Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Trivia

The article, and the lede is full of trivia. You can pick the trivia easily, by both sides of the debate, because it is always referenced by a primary source, rather than a reliable source. An example is that the format can be downloaded from a website. Did any of the major media / news reports on OOXML say this? No. Why not? Because it's trivia. On the ODF side, the bit about it not being entirely compatible is also too trivial for the introduction, is referenced by the Open Document website, and therefore should not be in the lede. Show me a reliable source for this, or it must be deleted. One of the reasons to use reliable third party sources is because if the fact wasn't covered by the mainstream press, it's probably too trivial to include.--Lester 03:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on principle. We are aiming to build an encyclopedia, and that means that we aim to build something where a subject is covered at some level of detail. Sometimes we need to use primary sources because they fill out holes in the media coverage; sometimes the primary sources show that details claimed by media sources are in fact false, or no longer valid. The guideline should be what WP:PRIMARY says: "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". I also think that an encyclopedia should aim to provide information that's useful - the fact that you can get the spec and check its content for yourself is both useful and verifiable.

That said, I agree that some pieces of information are trivia, and that we should be more critical of what's put into the introduction; much stuff ended up there because someone placed a statement in, someone else thought it was misleading and expanded on it, providing a citation, and the usual back-and-forth happened, making the paragraph longer and more heavily over-cited each time. We need to be able and willing to cut out the resulting cruft - but still, I'd take care when deciding to remove useful information. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the first three paras of the opening are okay; the fourth is kind of speculative (and is an example of the MS-obsession which haunts this article). Maybe it should be removed, or moved to the Office Open XML software article?

More generally, I agree with Alvestrand on his reading of WP:PRIMARY. Alexbrn (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The introduction should be an overview of the whole OOXML story. Being a general overview, why would it not be possible to find references from the news media? That way we are reflecting what has already been published. Otherwise, it's going to end up the crazy fight it was up until recently. The rule should apply to both sides. I don't mind primary sources for the minute details about the format's make-up, but not for the introduction.--Lester 09:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The subject of this article is not "the whole OOXML story" (a Rashomon-like narrative in any case), but primarily OOXML as a format (check out the article category). Perhaps it would help to understand your concerns if you could single out one thing in the opening three paras that you object to? Alexbrn (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The intro and the article needs to sum up the whole OOXML story. Not just the format. There are sub-articles, such as standardization of OOXML, but this article is the umbrella article that must sum up the whole story. For example, the standardization needs 2 or 3 paragraphs in this article, and a link to the expanded sub-article. The intro should have 1 or 2 sentences about standardization. Shoving all text about the standardization process into another article is a content fork.--Lester 11:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

But we already have three sentences on standardization in the opening section. I don't agree about pulling paragraphs in from the standardization article: the wiki has links, we should use them. There would undoubtedly be some trolling about which things were to be pulled-in, don't you think? Alexbrn (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We can't adjust content according to what trolls may or may not do. This main article should have a section on the standardization process, with a brief summary of the sub-article on standardization. The standardization includes the controversy over the standardization. It needs to be summarized in this article. I'll do it soon if I get time.--Lester 13:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this looks like it is, and really should be the overview article. If it is in categories that says it is a file format, that is only part of the story and not a restriction on what may or may not be covered. The WP process is that as articles grow in size, significant sections should be branched off into sub-articles with {{main}} links. Here this one has had a difficult history, but there's nothing that should stop us from trying to achieve the best. One day there might be an Office Open XML file formats article that takes all the detail that is currently in sections 5 (Container), 6 (Document markup languages) and 7 (Foreign resources). I think that day may be close. When bulky material is moved out like that, a summary is written to replace it here - not far different from the lede of the child article, possibly, to begin with at least. In the same way, as Standardization of Office Open XML has already been moved out, it should have a small section here (possibly based on the lede of that article) with a {{main}} link to it. It is valid to say that, if this isn't here, extractions and omissions from this article look like POV forks. So my action plan would be:

1. Categorise this article as an full discussion of the subject in its title
2. Create something like Office Open XML file formats and move sections 5, 6 and 7 into it, leaving a short summary here
3. Create a similar short summary for Standardization of Office Open XML and put that into the middle of the article too.

