Talk:Mozilla Firefox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mozilla Firefox article.
Featured article star Mozilla Firefox is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Mozilla Firefox appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 28, 2004.
News This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.

The citation is in: Ed Grabianowski (March 2005). "How Firefox Works". Howstuffworks.com.

Wikipedia CD Selection Mozilla Firefox is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Engtech article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
To-do list for Mozilla Firefox: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Merge "Footnotes" and "References" sections—the former has 83 references, the latter has 9.
  • Add criticisms (from reviews of Firefox 2, etc.) when mentioning features.
Tux the penguin This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, an attempt to comprehensively cover Linux and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.


Attention. This is not a Firefox helpdesk. Please limit all questions and comments to those regarding the article itself. Non-relevant comments are likely to be removed.


  1. September 2004 – December 2004
  2. December 2004-July 2005
  3. July 2005-May 2006
  4. June 2006-July 2006
  5. Archive 5
  6. Archive 6
  7. Archive 7
  8. Archive 8

Contents

[edit] Trying to come to some sort of agreement

Right, so we seem to have come to a stage where people are saying 'the article is pov because these facts are missing'. No-one has said that those facts should not be included. No one has said that criticism should not be included. The only request that has been made is that all claims be accompanied by a reliable source - this means: no blogs, forums, mailing lists or social sites - unless they are the postings of a person with notability themselves. Also, just to make sure everyone understands - mozilla and its emplyees are acceptable sources of information on this article (this includes blogs, forum posts and mailing list posts - so long as there is no doubt that it is really them making the statement). Also, including bits of source code is acceptable - drawing conclusions from this is not, unless it has a source to back up those conclusions. So, now that I have summarised the entire argument regarding the inclusion of information, how can we go about bringing this rather long winded and in most cases, off topic, argument to a conclusion and remove the npov banner? My proposal is: unless someone can provide third party sources (per policy) backing up each of the 'missing' criticisms, we should remove the npov banner. I would also propose that this be done in the next few days (as the editors discussing this have been quite active so should be able to do it in a couple of days). Objections? If so, why?-Localzuk(talk) 19:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no NPOV banner anymore. Some users added "Google relationship" section (I've also made some changes and corrections to it) and they removed NPOV banner. Personally, as long as this section (mentioning important things such default antiphishing that connects often with Google and related privacy issues) is present I am not going to add NPOV banner again.
There are still important issues missing and worth mentioning (like implementation of <a ping> and other things from WHATWG specification [which is _not_ spec. from W3C]), but I hope they will be added in the future (perhaps by me). 193.219.28.146 01:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small explanation about antiphishing in FF2.0

Just to clear some things up; I don't want to misinform any users.

Some users added (thank you) section "Google relationship" to the article. It includes sentence: "The default security feature of builds by the Mozilla Foundation activate an anti-phishing feature to provide live protection and send user data to Google[85]". Well, actually, it is not fully correct.

There are two modes of antiphishing protection in FF2.0. One ("basic") is enabled by default, and it is based on list of "phishy" pages. This list is on user's computer and is updated at regular (0.5h) intervals. Nice (and, I believe, fully correct) explanation was given by user "Myk Melez" in comment on this site. This log was created when browser was in this (default) mode. It basically shows that browser connects each half hour with Google's server and fetches (or not) some update. That's all. (Unfortunately, there is also Cookie: header, but from cookie alone Google can't harvest any personal info. [But if user never clears cookie - then Google is able to relate (with help of cookie) all requests to Google's servers to one person... Well, my English sucks, so I guess I've failed with this part of explanation... Read article about HTTP cookie if you are interested...]).

The second mode ("advanced", "live protection") is _not_ enabled by default. User must explicitly opt-in for it. Then, all URLs he/she visits are sent to Google. (Also, there is some indication in source code that in this mode cookie is _not_ sent, but I have to do further research.)

So, I've changed some things in aforemetioned (on the beginning) section. 193.219.28.146 00:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What planet...

...is depicted on the Firefox logo? - Sikon 04:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[1] --Nonpareility 17:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
heres what I read, It is no real planet, but it's sort of earth, with an extra unknown (intentionally) unreal continent displayed, so as not to promote on country of users over another,

' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oxinabox1 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Firefox 3 release pushed back?

While this Firefox release schedule shows the release date being May 2007, it was last updated Sept. 23 2006; this release roadmap shows the release date as November 2007, and was last updated Nov. 8 2006. Also. this PC World article from Dec. 8 2006 says the release of Firefox 3 is still a year away. Kat, Queen of Typos 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

There is no criticism section in the article which is a little bit controversial issue for some users. For all interested parties that want to improve article in this regard here are some links to recently archived threads in talk page: Criticism - prefetching, Allegations that this article is not NPOV, Criticisms of Firefox section, Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox merged, Criticisms of 2.0. 193.219.28.146 18:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We have been over this about 50 times. The general consensus both here and now at Opera (internet suite) is that criticism should be merged into the article. Jimbo also agrees with this concept.
Why should we split the article into 'pro' and 'anti' sections? Why should we add a big shining 'come troll here' badge to the page? I have not yet seen any compelling arguments for this.-Localzuk(talk) 18:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It is nice that you started discussion on Opera's talk page about spreading out criticism throughout the article (instead of separated section). I hope you (or some other person) will do the same with article about MSIE in the future...
About my first comment - when I wrote about "improving article in this regard" I was also thinking about adding criticism to the article in relevant places (not only in [non-existent] "criticism" section). 193.219.28.146 19:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I do intend to head over to the IE page after I have finished with the Opera one - one thing at a time, especially with this topic (as it causes an uproar with some users who eventually realise the point of the exercise).
I also think that any criticism is welcome on this page, the opera page or the IE page - so long as it abides by our guidelines and policies. The problem with most criticism is that it comes in the form of whining on forums and the like rather than from reliable sources. -Localzuk(talk) 19:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is the Internet constantly evolves so I think we all should be a little bit more elastic in regard of treating "forums and the like" as reliable sources (or not). Sometimes a lot of useful and correct information is placed on forums or blogs (e.g. security researchers' blogs )... After all, even Wikipedia could be considered as one big "forum or the like" - it is created completely by ordinary users from all over the world. 193.219.28.146 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but the problem exists with verifiability. Someone could go to a forum or blog and rant about how their computer got hacked through firefox or something and then loads of people join in with their 'me too' posts. Without some form of peer reviewed evidence, we wouldn't be able to actually confirm that as being true, and the 'me too' posts could all just be the same person bolstering the numbers of people confirming the issue. Whereas, on this site, all information is supposed to be sourced in order to verify it. So we are different to a forum or blog.
This sort of thing shouldn't be discussed here, however, instead it should be discussed here or here.-Localzuk(talk) 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Tense

I corrected some tenses in the history section, firefox 2 ghas been released for over month, it is nolonger acceptable to have "will be", i corrected 2, bnut there are probable more.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/z/Talk%7EMozilla_Firefox_96a2.html"