Poster | Thread |
pavlor
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 31-May-2018 16:38:15
| | [ #101 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2005 Posts: 9588
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @number6
Quote:
I'll let cgutjahr or senex respond to "weak". heh. |
Webpage of two men with some editorial oversight (they correct mistakes and check sources) catering for small niche "market". This is rightly comparable to a small town newspaper. Such source can be used to support facts in the article (it is a RS), but such article needs other sources to prove notability of the article subject (some more "mainstream" sources). |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
number6
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 31-May-2018 16:50:15
| | [ #102 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 25-Mar-2005 Posts: 11589
From: In the village | | |
|
| @pavlor
Me: Quote:
The links to the lawsuits and to the removal of Hyperion from the Belgian registry are as reliable as you can get. |
You: Quote:
Not in Wikipedia sense of reliable source. |
Ben Hermans: Take a look at the official Belgian (g)overnment website
Forgive me, but if the government claims their official site and the lawyer involved makes an admittance in public that is IS the official site....and you state that for wiki it is NOT a reliable source, then I give up on trying to supply factual information here. Heh.
#6_________________ This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author. *Secrecy has served us so well* |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
jorit2
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 31-May-2018 17:01:17
| | [ #103 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 22-Apr-2011 Posts: 243
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @number6
Quote:
Forgive me, but if the government claims their official site and the lawyer involved ...
|
Since when do you trust governments and lawyers ?
Evert
_________________ -- Posting for charity -- Investing €10 in a charity related to education or civil rights for every message I post -- |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
number6
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 31-May-2018 17:17:09
| | [ #104 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 25-Mar-2005 Posts: 11589
From: In the village | | |
|
| @jorit2
Remaining open minded about things is indeed an effort.
#6 _________________ This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author. *Secrecy has served us so well* |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pavlor
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 31-May-2018 17:17:17
| | [ #105 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2005 Posts: 9588
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @number6
Quote:
then I give up on trying to supply factual information here. |
As you see, it is not that easy to edit Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has its own definition of "reliable source". However, government registry could be useable in sense only strict wording of that registry is used and attributed (it is considered primary source). Still, news source reporting about that event would be preferable (secondary source). |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
number6
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 31-May-2018 17:26:55
| | [ #106 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 25-Mar-2005 Posts: 11589
From: In the village | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
pavlor
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 31-May-2018 17:51:22
| | [ #107 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2005 Posts: 9588
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @number6
Still primary (this is government public notice, not news reporting). |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
number6
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 1-Jun-2018 14:48:28
| | [ #108 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 25-Mar-2005 Posts: 11589
From: In the village | | |
|
| @pavlor
Noted: Addition to the wiki for what we have been discussing.
Again, I do not suggest adding more, since I understand the desire to be brief and to the point. But also, in the interest of fairness, you could consider adding:
"this has been partially addressed" or something similar. That's about as short as it gets.
Official Source enter business #: 0466.380.552
and again a link which would suffice as a company statement regarding and supporting same: Source
Please note that Tim's reference to me refers back to the prior page of that thread where I have pointed to the same link (Official Source).
If you feel this is not worthy of addition, just keep the link in your pocket for future use. Heh.
#6 Last edited by number6 on 01-Jun-2018 at 02:49 PM.
_________________ This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author. *Secrecy has served us so well* |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pavlor
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 3-Jun-2018 15:51:42
| | [ #109 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2005 Posts: 9588
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @number6
I don´t know, how to cite such source (it may change with time and there is no direct link), so I will rather wait for some news reporting.
Note I started "white-washing" of the Hyperion-Entertainment article, first sections concerning games. Rewrite of the "AmigaOS 4" section will follow later (this one is full of POV content sourced by low-quality or no references…). I hope the other side will not burn me on the stake for this. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
number6
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 3-Jun-2018 15:58:56
| | [ #110 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 25-Mar-2005 Posts: 11589
From: In the village | | |
|
| @pavlor
Understood. I've offered many links over the years that require entering data (like the business # above) in order to retrieve information. However you handle non-direct links is fine. But thanks for telling me policy again, since it helps me understand what you currently require and therefore what to offer.
Noted: all the June 3 entries. Good luck.
Prolly not of interest to you, but Shogo? Hyperion Legal Consulting
Technically that's Ben and not Hyperion, unless that is how Hyperion was referring to themselves at that time.
#6 Last edited by number6 on 03-Jun-2018 at 04:22 PM.
_________________ This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author. *Secrecy has served us so well* |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
number6
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 10-Aug-2018 0:40:13
| | [ #111 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 25-Mar-2005 Posts: 11589
From: In the village | | |
|
| @pavlor
Update to wikipedia noted.