The article is already 67 kilobytes long and so starting to generate warnings that it needs dividing up.--Nigelj (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good, Nigelj. --Lester 21:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Thelennonorth (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Poorly cited trivia to be removed

I'm going to remove references from the intro that are from minor sources, and those that are primary sources from organizations embroiled in the OOXML controversy. There is no reason for primary sources to be in the introduction, The introduction is an overview, and ample references can be obtained from the mainstream media. Switching to major media sources is a way to avoid POV edits.--Lester 20:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been discussed one this page before. The sources you just removed are not primary sources. !! Primary sources are sourc es close to an [b]event[/b]. A document format is not an event.

And even it it were primary sources that does not mean anything as primary sources are allowed as a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge (which is all the case here). This has stated here by several people. After some consensus was created on the lead you are now obviously vandalising the article. You removed a ton of objective descriptive and verifible sources from the article even after you have been informed on this talk page that those sources are correct and usefull sources. You seem purposly intent on wrecking the article. I strongly suggest you reverty these edits yourself ASAP !!!! hAl (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing the primary-source reference to fact tags was step #1. Step #2 is removing the text. What's the reason that this Wikipedia article cannot reflect the mainstream media coverage on the subject of Open Office XML (OOXML)? Why should this article put a different slant on the subject than the way it was covered in the mainstream press? The event is the creation of the OOXML format (eg what kind of a format is it), how it is used, and the controversy that surrounds it. That is the event. Citations coming from the participants are primary sources because they are close to the event of the format's creation, and the event of its controversy. Removing primary sources from the intro will weed out the trivia and the POV. It also should be applied to both sides of the debate. --Lester 21:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You are referring to the Standardization of Office Open XML. That is an event which has it's own article. You seem purely intent in trying to insert controversy from the standardization process to enter the article about the format. This article is not about the standardization proces. Go to Standardization of Office Open XML for your coverage of an event. Stay here if you intent to contribute to the encyclopedic information on the document format itself. hAl (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Keeping positive information in this article, while moving negative information to Standardization of Office Open XML has become a content fork. This article must be the umbrella article that covers all aspects of OOXML. Other sub-articles are there to add extra detail, but not to replace this article as the parent article. HAl, you also didn't answer my question as why you think we should not reflect the mainstream media coverage of the subject. Especially in the intro.--Lester 22:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I see user:HAl has reverted it again, placing his primary sourced references back into the intro. The article has become an advertisement for the ISO and Microsoft.--Lester 23:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Lester, it IS acceptable to use primary sources for facts that don't need interpretation. Replacing those sources with {{fact}} tags just looks provocative. If you think those facts don't belong in the lede, move them to the body of the article, or the relevant other article (such as the standardization article). If you think those facts belong in the lede, keep the sources or replace them with better ones. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the article?

(Starting a new section to invoid indent madness)

We already have a link to the Standardization article here. This section would be better titled "Standardization" I think.

Nigelj's plan to split the article up seems sound, and may be an opportunity for some major de-crufting. So long as we can keep a lid on POV pressure which will mount over how each sub-article is characterized in the hub, I think this will lead to an improvement. I also think we need to avoid the knd of problem we see with the ODF article which doesn't seem to know whether it's a hub for satellite articles or a container for details in its own right. Alexbrn (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea for the OOXML article, do something similar for technical information about it. (The highly technical information.) And you're always free to improve the odf article the same way as the ooxml article. Thelennonorth (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, all the comments received were favourable, so I have gone ahead and split the article as described above, creating Office Open XML file formats. There is more work to do.

1. There are no categories attached to the new article, and maybe too many now attached here.
2. I may have broken the re-use of one or more named references.
3. Maybe we don't need the large "Infobox file format" template here - just in the new article.
4. Even with those three sections removed this article is still generating 'oversize' warnings (at 43 kilobytes long) when you click 'edit this page', so another piece could probably be split out before we start adding any serious new material here. Perhaps the Variants section is a candidate?

