Talk:Standard office document formats debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The introduction is the same as the introduction to the actual ODF page. I will now edit the intro to simply point to the ODF page.

[edit] This article looks like news, advertising, propaganda, or debate.

First, let me state that I support the ASCII Ribbon Campaign, and I personally detest MSOffice, actually prefer OpenOffice, and just recently backed up my most of my personal files in ODT.--- Nonetheless, this article seems to me unappropriate for the purposes and goals of Wikipedia. If you want to know what Microsoft does (or fails to do), search at Wikinews.--- Articles comparing wordprocessors or file formats are acceptable; reporting on whatever company's decisions (or their rationale) is not. Louie 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

All the articles on OpenDocument / Microsoft XML comparasin are in uniformly awful shape. It's pretty clear that most of the prose was written by people with strong opinions, and are keenly interested in trying to prove a point, or support their chosen position, rather than write a sober, encyclopedia-quality analysis. This is hard work, of course; it really is a lot easier to just throw out unacceptably POV language that sounds like it was copied verbatim from Microsoft press releases, Slashdot comments, and bored bloggers. Anyhow, Wikipedia does certainly encourage describing debates and controversies, without asserting a point of view; this article attempts to do that, but it doesn't do a good job. Fundamentally, however, Microsoft's reported stance in this issue is valid subject matter -- that they're a company that makes products you "personally detest" doesn't change this fact. Warrens 18:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with you in almost everything, but I don't know about the latter claim; reporting MS's reactions is exactly what looks unencyclopedic to me.--- Thanks for your comment, Louie 18:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is, at best, news. At worst, just a bunch of opinions. Elpoca 03:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've tried very hard to give the article a title and an introduction to make it worth of an encyclopedia; consequently, I'm changing the flag from {unencyclopedic} to {advert}. 19:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with the above comments, but could you be any more specific in your objections? It may be easier to write a biased, disjointed article than a high-quality neutral one; but perhaps it is likewise easier to criticize an article as ad-like or unencyclopedic than to provide specific, constructive criticism. ;) Wmahan. 06:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The article look poorly cited, has terrible lay-out and headings is not kept up to date all that well. Also it is inconsistent as at one moment MS refuses to support a format an then the biggest section of the article is about MS supporting the format. It has a part about missing functionality but doesn't identify Opendocument's vital missing formula's support or the lack of internationalisation in ODF. Most links provided are to sites of ODF supporters and only 1 to MS or it's key XML experts. There is no real debate, there is no good references to both sides. The article is purely about Opendocument vs Office Open XML even though the title suggest a wider debate. This section Shaping public policy has no information on shaping public policy and only an unreleted one sided reference to opendocument adaption. This line OpenDocument seems more suited for public data interchange and archiving, OpenXML seems more suited for exposing legacy data and for complete fidelity with Microsoft's binary formats. seems pure pov without reference to support these claims. All in all a horrible article that I suggest could be removed without any loss to wikipedia.--HAl 09:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Tried to edit out some of the worst stuff. Still think that a lot of the links below can go because there is not text in the article left about them (most are prior current "MS translator plugin announcement" and prior "MS convenant not to sue" licensing statement) but can't be bothered to read them all.

OK, I re-wrote it from scratch and hope it is more balanced. Tried to take the big issues and background rather than get bogged down in the detail of arguments about technical merit since these are unlikely to be decisive in any case. Tried to focus more on why there is a debate and the interests of either side without making judgements about why a is better than b. Reader should be able to make their own mind up as to whether its an issue of technical merit, comercial interest or whether or not 2 standards are needed. Ian_Lynch

Nice essay but full of pure primary (original) research and POV and therefore still unencyclopedic. Furthermore the topic as such is most probably unencyclopedic. Hence I suggest that the article should be deleted.

-- 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page name

This page was moved from Microsoft position on OpenDocument support to OpenDocument/Controversy to OpenDocument Controversy. I'm not sure what the correct name is, but the current one does not conform to the MoS. Wmahan. 18:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"OpenDocument debate" seems appropriate and policy compliant. I hope it sticks. Louie 23:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems too vague to me. Which debate? The one about accessibility, about the extent to which governments should embrace OpenDocument, about the standardization process, about the future direction of the format, or about some other debate that may arise in the future? Wmahan. 01:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be defined at the beginning of the article: all of the above.--- Louie 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC).

It is now [Standard office document formats debate], to avoid "Open Office", "Open XML", and other trademarks. It now has a preface offering a wider context. I hope it sticks. Louie 19:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is little "debate" in this article. And not much about the format either. It seems more to do with adoptation of the format than the format itself and it mainly uncited text followed by a huge gallery of external links which could possibly support these text ??? I serieously wonder if this article is usefull as it is. for the title I would suggest dropping the word "formats" --HAl 08:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)