Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Two lists?

The article currently cites 163 references. How about, while the article is protected, we begin to compile two lists here on the Talk page of sources that we will, and those that we will not, use as trustworthy references after the protection ceases? As per Lester's comments above, we should avoid sources published by the primary interested parties and go for trustworthy secondary sources that cover the territory wherever possible. If we can at least agree on a few of each kind, we will have made considerable progress, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A method I suggest won't work on any subject that is related to Microsoft as almost the entire ICT world is either supporting MS products or competing with MS products. There is hardly any information that does not come directly or indirectly from parties involved. In fact the very subject is already part of the conflict in itself where info on a group of organisations that support Office Open XML development have been removed from the article because an editor (Scientus) does not find them suitable because Microsoft is a promonent member and host their site whilst of course as the main implementer of OOXML Microsoft will be involved in just about anything that is related to supporting the format. In general Wikipedia editting is heavily biased towards oss which favors the opendocument format over office open xml. This is exactly why I would prefer neutral editors allthough so far I have not seen any interest on the RFC above. hAl (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds a little bit like saying that it's impossible to agree on the sources for the Arab–Israeli conflict article, because everyone who writes about it is either pro-Arab or pro-Israeli. Nonetheless, it is in fact possible to find independent commentators and truthful reports in reliable, citable and secondary sources and to create a balanced article. --Nigelj (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The way around any controversial issue is to state both sides' claims. "Side 1 claims XXX". "Side 2 counter claims YYY". That's better than two sides continually reverting each other's edits. The fact that there was press coverage that Microsoft had paid people to edit Wikipedia articles on Office Open XML means that care should be taken in regards to neutrality. That's why it's important to have independent sources and citations, so the Wikipedia article can be independent, and be seen to be independent.--Lester 22:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the Google cited criticism of OOXML which HAl repeatedly removed you would notice that there is a clear distinction between fact and opinion. HAl removed 11 times "If ISO were to give OOXML with its 6546 pages the same level of review that other standards have seen, it would take 18 years (6576 days for 6546 pages) to achieve comparable levels of review to the existing ODF standard (871 days for 867 pages). Considering that OOXML had only received about 5.5% of the review comparable standards (ostensibly ODF) have undergone, Google sees "reports about inconsistencies, contradictions and missing information [as] hardly surprising."" Scientus (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually you should note that the size of the article is not dsiputed and the critisims of Google on the size of the specification itself is not a problem (allthough but the so called statement by Google is not verifiable because the only source of the critisims is from anti OOXML source and Google itself have retracted it), however the calculation is of 5,5% review time is totally unverifiable and was in time made before the review of the OOXML was actually completed. So the 5.5% cannot be true because it was made before the complete review of the OOXML format was done. Also it is incorrect which I already showed in the talk page. For instance the ISO/IEC standardization proces on ODF/IEC from submission to approval last only the aboslute minimum of 6 months while the ISO/IEC standardization proces from submission to approval last 16-17 months. If the facts in a critisism do not match reality and this is shown to be invalid it can be removed. I asume it is either a calculation error or a based on incorrect data. That is defenitly sure as the ISO/IEC proces was still being done at the time of this critisism so that Google culd not know how long that would take unless google could predit the future. Also as one thing have been evident in the standardization proces of Office Open XML which had a lot more participation than any other standardization proces in ISO/IEC is that OOXML is one of the most reviewed specifications EVER. Mayby you should explain that you remove possibly 20 or 30 times fully sourced information from the article on support for the format. hAl (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're thinking at the wrong level, hAl. We're not here to review the validity of Google's logic, but (if we agree that this Google statement is a reliable and noteworthy independent source, which is by no means a done deal) we would just report the fact, "Google said this", and maybe "someone else said the opposite" too, for balance. --Nigelj (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I could not agree more. So we report the factual part of the critisism which is the large size of the spec (which some even calim is actually better than a spec that is too small) but as we do have tons factual information the the review time of the ODF and OOXML spec and can verify this is not factual critisism we can leave that out. hAl (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Potential sources