Some of the wording in the new article may need to be improved now that it has a new context - the sentence, "These are defined in clause 17.5 of Part 1." stood out. It probably just needs, "...in the standard document" or something, adding. The summary in the new lede and in the stub section here can certainly be expanded and these two may of course diverge as time goes by. I haven't done any specific 'de-crufting'.

I hope this is a start on a useful piece of work. --Nigelj (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved 3 more sections over; I believe those all belong to the file format. I'm not much worried about a 43-Kbyte warning, but the two articles are now 39 and 31 Kbytes, respectively. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff. I moved the short 'File formats' section back. That was the one that I just wrote to provide the link from this main article to the new satellite one. It's just a copy of the first bit of the lede in the other article, repeated where it was. You're right about the rest, though. --Nigelj (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

User hAl reverting valid material again

After a very successful spell of improving this article with the others here, I am sorry to see that hAl is reverting valid and good-faith edits again. I have tried to put the important points back together, but of course just doing that opens me up to the charge of edit warring.

I refer to the following removals of content: [1], [2] and [3] as well as the addition of this weasel-word quote, [4].

In the latter case, it turned out that the quote was not a combined statement from the 'members' of the website, but a direct quote from one man in one of the founder member organisations.

In the case of the removals, I have checked at WP:WAR and "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." Further "Reverting throws away proposed changes by the other editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), rather than improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion." Now, I made some edits, and I come back in the morning to find that hAl has specifically thrown away parts of what I've done. So I reinstate it. So now I'm edit warring and so I've been dragged down to other people's level.

Well, I'm not prepared to give my time, energy and goodwill if the previous atmosphere of aggression or recrimination is going to start up here again. --Nigelj (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You suggest in your edit summeries that you are adding balance but that is not what you are doing. On the open XML developers group the article just stated that a community site existed that supported Office Open XML developers. That was very neutral factual material. How did that need balance? Then you started adding material that tried to make the site more controversial. Now it is no longer balanced but an issue of debate. You did that and noone else !!! Your edits are not about balance but about putting in only negative writings on the item in the article.

You also added a support statement "as an ISO/IEC standard". This however is an ancient statement only relvant prior tot the standardization proces concluded to show that members joinging the site also support OOXML for the ISO/IEC standardization proces. It is no longer relevant for the current situation as OOXML is already an ISO/IEC standard. I do not see your point in putting that in again. hAl (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the second one - the Open XML Developer Group - I didn't create the controversy, the reference with the controversial stance was already cited as one of three references to support a quote that only needed one citation (as ref [63] in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&oldid=323143894). When I read the cited source looking for a reference to the quote it was cited on, I found that the basis of this website was not free from notable public criticism and so should not be presented as "very neutral factual material" as you had it.

