Talk:Gumstix

Could someone put a metric ruler instead of a coin in the gumstix picture?, coins are quite country specific and means little outside the specific nation. Electron9 09:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Even worse, the view is clearly not from directly above. This causes the coin in the foreground to appear slightly larger than the gumstix board and makes judging scale difficult. --Imroy 11:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The exact dimensions are given in the article.--agr

Well the point of the picture is to give a intuitive hint I presume..? Technical data is abstract. Electron9 21:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want I can snap a picture of my gumstix. BJ^Talk 18:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, got any metric ruler ..? Electron9 21:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

How about using a stick of chewing gum instead -- wouldn't that be universal enough? Or a combination of all the above, since metric rulers would also be a bit non-intuitive to some folk? Seriously, it seems enough that the dimensions are given...

Check images at http://docwiki.gumstix.org/Gumstix_images Is a official Wiki under CC, and have clear comparation size images (any more global of a Coca-Cola? :) ).--Museo8bits 14:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Today, I updated the photo to show a verdex board compared to an iPod - Don A @ Gumstix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donnay (talk • contribs) 14:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Gumstix article needs improvement; conflicts of interest.

It appears as though the principal editing of this page has been performed by the corporate officers of Gumstix, in violation of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. Gumstix officers: Please read and pay attention to Wikipedia:Suggestions_for_COI_compliance since you clearly wish to participate in the evolution of this article about your company.
The subject has potential encyclopedic merit and does not meet the "Blatant advertising" criteria for speedy deletion. However, the article is presently written in the style of an advertisement masquerading as an article, and has severe linkspam that needs to be removed immediately. The notability of Gumstix has not been established in the article. Since Gumstix probably is notable, I have tagged it with Template:Importance rather than Template:Notability. Regardless, the article should be proposed for deletion if notability cannot be established within a reasonable period of time.
Oskay 22:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The COI editing has not ceased, and has included a very inappropriate removal of a template requesting information about the notability of this subject. There are indeed constructive ways, allowed by Wikipedia policy, that even those with a conflict of interest can contribute to this article and shape its development. However, please note that per Wikipedia policy, "Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked." You have been warned. Oskay 06:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, i'll try to help adding information the CMO of Gumstix forgot to mention here -lack of documentation and contradictions, limited warranty-. Feel free to correct my small contribution if it's somehow biased and comment here if citations to a mailing list archive are invalid or more are needed. Iunaw (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

another wiki - gumstix user wiki

http://gumstix.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page --Emesee (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

I've added the neutrality dispute flag because almost all information on this article has been written by a Gumstix Inc employee, and now, after i made a contribution, i see it has been removed and replaced by, in my opinion, misleading information by Dvescovi (please, do not mess with my edit again, leave this to someone neutral). I've asked Oskay if he could help, as he is a neutral party. We should make a list of facts/contributions here, on the discussion page, to let that someone neutral takes the information to the article. Iunaw (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dvescovi continues to add incorrect/misleading information deliberately in violation of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and Wikipedia:Consensus. He or his company sells products/services based on Gumstix [1] but makes COI edits anyway, Troll's on my talk page and on this discussion page and is exhausting my patience. His last change was to replace "closed source" for "open source" on the description of his project on the article, giving incorrect, false and misleading information (again) on Wikipedia. Additionally his account appears, based on the edit history, to exist for the sole purpose of promoting a company, product, service, or organization in violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines, and should not be tolerated. Iunaw (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Facts/Contributions to the Gumstix article (Discussion)

Dvescovi: your (undone) "contribution" after deleting mine is in my opinion misleading: "Most Gumstix documentation, schematics and Printed Circuit Board layouts are online and made available under the Creative Commons ShareAlike license"

You are telling that most documentation is online, which is considered a feature, but omitting that there is no printed documentation, something that any customer would expect, even for a toaster. You say that most schematics are available in CC license, but omit to say that motherboard schematics are proprietary/closed-source. We are not here to say if that is good or bad, but to give complete information. If this article is only here to explain how wonderful Gumstix is, that is, to promote Gumstix (aka SPAM) it should be proposed for immediate deletion.

