Talk:Standardization of Office Open XML

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Standardization of Office Open XML article.
Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Microsoft complaints about IBM behavior; is a Microsoft open letter a "reliable source"?

I left the section in and removed the Self published source as this would also remove the original research by Synthesis WP:SYN. Please explain the replacement of the page at Microsoft. It dose not pass WP:SOURCES it is a self published source. It needs a 3rd party reference. Kilz (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very clear on the use of sources. Microsoft in this instance is not a reliable source. It is writing about itself WP:SELFPUB clearly says it cant be used as a reference when it includes claims about third parties.
Looking at the section it looks like the remaining section does not have a valid reference either. From Questionable sources, it relies heavily on personal opinions of Microsoft. Since they are about a 3rd party, it also in my opinion is unusable. StVectra (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Microsoft is obviously the most reliable and authoritative source on its views on the matter. These published sources are the gold standard for the Wikipedia. Suppressing them amounts to censorship and is against NPOV.--66.116.112.4 (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesnt matter. This is Wikipedia policy. You cant use the source. It is self published, and about whats happening to itself. It has claims about a third party. You cant use the reference. There is consensus not to use it. Replacing it repeatedly is in violation of wikipedia guidelines. Do not replace it or I will get an admin.Kilz (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
66.116.112.4 I suggest you read WP:VER to learn what the "Gold Standard" is. In terms of sources the best is a news site, or a peer reviewed journal. A site put up without any editorial review discussing things that happened to itself is at the bottom of the list. That is because anyone and any company can put up a site on the web. That doesn't make it the authority or the truth. Kilz (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:VER is very clear, you can not use self published sources. I think the section needs to be removed as it also has claims against a 3rd party (IBM) Idbyou (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No, WP:VER says, emphasis mine: "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
But regardless, please read Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. ("Every policy, guideline or any other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia.") I believe achieving NPOV is more important. We have sources from competitor IBM, competitor Google, OOXML Is Defective By Design, ODFAlliance.org, ODFAlliance.org again, and again, GrokDoc, Mark Shuttleworth (founder of Ubuntu Linux,) OpenOffice Ninja, Open Office Ninja again, Groklaw, and Groklaw again.
Let's strive for balance. WalterGR (talk | contribs) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The rules are the rules. This reference and materials from the Microsoft site violate them. Bolding sections of the policy still does not make the reference usable. The reference uses a self published reference in an article about themselves with claims about third party.You left off the end sentence in that section:
"However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."
I dont think breaking the rules is a good idea. I seriously doubt that arbitration will find it a good idea either. It does not improve Wikipedia to include self referenced claims from one competitor about another. Find a 3rd party source for the information, its just that simple. While I have issues with the bottom section possibly needing more references. At least its to a outside source.
Your list of references are of references that follow the rules. Just listing them and saying they have views opposite than yours does not indicate they break the rules. Kilz (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The publication by Microsoft is clearly a valid reference for the Wikipida. Defacto, it amounts to an official statement of their views. As such it does not require verification by any 3rd party (who would you use?). Kliz seems to be using any excuse that he can find to try to censor the views of Microsoft. The Wikipedia should not be a party to this suppression. Wikipedia readers deserve to have the full coverage of the published literature.
Likewise, the official views of IBM, Sun, Google, FSF, etc. should be reported in the same fashion.--63.164.47.227 (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not clearly anything. I have left the views of Microsoft in place when referenced from Zdnet. You need to learn that the policies of Wikipedia need to be followed. Read WP:VER and the subsection WP:SELFPUB. Kilz (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no doubt about the validity and verifiability of the Microsoft quotations. These sources are as authoritative as it gets on Microsoft views of this matter.--98.210.237.189 (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty ridiculous. WP:SELFPUB is designed to prevent self-publishing from being used as a source for a claim. This is a case of self-publishing being the claim, as such WP:SELFPUB shold not apply. As an illustrative example of the former "Blah is an idiot" (citing a self-published source to back it up), while the latter is "Blarg claims Blah is an idiot" (citing the self-published source as evidence that Blarg *CLAIMS* Blah is an idiot, not that Blah *IS* an idiot). Not that I think calling someone an idiot is notable, but i'm just being illustrative of the difference. In other words, the former uses self-publishing as a source, the latter as a cite. 12.214.250.176 (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm utterly bemused at the sort of confusion that would lead to this being argued. 12.214.250.176 and 98.210.237.189 are, of course, right. Kilz: you would be right to seek an alternative source if the position under discussion was "IBM is attacking OOXML to further its own ends"; but it isn't: the position under discussion is "Microsoft claims that IBM is... [etc.]". Think about the difference between the two statements, and what would constitute a valid citation for each of them. -- simxp (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The attack of the Anonymous editor

The attack of the Anonymous editor will end soon. I have requested help on the Admins notice board. I have a stong feeling that most of the Anon comments on this page are sockpuppets and will be reporting that next. As such the opinions of Anon editors are believed to be the work of one editor and carry the weight of one editor imho Kilz (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the typical Kilz. When people do not agree they are sockpuppets. Strange that I notice that it is actually your edits that are supported by anonymous edits via the Tor network. If anyone is using sockpuppets it is more likely to be you!
Like this one: [1] . Mayby you should stick to your WP:wikilawyering as it seems somthing that you are rather good in.
I can't be bothered to rapport it myself but mayby someone else will. hAl (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
By the looks of this page and others I am not the only one with the view that the material needs to be removed. That sockpuppets were used is proved by the comments of the admin who protected the page, at my request. Let me remind you to assume good faith, WP:AGF, your comments accusing me of using puppets are slanderous. Kilz (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It is interesting that you were the one who was warned by WalterGR for reverting to many times and then a sockpuppet continues the same edits that you were doing. hAl (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting is not proof of anything. How do we know it wasnt one puppetmaster in an attempt to make it look like the work of multiple people and thereby discredit those of the opposite view. I was not the only person with the opinions it needs to be removed. I was also never warned about edits on this page.Kilz (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is claimed in the section "Microsoft complaints about IBM's oppostion"

I see Microsofts complaints, But

  1. There is no claim of what was done.
  2. Why was it wrong or illegal?
  3. How is the fact that 50% of IBM's profit from consulting a complaint or wrong doing?
  4. Why is a statement that Microsoft did not block ODF in a list of complaints?

