
misleading by being critically incomplete.
wow! something that's true! wait... no, it's misleading. the standardisation effort has *NOT* received international media coverage: the FIRST CAMPAIGN which has five DESIGNS that are COMPLIANT with the eoma68 standard have received international media coverage.
and it won't be - ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkcl ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
true but misleading and incomplete. misleading, as it's an *open* technical standard, it's an open *computing* standard, and many many other adjectives which are completely missing, thus giving a false impression. requires clarification and expansion
true
false / misleading by way of being incomplete. it's not limited to "appliances": it can be used as part of designs intended for engineering purposes and many others. thus, mentioning *only* appliances is misleading.
This first paragraph requires an enormous amount of care to ensure that it's comprehensively correct. The problem stems from the fact that it's not actually a noun. Imagine trying to say "Hello, I'd like a USB please", or "Hello, I'd like a PCI Express". if you went into a store and said that, they'd think you were trying to use those as a euphemism for drugs or kinky sex or something.
Basically it is necessary to do a comprehensive review of at least the following pages before going any further, and analyse them (and others) carefully for appropriate phrases:
remember: this was the original text that was destroyed by the witch-hunt aka "review":
this paragraph (preserved before the witch-hunt) was still a work-in-progress but is a hell of a lot better and is closer to the (much better) example of USB, by way of describing its intent, purpose, who wrote it, who's responsible for it, why it was designed, and many other aspects which give a far more comprehensive, accurate and complete picture of what EOMA68 is actually about.
look at the corresponding paragraphs for USB:
does that make sense? can you see how similar those are, and how much better (despite containing some incomplete statements)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkcl ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)