You have deleted:

• Gumstix products come with no documentation at all, this is a fact
• Customers have to search themselves on the mailing list archives or on the user wiki, this is a fact
• Information is split on different faq's, articles and mailing list posts that sometimes contradict each other, this is a fact
• Some parts are not documented anywhere yet, but users can ask on the mailing list where most questions are answered, this is a fact

I consider this information as very useful to any potential customers/interested persons. Usually this kind of products come with lots of printed documentation, schematics, examples and application notes, and Gumstix comes with NONE. Only part of them are online, and spread on their wiki/web servers and mailing list archives with some contradictions. I've never seen a product documented this way

Iunaw (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: I would even add that Gumstix Inc does not seem to have any interest in having it's products documented, as most wiki edits on their wiki have been done by it's users themselves, the gumstix.net website has lots of "coming soon" sections and no serious efforts have been done by the company to correct this lack of documentation (in years!). It should be added on a criticism section, as this is more a subjective issue. I'll add it to the list as optional. Customers should know what they can and cannot expect from the company. Iunaw (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

---

3rd Party Projects:

If 3rd party WinCE info and links to projects are added, it should be clear that WinCE is not supported by Gumstix - it could be put on a separate section for 3rd party Iunaw (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Links:

A link to the gumstix mailing list on nabble could be added, if it's considered useful info: http://www.nabble.com/Gumstix-f22543.html

And information of the article should be updated, as currently gumstix uses OpenEmbedded Linux- there are some users that use the older buildroot (the SDK mentioned on the article) through. There are two wikis, the new one (linked on the article) is on http://gumstix.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page the old one in http://docwiki.gumstix.org/Main_Page -do we add both? Iunaw (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We should remove the external link 'Microsoft Presentation by Don Anderson, Gumstix CMO' (to http://content.digitalwell.washington.edu/msr/external_release_talks_12_05_2005/14736/lecture.htm) as it's either a broken link or a broken page that works only in microsoft's universe Iunaw (talk) 09:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

TODO List: (add/remove/change after an explanation on the discussion section above)

• Check for any biased information on the article
• Add that motherboard schematics are proprietary and expansion board schematics images are available under CC Share-A-Like license [DONE]
• Add in criticism section that Gumstix Inc does not seem to be interested in documenting it's products properly (optional-being considered)
• Remove broken link [DONE] and update info to openembedded build environment

Removed opinions, restored Windows CE links

lunaw obviously has an ax to grind and this should not be a forum for his opinions. This is quite apparent from his over use of the words “I” and “in my opinion” in both his comments on this and his edits on the main page. Everyone in the community is quite aware that Gumstix does not release their motherboard schematics. My original edit stated, “Most schematics and board layouts are available” which is absolutely true and should have not been deleted. In any case, I reworded to state “peripheral interface ..” to make it clearer. Also, my original edit clearly stated that the “Windows CE” development was not associated with Gumstix Inc. I am aware of the legal implications and there is a disclaimer at the top of the page if you care to follow the link and in the original edit.. Gumstix software development is very much “community” driven, much like this web site. As such, we are use to getting most of our information online. Wikipedia is a testament to this. I restated to say no “printed” documentation is available, to say, “Gumstix comes with no documentation at all” is just plan wrong and only shows your obvious frustration. Dvescovi (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dvescovi: No opinions have been added to the article, please don't lie as it's very easy to check the article's history. And you still don't know how Wikipedia works: I don't care if the Gumstix comunity is quite aware that motherboard schematics are proprietary, this is an encyclopedic article that has to be as accurate as possible, including all relevant information, not only what you think that should include and omit the relevant parts you don't like. I repeat it to you in case you still do not understand it: You are deliberately deleting parts of this article to change it with incomplete/incorrect and biased information. This is not tolerated on Wikipedia and i recommend you to read the Wikipedia policies before you make any new edit. I have moved the information of your project to a newly created 3rd party section with a link to the website. And that gumstix products come with no documentation at all is true, as no customer has received any user manual, product brochure, specifications, warranty information or any documentation at all, as you would expect. Parts of this information is online, as stated on the article, but Gumstix products still doesn't come with them. Stop removing content and adding misleading information instead. If you can't be neutral, do not edit on Wikipedia or ask for help to a neutral party, as i have done. This discussion is to seek consensus, and i won't participate in an edit war. Iunaw (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you count you will see 5 uses of the word "I" in just the above comment alone. Everyone is all for factual repersentation. Commentary belongs in a commentary section and not on a product description page. So what is the CIO entered the original content information, is was factual, informative and allowed under the Wikipedia rules. There was to blatant attempt to advertise .. only to inform. Dvescovi (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the discussion page, you should learn first how Wikipedia works, this is not a "product description page" Iunaw (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Point by point:

• Gumstix products come with no documentation at all, this is a fact

Not true, just not "printed" documentation ..corrected on main page.