Here are some initial (easy) suggestions. Please feel free to comment and add constructively. We can put these to use when the protection is lifted, especially if enough can be agreed here beforehand. --Nigelj (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources OK to use as references for stated facts and, with attribution, opinions when given due weight

zdnet.com (Ziff Davis Publishing Company)

Independently-owned technology commentator

arstechnica.com (Condé Nast Publications)

Independently-owned technology commentator

Sources to avoid as references supporting article statements

microsoft.com

As per Lester's suggestion, WP:SELFPUB

ecma-international.org

As per Lester's suggestion, WP:SELFPUB

iso.org

As per Lester's suggestion, WP:SELFPUB

This is totally ridiculous. It is not about the sources but about the content. Objecting to the ISO/IEC as a source is laughable. Still waiting for independant editers as Lester and Nigelj have recent history in the article here. hAl (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So by editing the article you somehow disqualify yourself from editing the article?!?!?! Such circular argumentation is certainly better suited for uncyclopedia than here, and in any case if your proposal was applied would disqualify yourself from editing the article. Scientus (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No but I have made the request for people from outside to get independant mediation on certain content issues that lead to edit conflicts and I would like to see that mediation happening and not get in a new discussion on something totally different (the list of sources in the article) and create new issues and conflicts. Which is what Nigelj is doing. hAl (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "It is not about the sources but about the content" - Not so. The two are linked. The sources you use affect what content you can put in. By collecting the information directly from the source, eg, Microsoft, ISO, ECMA etc, it is using what's known as primary sources, and becomes original research. We don't need to do original research for this article, as independent articles proliferate on the internet. We should be reflecting what the mainstream media is saying (such as ZDnet, Infoworld, ArsTechnica etc etc). The most notable publications.--Lester 09:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You should read up on primary sources. Primary sources are sources very close to an event. The standardization proces of Office Open XML was an event. The Office Open XML format itself is not an event. Microsoft is a primary source on Microsoft related events and not a primary source on Office Open XML itself. And even then primary sources can be used for descriptive purposes. So for information relating directy the free publication of ISO/IEC specification you can use ISO/IEC as a valid primary source to link the date of publication or the location of the specification itself as that is descriptive information. Microsoft stating in a release note stating that a new versions of MS Office supports OOXML is descriptive or Microsoft stating that they submitted the format to Ecma on a certain data is descriptive and is describing of factual events that have verifiably happened. The entire section on file format and structure is descriptive on the format and not an event and virtually all sources can be use on that. ISO/IEC stating they have approved the Office Open XML standard is purely descriptive of an event. It migth however no be acceptable to use primary sources sources to interprete the information. So for instance using ISO/IEC as a source for stating that the standardization proces was the best ever would be incorrect use of a primary source as that is interpretive of the standardization event by a primary source. That is why the sourcing is more likely to be bad in the Standardization of Office Open XML article where the entrire article is about an event. It is full of sources who participated in the event of the standardization proces itself as almost everyone did so. If you want to cull primary sources that is probably the article for you. hAl (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did you find a connection between primary sources and events? A primary source on Relativity is Einstein's paper, a primary source on Chippendale furniture is a book by Mr Chippendale. There is no need for an event as I understand it. --Nigelj (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

At WP:Primary sources of course. hAl (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Primary sources says Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source. So a simple citation of a ISO/OASIS/ECMA standard in the context of describing what it clearly says with page or section number is certainly an allowed use of a primary source. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Advice and offer for meditation

As a completely uninvolved editor, I want to offer some advice. Rather than focusing on which sources "can" and "can not" be used, it is more productive to simply look at which claim is being cited to which source, and hedge the claim as needed. So:

• Claims that are accepted by all sides in the real world can probably just be stated as fact with a footnote. For example, most of the information in the "file format" and "structure of the standard" sections is probably not contentious
• Claims that are only accepted by some can be attributed in prose to the people who make them. For example: "The ODF Alliance argues that the Office Open XML file-format is not vendor-neutral [1]". In this way, it is clear that the claim being made is not universally accepted
• Avoid putting things in the lede that are not universally agreed. There is simply not enough space in the lede to go into detail. So, for example, instead of saying "free and open ECMA standard", just say "ECMA standard" in the lede, and discuss openness lower down where space permits. There is an unlimited amount of space for the article, after all, but a limited amount of space for the lede.
• Pay attention to claims that have numerous citations after them, all of which are meant to support the same fact. If the motivation for the huge list of citations is that some people dispute the fact, put in a sentence that says some people dispute it, so that everything is clear to the reader. Careful wording and explanation is much more valuable to the reader than huge numbers of citations.