#6 _________________ This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author. *Secrecy has served us so well* |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pavlor
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 11-Aug-2018 20:43:05
| | [ #112 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2005 Posts: 9588
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @number6
During work on Hyperion Entertainment Wikipedia article, I found two areas severely lacking in sources:
Corporate informations are too hard to verify (who was in charge when). Even archived Hyperion´s webpage is not ideal source (they list multiple dates for their own founding...). So far I browsed through classic secondary/news sources, but I hope at least some public registry has full historical informations about management (at least it is so here in the Czech Republic).
Other problem is article balance. Now, there are various "controversies" based on public statements of Hyperion´s managers ("change some flags and recompile", MorphOS illegal, Bill Buck con-artist, AROS probably illegal). These are of utmost importance in the Amiga bubble, but with no imprint in the outside world (not even mainstream media, even useable Amiga sources probably don´t care). Wikipedia content that may be challenged must be based on much better sources than forum posts. Using strict Wikipedia "rules", I should remove any such information, if no better sources are found. I´m not willing to "whitewash" that article this way, but I really can´t object anyone, who removes these on grounds of weak sourcing.
If anyone suggests useable sources for these two areas, that would be of great help for me. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
number6
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 11-Aug-2018 21:00:13
| | [ #113 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 25-Mar-2005 Posts: 11589
From: In the village | | |
|
| @pavlor
May we start with an easy one?
Quote:
However, the "Amiga" trademark remained with Amiga, Inc. and was then also sold to other parties, including Commodore USA and iContain. |
I think you meant "licensed".
Even your reference (bottom of page #32) recognizes this with "trademark of Amiga Inc.".
Perhaps some people think sold=licensed. I don't think it conveys the same meaning.
#6
_________________ This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author. *Secrecy has served us so well* |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pavlor
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 11-Aug-2018 21:10:58
| | [ #114 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2005 Posts: 9588
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @number6
Corrected. However, that paragraph is not my text., I only added a footnote.
Such issues are prevalent in the article. My primary objective right now is to provide basic sources for all statements. If you (or anyone other) spots anything like this, feel free to correct it. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
number6
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 11-Aug-2018 21:12:07
| | [ #115 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 25-Mar-2005 Posts: 11589
From: In the village | | |
|
| @thread
Quote:
Is it your merlancia source that bothers you or are you questioning who actually said this originally? I'm not clear on what is of concern here. I must be tired.
#6
_________________ This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author. *Secrecy has served us so well* |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pavlor
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 11-Aug-2018 21:35:26
| | [ #116 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2005 Posts: 9588
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @number6
Quote:
Is it your merlancia source that bothers you or are you questioning who actually said this originally? |
This is old problem with Wikipedia concept of "reliable sources" combined with "due weight". To put it simply, if there is no "reliable source" supporting some claim, then this information is too trivial for Wikipedia. Anybody may remove such claim. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
number6
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 11-Aug-2018 22:21:12
| | [ #117 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 25-Mar-2005 Posts: 11589
From: In the village | | |
|
| @pavlor
All I can say is that I can not substantiate the prior example. Do as you see fit. There are forum references only, which, for the most part you would have to call conjecture.
#6
_________________ This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author. *Secrecy has served us so well* |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
number6
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 7-Feb-2019 16:38:49
| | [ #118 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 25-Mar-2005 Posts: 11589
From: In the village | | |
|
| @number6
Since there exists both the legal documents filed plus the newstory you seem to require in tandem as justification for you making a wiki update...
Isn't it time to make an entry for 2019 regarding the property transferred?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga,_Inc.
#6
_________________ This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author. *Secrecy has served us so well* |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pavlor
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 7-Feb-2019 17:35:58
| | [ #119 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2005 Posts: 9588
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @number6
Done.
I don´t have Amiga.Inc article on my watchlist, now I see what mess it is (horrible structure)! Rewrite in progress... |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
number6
| |
Re: AmigaOne articles on Wikipedia vandalised Posted on 11-Apr-2019 13:40:17
| | [ #120 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 25-Mar-2005 Posts: 11589
From: In the village | | |
|
| @pavlor
I don't envy you trying to keep up with the wikis. There seems to be a lot of changes in both Commodore and Amiga related wikis in both March and April.
Avoid the Commodore International one like the plague. Talk about a need for reorg and corrections....sheesh.
Specificallly, what do you require to meet the conditions of citation here? Quote:
Amiga Inc. is in dispute with Hyperion due to the release of Workbench 3.1.4 by Hyperion. |
Personally, I think that is incorrect anyway.
#6_________________ This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author. *Secrecy has served us so well* |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|