When you buy a product you expect it to come with documentation, product brochures, specifications, warranty information, and in this kind of products even application notes and examples, schematics, etc. and Gumstix comes with none. Part of this information is online, as it is stated on the article, but this products come with no documentation at all. You are not correcting anything, but removing content and replacing it with missleading information, omitting parts you don't like, it seems. Iunaw (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how correcting to read "Does not come with printed documention.." could in anyway be construded as missleading information. I was only attempting to make the page better. Dvescovi (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No you don't. You only have to see the history page of the article. You are removing information without discussion, only because it does not represent your point of view. You are adding misleading information (removing facts to replace them with incomplete and biased information). You haven't talked about other improvements to the article, you do not seek consensus, you don't have any interest in collaborating with Wikipedia. You are abusing it to represent your point of view. Iunaw (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Customers have to search themselves on the mailing list archives or on the user wiki, this is a fact

This is only true if you do not have any electronics, computer background or are a novice.

Gumstix products come with no documentation, the only resource you have is to search the mailing list archive and the wiki, but in your universe online information isn't needed either because "This is only true if you do not have any electronics, computer background or are a novice." so it's pretty intuitive, and all other companies documenting their products are wasting their time because it's not really needed. Well, this is an encyclopedic article, allow me to give complete and accurate information in case someone does not see it like you do. And for your information, in some counties it's illegal to sell products without any documentation (online documentation is a *feature* printed is *mandatory*) Iunaw (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply stating that information is available in all forms. Your use of the statement "..waisting their time because it's not to really needed" is a grose mistatement. I have purchased several products with no documentation. Even products from top tear manufacturer. Online is my, and probably most everybody elses, first source now a days. Dvescovi (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy you don't expect any documentation with your products, but as i said it's not what an ordinary user would expect. I even told you that it's illegal to sell electronic products without documentation in a lot of countries. This is your point of view, and i'm trying to be objective and give accurate and complete information, while you are doing the opposite. Iunaw (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Information is split on different faq's, articles and mailing list posts that sometimes contradict each other, this is a fact

This is just a fact of community development. Communities are composed of the whole spectrum of users from the novice to the experts. Many times the information is contradictory or in some cases just plane wrong. This should not be a reflection of Gumstix Inc. but the community at large. Place comments like these in a "rant" section but I would be carefull, I don't think you would get much sympathy here as Wikipedia operates in very much the same way. A constructive comment would be to suggest a "moderator" to filter commentary and content correctness.

This is not only community development, it's the only documentation source that exists for this product. And any new customer will have to deal with it because there is no other option. I don't want your sympathy or form anyone else, we are here to give complete and accurate information. If gumstix has no official documentation it's because they don't care. If information is split and some parts contradict each other it's because Gumstix Inc hasn't corrected it. It's not the job of gumstix customers to reverse engineer and document the products that Gumstix Inc sells, it's something that some users are doing voluntary with their best will. Iunaw (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not the only documentation, and there are another option. For example, Windows CE (who's information and link you deleted) is also available. It has seperate documentation and is a viable alternate source of information. Your comment "no official documentation it's because they don't care" is just an obvious emotional characterazition which is just a reflection on the author. How does he know the intentions of Gumstix Inc.?

Dvescovi (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You are free to mention it here so we can add it to the article. And i haven't deleted the information of your project, i've created a 3rd party section and information is there (even more complete), you only have to read this discussion page and the article's history. And read the whole discussion page, as i'm saying that the comment you cite is subjective. And BTW why do you think that there is still no official documentation after years? Iunaw (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Some parts are not documented anywhere yet, but users can ask on the mailing list where most questions are answered, this is a fact

Somtimes.

Sometimes yes and sometimes not, great.. It seems you agree here, but you have removed it because you think this information is not useful to potential customers or interested persons, right? That some parts of a product are not documented anywhere is normal in your universe, and does not deserve to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Iunaw (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was normal, just becomming more common place. This is just a "fact of life" (and more so in our "online universe") that should be debated elsewhere, not on a product description page.

Dvescovi (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dvescovi (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is going to believe this, sorry. And in any case it's relevant information you're removing with bad faith. And i repeat it again, this is not a "product description page" but a discussion page of the Gumstix article on Wikipedia. Iunaw (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Dvescovi deletions and other updates