As I read it its a lot of fluff, no substance. The information must have a reason to be on the page. It must fit under the heading. Someone needs to edit and fix this section imho. Each of the claims will then need to be backed up as the zednet reference is an interview and doesnt have any details. Kilz (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the Microsoft complaints:
  1. There is a clear statement of what IBM is claimed to have done.
  2. There is no claim that what IBM did was illegal.
  3. Microsoft complained that IBM is opposing standardization in order to promote IBM's business interests.
  4. Microsoft complained that IBM is not acting fairly with respect to standardization.
You may not be able to understand the Microsoft complaints. But does not make them insignificant and unimportant. In fact it is very significant that Microsoft publicly attacked the actions of IBM. This action was not undertaken lightly.
Regards,--70.231.224.36 (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No, there isnt a claim of what IBM did. There is no specific reference to any action taken by IBM or anyone else in that section. I am also considering seeking an administrator because of the edit war of edits done by people not logged in. Looking at the contributions they have never edited before. Kilz (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Also your 3 and 4 replies do not answer the original questions at 3 and 4. It is also not significant that someone claims something. What would be significant would be proof of wrongdoing according to complaints. Otherwise is is just opinion. Shall we add other pages with opinions about Microsoft and ooxml? Kilz (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The quotation by Microsoft states:
  • "Ecma almost unanimously agreed to submit Open XML as a standard for ratification by ISO/IEC JTC1 with only IBM dissenting."
  • "IBM led a global campaign urging national bodies to ... not even consider Open XML, because ODF had made it through ISO/IEC JTC1 first – in other words, that Open XML should not even be considered on its technical merits because a competing standard had already been adopted. This campaign to stop even the consideration of Open XML in ISO/IEC JTC1 is a blatant attempt to use the standards process to limit choice in the marketplace for ulterior commercial motives – and without regard for the negative impact on consumer choice and technological innovation."
--98.210.237.189 (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Quotations of the official views of IBM, Sun, Google, FSF, etc. on OOXML standardization would be appropriate.--98.210.237.189 (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I have sought official clarification of the references of self published sources. We will soon put an end to all this. Kilz (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Good. Who else but Microsoft can speak for Microsoft? Likewise for IBM, Sun, Google, FSF, etc.--98.210.237.189 (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Any of the reliable sources like newspapers and respecter peer-reviewed journals. I am also going to report a suspected sockpuppet real soon. Kilz (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Secondary sources (newspapers and journals) must be carefully examined in each case to make sure that they are reporting on the official views of an organization whereas the the web site of an organization is presumptively authoritative.--171.66.40.127 (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have just replaced my 5:14, 8 March comment as it was when I left it. Editing other editors comments is not a good idea anon editor 98.210.237.189 should not have movied my comments away from my signature. Then when I fixed the vandalism revert it again to take my words away from their original place. Kilz (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response of the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard regarding use of Microsoft open letter

The Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard has given a response to a question about the use of the Microsoft reference. The quote below is from that questions section.

"Documents published by Microsoft are reliable for showing what the opinions of Microsoft are, also probably for what Microsoft's actions have been. However, in the context of this article statements by software houses are primary sources. The article should not rely on them but be mainly written up from what has been said in independent media. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)"

I read this to say that the reference is used as a primary reference when it should not be. The section needs a primary source backing up Microsoft or it needs to be removed. Kilz (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The web site of an organization is presumptively authoritative on its official views whereas secondary sources (newspapers etc.) must be carefully examined in each case to make sure that they are reporting on the official views of an organization.--76.126.126.60 (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That statement counterdicts the first as Microsoft is a "software house" also microsoft can only express its opinions about itself. It cant make claims about a 3rd party according to WP:SELFPUB. "it does not involve claims about third parties;". Kilz (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
For the purposes of the Wikipedia, the Microsoft website is authoritative with respect to what it says about Microsoft's official views ofthe actions of IBM.--76.126.126.60 (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That is inaccurate. Microsoft opinions on the actions of others cant be used as primary. Only when discussing its own actions and opinions about those actions is it a primary source. It seems we are having a lot of posts in a similar style from the bay area. This could be considered the use of sockpuppets WP:SOCK. If this is indeed the work of one editor, might I suggest creating an account to remove the chance of a incident. Kilz (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Kilz, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Microsoft_open_letter_used_as_reference says:

Documents published by Microsoft are reliable for showing what the opinions of Microsoft are, also probably for what Microsoft's actions have been.

Nowhere on the noticeboard does it say that it's only a primary source when discussing its own actions or opinions. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 19:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That is because its implied. Notice it says that it says the opinions of Microsoft and Microsofts actions. Not the opinions of Microsoft on any and all subjects and the actions of others. Microsoft cant give information about others. The latest post to my questions makes that very clear.

The confusion probably comes from the definitions of the terms "primary source" and "secondary source". See WP:V for some pointers. The original distinction was made by historians. If a historian goes to an archive and finds very old documents, then those are "primary sources". If the historian instead uses books written by other historians, those are "secondary sources". Wikipedia is mainly written from secondary sources. So when we say that Microsoft's statements are a primary source, that does not mean that they are the best source for writing a Wikipedia article, in fact it means the opposite. A report in a completely independent news medium would be much better for writing the article. However, you can use Microsoft's statements directly if you are careful and sparing. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My bold in the quotation. This indicates exactly what I have said all along. In fact it strengthens it. Microsoft should only be used "if you are careful and sparing" as backup to reports in the media. Kilz (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't contradict what I said, which was, "Nowhere on the noticeboard does it say that it's only a primary source when discussing its own actions or opinions."
Furthermore, the noticeboard doesn't say "Microsoft should only be used 'if you are careful and sparing' as backup to reports in the media." It says, "you can use Microsoft's statements directly if you are careful and sparing." WalterGR (talk | contributions) 21:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does contradict, read the section from my last reply. It says that primary sources are the original source. Like the primary source of the Chicago Cubs would be the Cubs. Groups and people cant be primary sources about others, as the others would be the primary source about themselves.
I think it would be a good idea if we used news and secondary sources mainly as references, that way it would lesson the the possibility of arguments. I think the Microsoft complaint section as it reads now is ok because it relies more on zdnet. The only claim left the Microsoft letter is about actions in a vote, even that imho could be referenced with the zdnet article imho. Kilz (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging of sections

Since the zdnet article duplicates the claims of the open letter, I have merged the sections. I have replaced business operation statements with the real complaints. I have also structured the section to make it clear that what was said was opinions held by Microsoft and not facts that are in dispute. Kilz (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What are the Microsoft complaints?

