Jump to content

Talk:Caddy (web server)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moonythedwarf (talk | contribs) at 16:37, 11 June 2023 (beh). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Certain parts of this article read like an advertisement:

  • "One of Caddy's most notable features is enabling HTTPS by default."
  • "Since then it has been advanced by over two hundred other developers, adding for example support for QUIC."
  • "Caddy is not vulnerable to a number of widespread CVEs including Heartbleed, DROWN, POODLE, and BEAST. In addition, Caddy uses TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV to prevent protocol downgrade attacks."
  • "Caddy has also been used by Cloudflare as a platform to serve an experimental TLS 1.3 implementation."

I'm not arguing these are not notable (although I think not being vulnerable to these CVEs is just an expectation of normal web server software...). However, the tone here is not encyclopedic, and frankly smell of COI editing. Until these are rectified I'm re-adding the advert template. Soapwort (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of rewriting the article to remove the ad smell and add more factual substance. I also added many more secondary sources. M. (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Apple Silicon" is not an architecture.

I noticed a line in the article:

> on a variety of architectures including x86-64, ARM, MIPS, S390X, Apple Silicon, and PPC64

Apple Silicon is not an architecture, in the same way "Snapdragon" is not an architecture, or "Ryzen" is not an architecture. Would anyone have any issues with removing this, as the same line does mention ARM support.

Aspenluxxxy (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag (May 2023)

Looks to have been written by major contributors to Caddy, which may have financial interest in doing so due to paid services provided by the company behind the software. —moonythedwarf 21:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: User:Mwholt is the main contributor to the article and is also the primary contributor. Due to them having paid interest in the development of this article, they are required by WP:PAID to properly disclose their conflict of interest and potential monetary influences. —moonythedwarf 21:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed for "having paid interest in the development of this article" -- this is a serious, unsubstantiated claim and it is false. The facts are this: this article is and was not promotional -- it was not requested to be written, there is and was no compensation of any kind for writing it, nor is there any financial or business benefit of having it. I do not own the Caddy project nor am I employed by the company that does own it -- I don't even live in the same country. I will be happy to disclose if there is ever a COI related to my contributions. m (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moonythedwarf In this instance, WP:PAID woudn't apply. @Mwholt seems to have created the Caddy project (could be wrong tho), which would mean the standard WP:COI would apply and not WP:PAID. Its an important distinction because the rules for paid editors are much stricter than an editor with an COI. Rlink2 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Holt, you run https://matt.life/ and plainly state everywhere you have direct financial involvement as per https://matt.life/writing/the-asymmetry-of-open-source or similar articles.
@Rlink2 see above. —moonythedwarf 16:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can tell you I have no such interest, as that's not how open source (FOSS) projects work. I do not own the Caddy project, nor am I employed by the company that owns the Caddy project. I'm not even in the same country. This article is and was not promotional -- it was not requested to be written, there is and was no compensation of any kind for writing it, nor is there any financial or business benefit of having it. It was purely an exercise in contributing to the Wikimedia commons for the public benefit. Do you have proof I am financially incentivized by this Wikipedia article? If not, I suggest removing the flag.
Your edits removed 48 citations, most of which were independent, scholarly secondary sources. That is akin to vandalism on the Wikipedia commons. Can you justify that the current reference set is an improvement?
I noticed you are a contributor to the Apache web server Wikipedia page. That's interesting. m (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mwholt Generally, Wikipedia writing is different than normal articles because certain standards need to be met. For example long lists of features are discouraged, so Moony was right in taking that out. But there was some things Moony took out that probably still belonged in the article, so I put them back in. Rlink2 (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for putting some of the content back in. I'm well aware of Wikipedia's editing standards. That's why Moony's edits are considered defacing an article. They are inconsistently biased toward a different HTTP server which is suspicious: Moony's previous edit was to the Apache HTTP Server page, which has a stubby, relatively useless technical feature list that is, frankly, advert content. And yet it remains, even after Moony's edits. If technical descriptions are not allowed here, they are not allowed on other pages either. My original expansion of this article was to enhance such a list with actual history and technical details, backed by secondary sources and scholarly papers. Moony's edits deleted those enhancements. Editors on Wikipedia are discouraged from making broad, sweeping deletions to articles, which is why the edits are being treated as a defacing. m (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caddy_(web_server)&oldid=1159644739"