I would be glad to help mediate disagreements about the content, but perhaps it would be good if editors here first commented on the points above. If everyone can agree about the general process for citing things here, it will help a lot when you discuss the actual content. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly appreciate someone mediation in the article. Before I already tried to get mediation via the Wikiproject computing pages and the request of comment procedure but noone has reacted so far. Your comment on the sources seem fair enough. I detailed three of the most contested edit issues in the above sectionTalk:Office_Open_XML#RFC:_Supporting_sites_and_overcitation. hAl (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to voice my agreement with the points that Carl has made (above). I think it's sews the groundwork for all sides to agree on something, and all issues can be placed against this framework. I hope all other people editing this article can also agree to this.--Lester 06:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Patent infringement issue

Should this be in ths article at all. It is of course relevant for the Microsoft Word article. The patent issue is about the specific Word implementation of custom XML in Office Open XML and the Microsoft Office 2003 XML formats before that. The patent infringement issue is not about custom XML and not about Office Open XML This was recently stated even by the i4i patent holder himself, Michael Vulpe, in an interview (interview in dutch, Google translation) hAl (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This issue was widely covered in the technology media, as well as the non-technology media, so there'll be plenty of references in English that can be relied upon (See Google for links). The lawsuit is a small company, i4i, which is suing Microsoft. i4i specifically wants to get Office Open XML (OOXML) off the market, claiming patent infringement. It wants to stop Microsoft distributing OOXML. How can it not be relevant to OOXML? --Lester 06:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You state i4i specifically wants to get Office Open XML (OOXML) off the market, claiming patent infringement.. That is definitly not true. As I have shown above i4i's Michel Vulpe, the person owning the patent, himself states that the issue is not with custom XML of with Office open XML or with document formats but with a specific implementation of custom XML in Microsoft Word. So iti s an issue with word and not so much with OOXML. In addition to that the USPTO has already provisonally rejected the patent in re-examination so it is unlikely to stand anyways. hAl (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no point making this out to be a positive rosy thing for Microsoft, by saying that the "judge has thrown it out" because you say the patent is "unlikely to stand". This is your opinion, that you're welcome to have, but it's completely at odds with the mainstream reporting of this issue. Again, the patent lawsuit is specifically about how Microsoft uses "custom XML" within the Office Open XML file format. It only applies to OOXML. We must be reflecting how the majority of the mainstream media covers this. We can't apply a completely different slant to this issue.--Lester 01:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

We must reflect the correct information. You suggest I gave an opinion but I actually gave the opinion of the patent holder himself in a very recent interview to and I gave factual information that the uspto has provisionally rejected the patent. I think your suggestion of slat are very strange. Fact is that most patents do not survive reexamination ([1]). You prefer bad information on facts. hAl (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the point here is a little subtle. My understanding is that the patent applies to a method, that i4i say that MS uses this method in the way they deal with "custom XML" internally in Word, that the court agreed, and that the remedy was to fine and order MS to stop infringing the patent (which was what i4i asked for). The Judge then ordered a separate permanent injunction on MS supporting "custom XML" in the future: either because he thinks the patent covers all possible uses of custom XML, which would be a farce, or to be punitive because of MS' persistent pattern of behaviour (the judge clearly was pissed off by the MS lawyers) like a court would prevent a child molester from living next door to a school. Whether the article is better off in the Word page or the OOXML page, I don't have an opinion: it is an interesting new twist to the saga and could be important in area of software patents. But there seems nothing directed at IS29500 per se or other people's implementation of OOXML and customXML. Please note that many online and mag articles are making an awful lot of basic technical mistakes on this: when I started to write a blog entry on the judgement (I had written 4 on the patent and prior art) I decided to wait because I couldn't find any description of in what exact way the patent was infringed: without that, talk is just speculation and more suitable for newspaper than an encyclopedia. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)