In order to clarify the exact nature of the Microsoft complaints, they are included in the two subsections below.--76.126.126.60 (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft complaints about IBM's opposition

In a statement on February 14, 2007 Microsoft attacked IBM's "global campaign" in opposition to the Office Open XML standardization process.[1] In it, they claim that:

  • "Ecma almost unanimously agreed to submit Open XML as a standard for ratification by ISO/IEC JTC1 with only IBM dissenting."
  • "IBM led a global campaign urging national bodies to ... not even consider Open XML, because ODF had made it through ISO/IEC JTC1 first – in other words, that Open XML should not even be considered on its technical merits because a competing standard had already been adopted. This campaign to stop even the consideration of Open XML in ISO/IEC JTC1 is a blatant attempt to use the standards process to limit choice in the marketplace for ulterior commercial motives – and without regard for the negative impact on consumer choice and technological innovation."

[edit] Microsoft complaints about competitors subsequent behavior

In an interview with ZDNet,[2] Microsoft's senior director of interoperability and IP policy, Nicos Tsilas, expressed concern that IBM and supporters of the Free Software Foundation have been lobbying governments to use the rival OpenDocument Format (ODF) standard exclusively because they are unable to compete with Microsoft through their Office products:

  • "They have made this a religious and highly political debate," Tsilas said. "They are doing this because it is advancing their business model. Over 50 percent of IBM's revenues come from consulting services."
  • "Our competitors have targeted this one product — mandating one document format over others to harm Microsoft's profit stream."
  • "It's a new way to compete. They are using government intervention as a way to compete. It's competing through regulation, because you couldn't compete technically."
  • "We did not go and block it." [when Sun and IBM proposed ODF] "When it was voted as an ANSI [a standard of the American National Standards Institute] in the US, we voted 'yes'. There is absolutely no parallel between what Microsoft did in the standardisation process for ODF and what IBM is doing now."
The sections as listed here have been changed and edited again. The lists included things other than complaints. Also the zdnet article contains complaints and information from the first. There has also been a section added that addresses why the complaints where brought forth. This simple recopying of the sections answers why they existed as a mix of complaints and statements. Also Microsoft cant make claims about a 3rd party according to WP:SELFPUB. "it does not involve claims about third parties;" The first section are claims against third parties using a self published source. Kilz (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

This article has been a subject of much controversial editing. I recommend that all editors partaking in this edit war calm down and think of the article. We're trying to build an encyclopaedia not cause a war. No one is entitled to 3 reverts under WP:3RR, please be aware of that. Anyone seen reverting in a content dispute on this article or the other "Office Open" article will be blocked for disruption/edit warring. The article seriously needs a break, guys. Use discussion over the undo button. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. ScarianCall me Pat 12:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portugal edit

The information on the portugal situation added by user:Kilzis from a personal blog by ooxml opponent Rui Seabra, a member of ansol (directly associated with the FFII who run the noooxml site). This is a totally unreliable unverifiable source of info as per wp:VER. The additional groklaw article actually literally cites the same Seabra info and adds noindependant material that verifies the sourcee. So no independant source for that info is added and the official sources (Like Standard portugal!) do not verify this info either. On the other hand an official position of Microsoft as stated by the Microsoft director on standards and interoperability (that used to be in the article with this info and did not agree with the Seabra interpretation at all) was explicitly left out by user:Kilz. This info does not pass wp:VER and I strongly suggest it is duly removed again. hAl (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed all blog's and forum's as references. These "sources" do not meet WP:RS as blogs are notoriously opinionated. ScarianCall me Pat 15:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems you have missed the blogposts of Mark Shuttleworth, Pamala Jones (groklaw blogpost which actually only citing another blogsource you removed)and Jiří Kosek. Also you missed the grokdoc page (a wiki page with non verified issues added by a variety of self proclaimed ooxml 'expert' groklaw readers). hAl (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I only removed the ones that actually had the word blog in the URL. ScarianCall me Pat 16:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the blogs Scarian. But Groklaw does have peer review and corrections, and the main site is not a wiki. It has won awards for news sites.
Hal, the section is about complaints about the national bodies activities. The link to the information from Rui Seabra is not a blog but part of the ANSOL web site. When I replaced some of the information in a reedit I added a new reference. The main reference is from IDABC which is part of the European Union and an official government website that posts news. Mr Seabra was at the meeting in question that is mentioned in the IDABC link and is listed as unofficial transcripts. Kilz (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The groklaw article is essentially a full citation of the Rui Seabra personal blog that was removed as a source. It is like a backdoor for adding the blogpost. As would be the ANSOL link. It adds no value to the info but the personal opinion of Rui Seabra who as a member of ansol is very much been opposing the ooxml standardisation and whose opinion can only be seen as very biased and opinionated. And groklaw has also had a lot of critisism on poor very anti-Micrsoft biased reporting on issues outside the SCO lawsuites and regulalry moderates posts hidden if they are from people who do not agree with the Groklaw opinion. That is not peer review but more what I would call censorship. In addition to that Groklaw has often been connected to IBM (as for instance their free software based articles are always positive on IBM and negative on IBM competitors even allthoug IBM is for instance the biggest patent grabber in the world) and not coincidentally opposes OOXML as IBM does and therefore happily shows every IBM written blogpost on OOXML or any other anti ooxml post on it's it's frontpage.
To summon it up. Groklaw is nothing but a major anti OOXML site as can be easily seen by reading a just a few of their OOXML articles and the site has absolutly nothing to do with objective newsgathering. Their grokdoc site on OOXML, which is also used as a source here, is a total joke as it is just a list of non reviewed issues submitted by their readers. hAl (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Since the references were removed , shouldnt quotes from blogs be removed also? Like the Brian Jones blog quote in Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML#Criticism. Kilz (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It might well be noted that Brian Jones is actually a member of MS team that has created the format and is a member of the Ecma TC that has standardized the OOXML format and submitted the format to ISO (just about the subject of the entire article) and can be seen as the foremost expert on technical matters surrouding OOXML. A source unlike most bloggers. hAl (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Good idea. ScarianCall me Pat 16:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to keep this in a steady chronological order. The way hal has made comments and placed them, it looks like your agreeing with him when the above reply was to my comments. Kilz (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was replying to your comments. hAl try and use the indents to show whom you're replying to please. ScarianCall me Pat 19:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks like even after the discussion about Groklaw, without waiting for a 3rd voice hal has decided to remove the Groklaw reference. The reference was left in place when User:Scarian did this edit. To me this is very close to edit warring. I would also like to see any proof of the claims that hal has made against Groklaw. I think in such a contested article as this we should have more than one editors opinion before we remove things. Kilz (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I also think that if after a week the requests for citations are not placed, the information they are based on should be removed. This is probably longer than normal. Kilz (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The post you refer to was a doing a full citation of a personal blog of a known ooxml opponent, Rui Seabra, without putting any reliable 3rd party sourcing added to it. That actually confirms Groklaw reputation on this issue. Actually the remaining cited source on the incident is just a complaint by the same Rui Seabra who therefore appears to be the sole source of this info which is a) strongly denied by Microsoft (something user:Kilzz left out) and b) unconfirmed by any other independant source like for instance the Portugese standards organisation themselves. I would think it was better if the entire unconfirmed incident was removed as what happenned is clearly debatable and no independant source confirms mr Seabra's story on the event and even though user:Kilz seems to have been searching for sources he also came up with two Rui Seabra based stories and no other independant sources hAl (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The ANSOL site is not a blog but a site for an orginazation. The section you refer to was removed from the article because it was on a wiki, not a blog. Scarian in fact left the Groklaw reference in place in this edit. Your statement that no independent source confirmed is incorrect. Groklaw is a independent source, contrary to the misinformation in your previous reply. That they reprinted something you disagree with is not a good enough reason to remove it. You had no one agreeing with your actions. The Microsoft denial is in the form of a personal blog, from someone who wasnt even there. That reference was removed with all other blogs, so we cant even be sure if they are denying it. Kilz (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Groklaw also qualifies as a blog. It shows the personal views of PJ Jones and in this case it actually was a pure repost of anohter personal source i.e. Rui Seabra's unofficial meeting notes (which is strange as he as a member of the Portugal committee who has access to the official records on the meeting as well but does not use those) that have no independant verification but have claims that it is not in accordance with what really happened. You can refer to an admin edit but that admin himself has stated that he only editted out sites that had blog in their name and not nescesarily all blog posts or bad sources. So being left in after and edit search on blog does not mean a source is good. hAl (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Each article on Groklaw is reviewed and corrected in a Corrections post. Groklaw has been quoted in the press and has received awards for news sites. You now also admit that Rui Seabra's was an official at the meeting that he took notes of. 19:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As further evidence that Groklaw is not a personal blog I offer Groklaws mission statement. No place in it is it referred to as a blog, but a journalistic enterprise that uses open source principles where possible to news and research. Pamala Jones does write a lot of the stories, but not all, every one is checked for accuracy and corrected with open source principles (many eyes make short work of finding errors). Kilz (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Matusow (Microsoft) on BRM (quotes from his blog)