Why would you feel a neede to add critisism. Why would you think this single opinion comment on infoworld from 2007 was notable at this time (it seems you consider negative info on Micrsoft notable!!!) ? You try to bring in old comments from the (pre-)standardization period trying to add controversy to neutral information on the developers group site and you have already expressed on Wikipedia that you see it as a full time job to write negatively on Microsoft. That statement is not neutral or balanced in any way and as you now stated it was ment as critisism where you described it as balanced in an edit summery. All in the section was factual before you editted it and put in critisims on Microsoft vs ODF (not on the developer group itself which was the subject of the section) leading me to put in a response that was actually positive and that does have emphasis on the developer group itself and not on Microsoft vs ODF where you try to put your preferred negative empahsis. hAl (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not read Infoworld's article as "negative". It gave reasons why Microsoft created this website - namely, to strengthen their position in the battle for hearts and minds vs ODF. The fact that Microsoft did this is, in itself, neither positive nor negative, and trying to hide it because it's "Microsoft critcism" is just not valid. (If the article had said that Microsoft was using unfair methods of influence to advance its case, that would have been criticism, and would need valid sourcing - but in this case, I see no such statement.) --Alvestrand (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The quote lifted from the source that was used in the article suggestedc that the site was used by Micrsoft inc a fight against ODF rather than b eing setup as a site to aid developers in developing applications for Office Open XML. It placed the site in a context of controversy of two and half years ago in stead of as a resource on Office Open XML format information which it is. It is clear that several editors ccontinu to try and pull controversies from theStandardization of Open XML back into the article. Editors who have not interest in the format itself (they have never contributed any info on the format) but only in creating a negative atmosphere around the format article. Several have even exressed on the talk page and edit summaries that they do this because of a dislike of Microsoft. That is just unacceptable. hAl (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no conflict between being used in a fight against ODF and being a site to aid developers. Aiding developers is an important thing to do in the fight against ODF. As for this being controversial - sorry, it was, and still is, and a huge percentage of the secondary WP:RS sources will mention the controversy. Trying to suppress that (such as by removing relevant sources that happen to mention the controversy) is WP:OR. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Open XML Community, the phrase "as an ISO/IEC standard" is far from being part of the past. If you look on their join-up page you find, "Join Us! Join the community of technology professionals, public institutions, governments, businesses, and developers who support Open XML as an ISO/IEC standard." Now, I have spent many hours here trying to explain to you that there are at least three meanings to the word 'support' - like a you support a football team ("This is great and I love it"), like you support a product ("Hello. Technical support. How can I help you?") and like you support a file format ("File->Save as...->.docx"). This is the phrase that all the past, current and future members of that website sign up to, all claimed 3,100 of them. Clarifying what they have signed up to is vital if we are going to talk about these signatories.

Let's see what other editors have to say. --Nigelj (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see why you consider it so important but as you do... I think it is irrelevant but whatever. I have extented the mini cite to be more in line with the context it was written in though. hAl (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:HAl: You're going to have to stop reverting others' referenced contributions. Bring it up on the discussion board first. Don't keep instantly reverting what everyone else does. -Lester 01:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone who stopped editing this article a year or so ago, having given up because of hAl's constant bludgeoning, I was recently pleasantly surprised to see that some action was apparently taken: Wasn't he very recently blocked or an least prevented from editing OOXML articles? What happened? Why is he currently involved in editing this article at all? Dovi (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's banned him permanently, or put a topic ban in place. This was his 7th block over the course of 1.5 years; every time the reason was given, it was over OOXML related editing. --Alvestrand (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd have pinged the last admin who blocked him, but he's on an indefinite wikibreak, so instead I've pinged the admin who declined hAl's unblock request. As far as I'm concerned this is nothing but tendicious edit warring at this point, and we shouldn't have to waste our time on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You think it is acceptable that people make edits like this (yesterday) ?? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&action=historysubmit&diff=323335964&oldid=323268196 . Even though above here on the talk page user:Alvestrand and user:Alexbrn have confirmed that there is nothing wrong with using those sources. I think it is blatant vandalism to remove sources from the article even though on the talk page there. I find it upsetting that users with affiliatipons to Google, Sun and nooxml think they should try to influence the content of this article. These all all parties who have been opposing the standarization of this format. That people form those organizations are now here trying to rewrite the article is upseetting to say the least. I'm taking a break from this mess but I think people should be aware that currently the article is rewritten by parties with serious WP:COI issues. hAl (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That edit is discussed under #Poorly cited trivia to be removed. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As an update, hAl has been indefinitely blocked; discussion of that action is currently ongoing at WP:ANI#Block review for User:hAl. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you lord 80.221.234.226 (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Lede organization

I have reverted a restoration by User:Scientus of an older version of the lede of this article. I think the shorter, less cluttered lede is a better introduction - and a lede should be an introduction, which means that it's both reasonable to repeat information from the article, and unreasonable for the lede to give information that is not repeated and expanded on in the rest of the article.

