Talk:Standardization of Office Open XML/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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."

Microsoft complaints about competitors subsequent behavior

In an interview with ZDNet, 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 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. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 12:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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. Scarian^{Call 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. Scarian^{Call 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. Scarian^{Call 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. Scarian^{Call 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)