Jason Matuso (Director of the Microsoft Corporate Standards Strategy Team) has weighed with Some Balanced Statements Regarding The Open XML BRM as follows:--76.126.126.60 (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"I want to highlight a few comments following the close of the BRM in Geneva. The folks highlighted here are balanced, experienced standards professionals. This is not to say that there are not other standards professionals who hold opposite opinions, but I think these two are important voices.

Patrick Durusau – Editor of the OpenDocument Format (ODF) speaking about the BRM.
That point of agreement is that everyone at the table was heard.
Because approval of DIS 29500 insures an effective international and public forum whose members will be heard by Microsoft I recommend approval of DIS 29500 as an ISO standard.
Rick Jelliffe – member of the delegation from Standards Australia. This is from a cached blog entry - he is now blogging much more on process issues.
...the BRM clearly has succeeded in its formal aim, which is to produce a better text. Every response by the editor was formally voted on. The big picture issues were given extra time for detailed discussion, and the NBs had opportunity to raise their highest priority issue, in turn. It would have been great to have had more time to deal with more of the middling issues: where we would have preferred some variant or augmentation of the Editor’s response to our issue or where we didn’t like his answer.

National Standards Bodies:

Norway – national standards body
Every country had the opportunity to put forward their most important comments at the meeting, and most of the Norwegian comments got a good run-through. This goes for instance to the Norwegian proposal on multi-part and “scope” of the separate parts. The meeting was also conducted in an efficient and proper manner according to the instructions and rules for ISO/IEC BRM-meetings. The standards proposal for ISO/IEC 29500 will now be changed by the Editor according to the instructions given during the BRM-meeting.
Denmark - national standards body
The Danish delegations mission to ensure a Danish fingerprint on ISO/IEC DIS 29500 OOXML, and thus improve the standard, was fully accomplished, since all Danish comments have been approved to be worked into ISO/IEC DIS 29500 OOXML.
New Zealand – national standards body (as posted in Computerworld)
"New Zealand proposed significant changes to improve accessibility for the disabled, and also changes to the specification relating to web browser compatibility to ensure compatibility with browsers such as Firefox and Safari, both these proposals were accepted and this was a big win for New Zealand,” said Grant Thomas, Standards New Zealand's chief operating officer

Standards organizations:

Ecma International
Prior to the BRM, several National Body members had offered significant feedback to the DIS 29500 Editor helping to clarify the proposed dispositions of National Bodies comments.
The Ballot Resolution Meeting was a very productive and positive meeting, where National Bodies' representatives worked together very hard, resolving many issues, to come to an improved final DIS 29500 text, which will now be offered to the consideration of all National Bodies participating. National Bodies may consider their final position on ratification until March 29, 2008.
International Standards Organization
The BRM was organized by subcommittee SC 34, Document description and processing languages, of ISO/IEC JTC 1. ISO/IEC JTC 1 is one of the most experienced and productive of ISO and IEC technical committees, having developed some 2 150 widely and globally used international standards and related documents. The BRM was a technical meeting open to delegates that were duly nominated by the ISO and IEC national member bodies and registered for the meeting. The BRM was not intended to be a public event but followed the orderly and inclusive process of ISO and IEC. With the BRM review completed, it is now up to national bodies to determine whether approval of ISO/IEC DIS 29500 is warranted.