The whole series of changes I reverted is visible here. Advice sought. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

One particular controversy may be this one: It is a direct quote from the introduction to part 1 of the standard; it's controversial whether it is a reasonable goal, and it's controversial whether it's achieved, but there can be no doubt that this is the stated goal of the standard. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

We have gone back several steps. The third para is barely literate; it's odd to focus on the "stated goal" of the standard here (actually this text is informative; it would be much better to use the scope instead -- as it is this rather misrepresent things). Also the sneaking in of the "contentious" (wrong word) process rather makes it look that the opening has an agenda ... Alexbrn (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes Alex Brown, someone highly involved in development of OOXML.Scientus (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The intro as it stands has many serious problems, and that is why I changed it.

• Includes things violating WP:SELFPUB, that cannot be verified, are WP:PRIMARY, and are contraticted by notable reliable sources [5] [6]
• including totally uninteresting, useless fluff on the file format [7]
• violating WP:SELFREF, which makes it read like a 3rd graders essay ("In this essay I will say..."). [8]
• Excludes essential context, well sourced, which without the next sentence makes little sense. [9]

The current state of the article is a joke, and is clearly POV.Scientus (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what just happened? I thought the editors of this article (me included) were making constructive progress and talking things through before making controversial changes. Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The introduction / lede should give a brief summary and overview of OOXML, including all major aspects, including those from sub-articles. I think the controversy should be in there, even if it is just one line. Whether we agree with it or not, the ISO controversy happened, with nation states such as South Africa and others criticising the process of the format's ascension through the ISO. The controversy is a really major part of the story, as many commentators have said that it has affected the uptake of OOXML. There used to be something in there. When I get some time I will find it again, or find some new references to get a mention in the intro. By the way, I agree that only major secondary sources should be used in the intro. I said that to User:HAl, and the same should apply to those with an opposing opinion.--Lester 07:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely with Lester. A well-rounded article that summarizes all major aspects OOXML (including those expanded on in sub-articles), and properly-sourced summaries of all major perspectives on the controversial issues (NPOV), has been sorely lacking here for 1-2 years. Obviously the existence of the controversy should be mentioned in the lead. Dovi (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the new slimmed-down intro is a bit better, but we still have the big problem of "Microsoft obsession". The word "Microsoft" is used in the opening four paragraphs NINE times, for instance. Alexbrn (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We have "developed by Microsoft", "Microsoft released" and "Microsoft announced", which seems reasonable to me. All the others are due to that corporation's naming policy for its products: We could shorten Microsoft Office, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel etc to just Office, Word and Excel (as links), but I don't think it would help with readability or meaning. Microsoft did develop it, release it and make announcements about it, then introduce it in their products. --Nigelj (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's misleading to say MS "developed it"; they developed 2,000 pages or so of spec which Ecma then took over and developed (and released) as the 6,000 page Ecma 376-1. The onward "development" was then done primarily by NBs during the standardization process. Alexbrn (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't follow the ECMA part of the process, but my impression was that the main contributors to the work of expanding from 2000 to 6000 pages, as well as the work of responding to the NB comments in the ISO process, were done primarily by Microsoft employees or consultants. Since both ECMA and ISO work by having the actual editing done by various companies' employees, this is what I would expect; if others contributed significant editing effort, it would be nice to know. (I know you did significant work on managing the process, Alex). --Alvestrand (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Something developed in committee is the joint responsibility of that committee: yes, most of the technical substance will have come from MS but there is more to the standard than just technical substance (not least organisation, wording, choosing what what include, etc). Since entering JTC 1 much of the wording has been drafted by, or with the assistance of, NB experts. So it seems distinctly odd to have this statement, which is something of a spin on reality, as the first thing mentioned. It would be strictly accurate to say Microsoft developed the spec which was the basis for the onward standard work (and that would be supported by the - Microsoft! - citation, unlike the current wording which isn't) -- but I think that's a very strange thing to have in an introductory section which now manages to omit certain key items of information like - you know - that this format is actually a standard, while making everything revolve around Microsoft. Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, created? originated? conceived? formulated? initiated? It would be wrong to give the impression that OOXML sprang into existence independently of a huge expenditure effort by Microsoft. --Nigelj (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, one could argue that it was "initiated" by political pressure outside of MS. However the purpose here is not to make arguments or give impressions but to make accurate statements. Currently we're a way away from that 82.21.97.126 (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)