My Thoughts:

Okay, I can't help it. First, I'll restate the simple statement that the point of a BRM is to improve the specification. This meeting did that. The BRM was 5 days following 5 months of work in which the project editor and Ecma TC 45 worked with the national bodies on their comments and their dispositions. 98.8% (let's just call it 99%) of the dispositions were adopted by the BRM. The meeting was conducted carefully within the context of JTC 1 rules, and had close oversight by ISO/IEC leadership.
The quotes above show the positive side of the spectrum. There is no doubt that there is another side to the discussion - goodness knows all you have to do is look at the comments to my preceding few blogs. But - the companies most interested in blocking Open XML are now actively lobbying governments around the world to vote no. Strangely enough, those interested in seeing Open XML succeed are doing the same - making their case that voting yes is the right thing to do.
Ah, the drama continues.
This is from a Blog, blogs are not usable as sources WP:SPS the only exception would be a interactive stories on a news site as the footnote says. In fact an admin, Scarian has removed all blogs from the article. We should not reintroduce them. Kilz (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Even WP:SPS has exceptions, for instance for expert in their field (and a director of standards and interoperability might qualify as an expert on a standardization article) and above post also qualifies with wp:VER as the post is a collection of quotes that are all publicly available sources of either experts on XML office formats like Patrick and Rick or from official standards bodies. The post isn't NPOV but not nescesarily disqualified because it is a blog. I have no troubles with it being used in the article allthough it might need balancing if used to reference opinion rather than fact. hAl (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Other entries from this same blog have been removed. Only one exception exists for blogs and that is for news sites. Kilz (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that blogs should not be used as sources or references. They all to often have bias that is impossible to remove. 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StVectra (talk • contribs)
The only way to achieve NPOV is to have multiple points of view. As Director of the Microsoft Corporate Standards Strategy Team, Jason Matuso is a more responsible and accountable source than the average newspaper article. Why the bias for old media against new accountable and responsible media?--76.126.126.60 (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Multiple points of view are fine. But dont rationalize a way to break Wikipedia policy. WP:SPS says clearly no blogs but those attached to news sits, like interactive articles. Blogs, no matter who wrote them, except in that one instance, cant be used. Kilz (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Jason Matuso qualifies under WP:SPS which says:
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
--67.180.94.17 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well then under that rule so does Andy Upgrove and lots and lots of other blogs. Only problem is that Jason Matuso's blog has already been removed once by an admin, along with others. Do you see the slippery slope you want to tread down? Do we have to ask for permanent protection from Anon editors and have them blocked from the talk page for proposing things that go against wikipedia policy? Kilz (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Due to their decreasing financial circumstances, the old media newspapers are falling further and further behind the burgeoning blogs. So in order to remain relevant, the Wikipedia is going to have to allow blogs as sources. However, some judgment is required: The official positions held by a blogger must be taken into account. For example, Andy Upgrove is a lawyer hired to oppose OOXML by commercial companies backing ODF.--67.180.94.17 (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You didnt get it imho. I used Andy Upgrove as an example of why someone who has a pro ooxml bais, someone who suggests a pro oxxml blog be used, would see the peril that they put the article in by using a blog. Every blog has bias. Jason Matuso is an employee of Microsoft, he has a pro ooxml bias. The thing is rules dont cover some and not others. Personal blogs cant be used. Because when you open the doors for some, you have to open them for everyone. As said in my last post, its a slippery slope. Kilz (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
"Personal blogs cant be used." That's not what the policy says.
"Because when you open the doors for some, you have to open them for everyone." No, that's not what the policy says.
Blogs can be used sparingly. So-called "secondary sources" (e.g. news articles) are better than "primary sources" (e.g. blogs,) but that doesn't mean primary sources cannot be used.
We need to work towards consensus while maintaining a neutral-point-of-view article. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 02:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Then perhaps we should not use blogs, since they all have bias of one kind or another. Also blogs are not a primary source. In fact this blog is copying the comments of others. The issue with blogs is they have no editorial oversight. No fact checking by editors. It is all the work of one person and self published. Kilz (talk)
Lets take a look at the WP:SPS section.

blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]

The footnote [5] is about blogs. It lists the one exception to the rule

^ "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

  • So yes the rule above is about Personal blogs.
  • There is no sparingly, it lists the one exempted use, a news site that has a interactive news story. As long as "the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."
You cant compare the posting on a company website to a blog, they are different.Kilz (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Kilz, the policy does not say blogs are never to be used, it says:
"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
I don't know what the argument is. The policy is quite clear. ("Largely" means: for the most part; mainly or chiefly. From Wiktionary.) If you disagree, we'll wait for someone to answer your question on the reliable sources noticeboard. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 08:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I would but imho the posts from third parties on that question have disrupted the work on that page. If you look it is all singe questions followed by an answer from someone working on that page. I wanted the opinions of someone not editing here, thats why I went there. I did not post the link to the question to avoid the edit war following me. Kilz (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the deal: I won't read through the above diatribe and I'm just going to go with my gut feeling. You can't quote blogs directly. If the blog is quoting someone else then fine, find that original source and quote that. If the guy (I have no idea who he is) is directly related to article in a very notable way then there is a slight possibility that you can use the blog as a reference. But despite that, blogs are inherently biased, opinionated and classically unsourced themselves which renders them obselete in terms of WP:RS. I hope this can stop the arguing. Regards, ScarianCall me Pat 14:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Warring by WalterGR

Tonight, without any discussion or posting on the talk page, WalterGR removed references and other information. Ars Technica is a news site. That they use Groklaw as a source in no way makes them unusable. FanaticAttack is not a blog in my opinion but an news site that covers a wide range of topics. The article is neutral. That it has a place for comments is besides the point. GrokDoc is a wiki, but it is not an "open wiki". WP:SPS only rules out "open" wiki's. I am restoring these references that were removed without discussion, and I have filed a edit waring complaint for the edits. Kilz (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kilz, I'm not sure where the "war" is. You said "without any discussion or posting." However, there's been plenty of discussion here already about what references are acceptable and not acceptable. No blogs, no open wikis.
  • The Ars Technica reference just referenced Groklaw. Groklaw is a blog.
  • FanaticAttack's about page page invites users to submit "blog entries".
  • GrokDoc is an open wiki. You can sign up for an account here.
If I have misunderstood, and we are in fact allowing blogs and open wikis, please let me know. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 04:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually I created an account on grokdoc but it was removed/closed when I critisised some of the issues they brought up there. hAl (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC).
Groklaw is not a blog, that Ars Technica links to it does not make Ars Technica unusable but strengthens Groklaws use. But the Issue isnt that Groklaw was used but Ars Technica, which isnt Groklaw.
  • Ars Technica without argument is a news site. zdnet also quotes Groklaw isnt some articles. That doesnt make it unusable.
  • FanaticAttack's page asks for Blogs so that they can be looked at for story ideas. "You can send your ideas (or blog entries) to tips “AT” fanaticattack “DOT” com." It is not asking for you to make blog entries on its site.
  • An example of an open wiki is Wikipedia that allows Anonymous editors to use it. That you must create an account and people are removed proves it isnt open.
Feel free to check the sources on the Reliable sources notice board. Kilz (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe that Groklaw is usable. But mainstream media has quoted them in the past. Use of information on Groklaw is not a reason to remove another site. Fanaticattack is not a blog IMHO, and the neutral style they use is that of most news sites. I am not so sure about Grokdoc more because of a neutral point of view problem. Open wiki's are those that allow anon posting, it is not open. StVectra (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I have made another change that will hopefully be more agreeable. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
FanaticAttack - whether it meets some criteria of a "blog" or not - is still a self-published website that admits it is "obsessed with open source advocacy." So far, you have been consistent in your upholding of Wikipedia's policy against self-published sources. Why is this particular self-published source an exception to Wikipedia policy? WalterGR (talk | contributions) 01:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

FanaticAttack is just the blog for Russell Ossendryver, a very vocal open source advocate and he himself states on the site that what he writes are his personal views and not that of the organisation he works for and in addition to that he described himself My main dedication is to express my thoughts and help advance the adoption of Open Standards, Open Access to content, and free Open Source software community development.. The site it is not neutral on this subject at all. Only you user:Kilz can see that as an independant and neutral news site. That is just laughable. That you are replacing blogs post by this is just a shambles and a disgrace. hAl (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

While I dont think its a blog, in the intrest of peace I removed FanaticAttack HAl. I also removed the Malaysia listing from the complaints about the national bodies process because I could not find another reference. Kilz (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi. I just stumbed across this thread, and haven't read everything, but I'd like to note that any use restrictions that apply to run of the mill blogs should not be applied to a Groklaw given the awards it has won. --Gronky (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

What about to add FEW external links (could be split up into pros/cons links) like noooxml.org etc.? On such a controversial topic the reader could have more points of view.--Kozuch (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if it were balanced. But I fear is will end up as one giant edit war. It probably would be a good idea to list the possible sites and let a few editors chime in on them before adding the section. Kilz (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The named no ooxml site has been removed several times and after dispute also by administrator user:Hu12. I would suggest you do not add it again because it will definitly be removed. hAl (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The no ooxml may not have been correct on the ooxml article. But its a significant point of view on the Standardization of Office Open XML. The suggestion was only for an external link, not quotes from the site. Kilz (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

I feel that a lead for the article should be created as soon as possible. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick stab at it. As always, improvements encouraged. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 02:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of original research

According to WP:NOR orignal research is:

unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences.

This edit by hal is 100% original research. It is unpublished facts, speculation, and unpublished analysis of the references source, and the original source of that source. I am removing the original research as it violates one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Kilz (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing Fact tag

I placed a reference on this edit Hal immediately replaced the fact tag. Stating that it was only for Excel. The article section is about Office XML dated 6th March 2008. The article starts off like this:

"how Microsoft felt justified in seeking ISO standard status for OOXML when it wasn't even capable of storing numbers correctly"

Then goes on to describe the exact problems listed in # 6.2.2 Technical criticisms. Isn't Excel using the ooxml format? Kilz (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Section 6.2.2:
"Inconsistent notations for percentage units. Book 4 §2.18.85 uses predefined symbols (like "pct15" for 15%) in 5 or 2.5 percent increments, §2.15.1.95 uses a decimal number giving the percentage, §2.18.97 uses a number in fiftieths of a percent, and §5.1.12.41 uses a number in thousandths of a percent."
The PCPro article doesn't mention percentage units. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 03:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I placed the info as a new addition to the list. Without discussing the edit Alexbrn deleted it. The information was about how Excel saves documents in ooxml format. The reference says it does not happen in older formats. As such it belongs here as it is a criticism of the way a application uses the specification. I even liked how WalterGR rewrote the section I'm replacing the section as he had it.. Kilz (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Kilz, edits do not have to be discussed before they are made. Please read Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 21:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
In a contested article as this, reverts and removals can be seen as participating in an edit war, that gets you banned. Getting back to the topic of this section, I replaced to the rewrite you did, you removed it. So I will be adding the original version. The removal was original research. You cant delete a referenced section and its reference because you researched it was wrong, especially one you rewrote to say what you later found wrong. Kilz (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] section "Arguments in support and criticism of Office Open XML standard"

I think everything after the heading "Arguments in support and criticism of OOXML standard" has nothing to do with the stated subject of this article, which is the "standardisation" of this specification. The discussion here concerns (broadly) the technical merits of the specification -- most of this stuff (maybe excepting the policy arguments) belongs back in the main OOXML article, IMHO. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps it should be moved back to the ooxml page itself. The criticism section is for reasons why people do not believe it should or should not pass as a standard. It is a significant point of view, and it belongs on one of the ooxml pages. When the page was split up , which I was against at the time, it was on the ooxml page and fit. There was no discussion on what should stay there or be placed here. It was done by one editor, alone. Your suggestion of removing the section has made me remember why I was against the split. That someone would try and remove sections because they dont fit to them. Kilz (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Kilz, you refer to "[my] suggestion of removing the section". I made no such suggestion. I said it "belongs back in the main OOXML article", as any reader can plainly see. Alexbrn (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, must have missed it, its been a hectic day around my house. But I'm not so sure about the move back, and this may be a reason why the article should never have been split. The information is useful in that it shouws whats wrong with the format, and why people think the specification if flawed and should not be approved as a standard.Kilz (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The support and criticism was relevant to the standardization process, but is is also relevant to users of any format. When they have to decide which format to use, they can learn about OpenDocument on the corresponding page, including criticism. When they learn about Office Open XML, criticism would be relevant and helping them have a full picture.
The article is split and I don't tink it will be merged again, so what is best for the reader when there are two articles ? Merging the support/criticism section into OOXML, and making sure it is a neutral advantages/shortcomings section ? Adding a link to this section from OOXML ? Don't telling anything to the reader (many of them will read only one page) ?
The reader wanting to learn about current usage of OOXML is not interested in its history and standardization process, she will not come to Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML.

I agree that some of this should be merged back to the original article. As it stands, this is a POV fork. --Karnesky (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The split was necessary to contain some trolls. Maybe this article should be merged into an article on History of Office Open XML (OOXML).--98.210.237.109 (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
A POV fork is not how you deal with trolls. There is information in this article that should be merged back to the main one & other methods to deal with trolls should be used. --Karnesky (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IDABC

IDABC is not "open source news" it is the news. IDABC stands for Interoperable Delivery of European eGovernment Services. It is the EU, in its news reporting. Trying to place a open source bias on it is wrong. The news quotes may come from an open source page on IDABC. But calling it Open Source News is using Weasel Words WP:AWW. Kilz (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the exact opposite of weasel words. I'm explaining exactly what the source of the information is. Read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements. If you don't want the particular source to be known, use a different source. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 19:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the IDABC, a part of the European Government is biased? I am not suggesting the sources identity be removed. Leave IDABC in place, but it is not necessary to describe what section of the IDABC website is used. Kilz (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
No no, I'm not suggesting anything is biased. I'm just suggesting that - given controversy over sources in the past - that we be very explicit about where sources come from.
Perhaps (I'm just hypothesizing here) it's not necessary to point out the section of the website the source is from. But I think it helps avoid controversy. It makes me happy to do that. So, what harm does it do? If I believe it helps the article, and it makes me happy, and it in fact doesn't harm the article, then that seems like an okay reason to leave it in.
Your thoughts? WalterGR (talk | contributions) 19:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
To require a explanation of a reference that is required of a biased reference implies that the reference is biased. The site is an official government ran news site. As such it should be above this. I also think starting out each entry from IDABC the same gives the appearance that it is one instance, when it is in fact multiple things happening in different places. I don't like the way it looks or flows. Kilz (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it implies the reference is biased. I think it makes explicit what the reference is, which is suggested in the link I gave you above: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements.
Re. "gives the appearance that it is one instance..." I don't quite understand... Each line lists the country where it happens, so they look (to me) like different instances. Maybe you could put the dates of the reports, e.g. "...reported on 15 March 3008..."? But I think it's pretty notable that all of the claims are coming from a single news source, even if on different days. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 06:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read the name of that link, and the information. It says Attributing and substantiating biased statements. The section is about how to treat statements with bias that may be necessary. If a statement isn't biased that section of the policy does not apply. Requiring it is not following the policy. Kilz (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

As the article is semi-protected and I'm not going to create an account maybe add this info where it fits:

In a letter published 2008-03-14 Christian Uhde, the mayor of Munich, asked the German government and DIN to reject OOXML. [2].

217.184.142.19 (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC) don't use the talk link

[edit] mergefrom Office Open XML Ballot Results

I've proposed to merge the rather incomplete page Office Open XML Ballot Results to this article, please add the corresponding mergefrom template. Apparently Template:editprotected isn't used for semi-protected pages, and Template:mergefrom isn't designed for Talk pages of the affected article. 217.184.142.38 (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC) don't use the talk link

I suggest the whole ballot result article is deleted as there is no reliable source for the information in that article as the ISO/SEC proces is not public. There is no wpVER on that info. hAl (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this possibly an example of you talking to yourself Hal? Hmmmm... past behavior does not necessarily guide present and future, but it's a guide isn't it? - jonathan888 not signed in because I'm very busy at the moment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.50.4.4 (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sweedens approve to abstain change

  • Sweden invalidated its vote as one company cast more than one vote, which is against SIS policy.[19]

Common misconception in english press. SIS (NB for Sweeden) press release says vote was invalidated because a company had had more than one "röst". Röst in sweedish has dual meaning of voice and vote and therefore in all likelihood refers directly to Microsoft bribes/threats of business partners. Ensuring no one votes more than once and each vote is only counted once is so basic that it is absurd to imagine SIS would make such a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.97.200.24 (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Less absurd if you consider the chairman of the committe being strongly opposed to the Office Open XML standardisation. Also the article has a direct quote from the SIS president to IDG Sweden (who should able able to translate a direct quote) stating: "It appears that one of the organizations that took part had two votes. Since the rules weren't followed, the decision made earlier is void," SIS president Lars Flink told IDG's Computer Sweden. ""The vote has been criticized, but that is not the reason for our decision," he said. "The sole reason is that one of the companies that voted cast more than one vote. No member company has more than one vote."
That statement specically states two votes by one company and not more than that and apperantly MS had more than one representative at the meeting which might have caused the vote confusion but I find it hard to believe a more neutral chairman would not have noticed the wrong vote number because I agree that it is absurd to make suvch a mistake. hAl (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to OOXML/DIS29500 Section

In the opposition complaints, one of the primary complaints I've heard leveled at DIS29500 over the past few months seemed to be lacking... That the standard itself is completely unnecessary and succeeds primarily only in confusing the market it was designed to serve. I simply don't have the energy required to add or state the idea properly now, but the part I was going to post runs something like this. Would there be anyone who might help me clean it up and remove any weasel words before posting?

One of the primary criticisms of the OOXML standard is that it is a completely unnecessary standard in the first place, as it is redundant with the ODF standard[cite]. Supporters of this view suggest that OOXML be harmonized with ODF and made as an extension to ODF where OOXML adds additional features not originally contained in OOXML. Such multiple standard situations only serve to divide and confuse the communities they purport to serve (see the HTML/web-browser war of the 1990s, UNIX wars of the 1980s, etc)...

Thanks. MyOwnLittlWorld (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The situation is actually much more complicated than you make out. The purpose of ISO is to create standards. Often it has multiple overlapping standards. ISO does not attempt to decide the one "true" standard. In this case Microsoft and its allies allowed the ODF standard to go forward without opposition. However, IBM and its allies have opposed OOXML in order to further their commercial and ideological interests. It is not practically feasible at this point to "harmonize" ODF, OOXML, PDF, etc.--76.126.127.184 (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Proving "Such multiple standard situations only serve to divide and confuse the communities they purport to serve" would be pretty darn hard.
You seem to be familiar with technology, mentioning the UNIX wars, so here's some food for thought.
  • As you note, HTML is another document standard. SGML, on which HTML is based, was standardized in 1986 - before the web (and therefore HTML) was even created. Were the inventors/supporters of HTML attempting to "divide and confuse the communities they purport to serve"?
  • Consider the number of programming languages standardized under ISO. Ada (programming language) became an ISO standard in 1987. C++ was accepted as a standard a year later. Were the C++ supporters attempting to "divide and confuse the communities they purport to serve"? Should C++ not be used, because Ada was standardized previously?
WalterGR (talk | contributions) 00:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've seen it argued before that multiple ISO standards should only be accepted when the newer standard has a clear advantage over the older standard (in other words it's meant to succeed the older standard) or clearly serves a different purpose as to the older standard. In the case of HTML, it seems clear that it was intendeed to succeed SGML. In the case of Ada it seems to be they serve different purposes. I think it's clear that OOXML is not intended to succeed ODF. Whether OOXML truly serves a different purpose from ODF that I don't know. And whether the oft made claim that there are no competing standards which weren't either intended as successor or to serve different purposes in the ISO that I also don't know. I would be quite interested in knowing so it would be good if people can find reliable sources and add it to the article as I am sick of the rheoteric from both sides Nil Einne (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Microsoft and its allies did not allow the ODF standard to go forward without opposition. They did all they could to derail it.
  • However, IBM and its allies have opposed OOXML in order to further their commercial and ideological interests.Can you please add detail, as this seems like a rant.
  • It is not practically feasible at this point to "harmonize" ODF & OOXML, why not? OOXML does not add anything that ODF does not already cover. If you do have a point, add it to the "Pro's" list in the article, please do not try to censer valid comments.
  • Even if any of the above was true, the original post should still be added for a balanced viewpoint.
  • Laughton.andrew (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Very well worded and does not need cleaning up. Laughton.andrew (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to NoOOXML site

The addition of this site has been discussed ad nauseam previously. Please read the discussions above, and the discussion archives on the Office Open XML article. In brief:

  • the link has been added, removed, and discussed many times before
  • the link has been removed before by a couple admins who were called in about the issue
  • adding links to rabidly anti-OOXML sites with no editorial oversight opens the door to adding links to rabidly pro-OOXML sites with no editorial oversight.

Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I propose 2nd ballot section

Korean member body looks to vote for favor, judged by KAT(standard body of Korea)'s recent announcement. That is the committee had the internal ballot resulting 7 favors and 4 againsts. --Cheol (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] references and technical critisism

If added some of the references lacking from the technical arguments. Someone should add a reference to the spreadsheetML performance feature, or this item should be removed.

About the crisism section, it's very badly written and needs to add references. Furthermore, some arguments are classified as technical arguments, but in fact are not. Use of Office Math ML instead of W3C recommendation MathML.[56] for example cites a article stating that Office Math ML and MathML are not the same. That OOXML should use the W3C MathML is not a technical argument, as it does not relate to a technical flaw in OOXML.

About the other two arguments without references, I really don't understand a thing what is meant here. Please revise this (consise and clear) and add references or this has to go. Maybe more _real_ technical flaws can be added...

WP:SOAPBOX an WP:NOR. It doesn't matter if the criticism that the use of Office MathML over MathML is personally compelling to you. This isn't an editorial. If some WP:RS states that others have made this criticism, it meets the WP:V threshold to be included. The same goes for any praise for the format. --Karnesky (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Microsoft key benefits arguments" and "Technical arguments" are not relevant to any other standard.

The "Microsoft key benefits arguments" and "Technical arguments" are not relevant to any other standard. They only apply to previous Microsoft formats. Shouldn't they be comparing against either other standards such as ODF, or earlier versions of the same standard such as the Ecma version ? If there are no such benefits I feel the text should be changed to show the benefit of moving to any standard, not specifically "Office Open XML". Laughton.andrew (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian demonstration

This should be definitelly addressed in the article:

--Kozuch (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest creating "Afterwards" or similar section for information regarding post-standardization.--Kozuch (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Jelliffe

I request community assistance with the Australian section of 'Complaints about the national bodies process'. Australia sent a guy called Rick Jelliffe to the ISO. Jelliffe was previously involved in a scandal where Microsoft paid him to edit Wikipedia articles on OOXML in it's favor. Jelliffe was also paid by Microsoft to help Microsoft through the ECMA standards process. Because of this, Standards Australia was widely criticised for not sending someone more independent. Some people keep repeatedly editing the article to make it falsely appear that the criticism came from only a single person (see diff here), when in fact the criticism was widespread, as the reference stated. We need to watch that the criticism of the standards process doesn't get diminished in this article. Thanks, Lester 12:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't mince words; this is about User:hAl's edits and reverts. The source you added (and HAl deleted) mentioned 2 more names, so I added them in by name - but in Norway, for instance, more than 20 names are readily available; the article will look a mess if all of them are mentioned. So at what level do we agree to say "some" and let people look at the references, rather than mentioning them all by name in the article? --Alvestrand (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Alvestrand. There are already too many organizations and individuals who criticized the Australian process to mention each one. Same with Norway. If we just mention one or two, then it gives the impression that it was just one or two people who criticized the process. It's a worry that any references get deleted, such as in the above example. I'm also concerned that the section 'Complaints about the national bodies process' is growing smaller by the day, as many points have been deleted. And some people are changing each section to say things like "According to Linux.com..." and "An article in Ars Technica said...". This casts doubt on the authenticity of the information. Either it is a reliable source, or else we don't use it. But we shouldn't cast doubt on every piece of information that criticizes the process. Linux.com is a reliable source. Ars Technica is a reliable source. The Sydney Morning Herald reference (which someone deleted) is a reliable source! Lester 20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue is whether the sources are biased. Take a look at the where the criticism comes from:
  • An Ars Technica article that just sources the Groklaw blog which is extremely anti-OOXML
  • An Open Source Initiative board member
  • New Zealand Open Source Society president and director of an open source consulting firm
  • The Open Source Observatory
  • Andy Updegrove, whose ConsortiumInfo.org blog is extremely anti-OOXML. For example, the current "quote of the day" is, "I didn't think OOXML needed to be a standard; getting it that designation is like vanity-press publishing"
Take a look at the above sources of criticism. Do you think that it goes without saying that they are not biased? Or do you think they are potentially biased? Potentially biased statements can be attributed like they are in the article. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 22:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Lester, you need to substantiate your claims. Rick Jelliffe's "scandal" was initiated by Rick himself when he openly disclosed Microsoft's offer. Microsoft's offer was to compensate for Rick's time spent on correcting factual errors. In the end no money changed hands, so your claims are false. Do you have additional information on this matter? If so, please, share. 71.112.94.166 (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
So what the hell does "offer was to compensate for Rick's time" & "no money changed hards" mean. What did Microsoft do, bend the fabric of space-time to let Rick have his time back. By the way did Microsoft compensate for your time 71.112.94.166? After all you are posting from a IP in Seattle WA, US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.219.175 (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)