Dvescovi's deletions have been restored, a warning has been added to his talk page and discussion continues here. We'll try to seek consensus and avoid an edit war. We could need a neutral party for a final check for biased information after discussion ends and consensus is reached. Information on the article has to be complete and not misleading, and no relevant information can be omitted deliberately. Iunaw (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC) I totally agree. Dvescovi (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC) If you agree why are you still deleting relevant information you don't like? You are not discussing it here to try to reach consensus, you are editing the article on your own to remove that parts, and you say here "i agree"? you say A and make then B. are you interested in improving the whole article? (other parts that need upgrade as i mentioned) because it seems you come here only to change some parts to reflect your POV and forget the rest Iunaw (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Other updates to the article: the dead link mentioned above has been removed, a section for 3rd party has been added and the new openembedded build system on gumstix has been mentioned. Should we remove now any information from the old buildroot build system and update it to the current openembedded build system or do we mention both in the article? Iunaw (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Update i forgot to mention: I've added the following paragraph: "Gumstix motherboard schematics are proprietary and are kept secret, but expansion board schematics images and layouts are available online under the Creative Commons Share-alike license." This is more accurate than just saying "Most Gumstix schematics and Printed Circuit Board layouts are online and made available under the Creative Commons ShareAlike license" because you think that "Everyone in the community is quite aware that Gumstix does not release their motherboard schematics" (I'm starting to think you are here to SPAM, as you deliberately delete and omit everything negative to Gumstix) Iunaw (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC) I corrected to state "moterboard board schematics are proprietary" and included a link to definition of "proprietary". To say "kept secret" is wrong. Please read the definition of "propritary" there is a difference.

The comment "Most Gumstix schematics and Printed Circuit Board layouts are online" was corrected in a previous edit (again, which you saw to delete).

Dvescovi (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for page protection

I have asked for page protection until dispute is resolved as Dvescovi keeps removing content ignoring the discussion page, the neutrality dispute and the uw-npov3 warning on his talk page. Has no interest in seeking consensus and has no appreciable interest in expanding the article with any contributions. He doesn't even know what a discussion page is and how Wikipedia works (i'll add some links to his talk page)

Dvescovi: You are removing information ("Some parts are not documented anywhere yet") because you consider it's negative for Gumstix, but this is not your private place to make SPAM, i have told several times that we have to seek consensus, give accurate and complete information and to avoid omitting relevant information deliberately. I even told you we should ask for help to a neutral party, but this doesn't seem to interest you (no comments on this issue so far) Iunaw (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally welcome independent third party resolution. Please, I invite it. Also please read the definition of Shared Source, a link has been provided on Wikipedia. Please be informed before posting, especially on legal issues.

Dvescovi (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Iunaw (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection declined, content in the article need to be attributed to reliable sources. I recommend that editor take a break an obtain sources before making any further alterations. Gnangarra 15:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the article's history you'll see i added references on the first edit, but the contributions and citations were removed without discussion (this first deletion leaded to the beginning of the neutrality dispute) Iunaw (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done my very best to say neutral and provide information like the links and definition like "Shared Source" and "proprietary". I do not think personal attacks like "He doesn't even know what a discussion page is and how Wikipedia works" helps your case.

You have removed information without discussion, even after i set the neutrality dispute flag to attract your attention, you even keep doing it yet and it should be believed that you are doing your best to stay neutral? and after i told you to not remove relevant information. this is really shocking. and please don't consider it an attack, there's nothing wrong with it, but you are saying that opinions should not take place on the "product description page" and we are discussing on the talk page and not on the article (what you call product description page) ?? Iunaw (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would invite ANY neutral third party to review the discussion and edits. I have no interest in "flameing" anyone and I do not work for, or are in anyway affiliated or associated with Gumstix. I love Wikipedia and hate to see it used in this way:(

Why are you trolling now? I was talking about neutral third party help one week ago, and you haven't said *anything* until yet that you are blocked. I have been waiting, but you have been removing relevant information you don't like to replace it with your misleading POV. And you say that you have done your best to stay neutral and that you are not affiliated in any way with Gumstix? Why don't you want that some aspects of Gumstix are documented here if they are relevant? You don't seem to have any conflicts with the Gumstix's CMO edits here, you are only vandalizing my contributions because they are the negative part, the points that should be worked out by the company. You are trying to do advertising here, censuring anything that is negative to that company, no matter if i'm here trying to reach consensus and contributing relevant information with references that could be usefull to potential customers/interested persons Iunaw (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone obviously took great pains to put together the main page only to inform, its a shame you choose to trash it this way. Dvescovi (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So we are trashing the contributions to Wikipedia from a Gumstix Inc employee because it's not advertising anymore and includes the negative aspects too? That is not the purpose of Wikipedia, i'm sorry. As i'm repeating again and again, we are here to give complete and accurate information, avoiding to omit intentionally relevant aspects. You really want that information on this article remains incomplete, inaccurate and misleading, and that's why you don't discuss how it could be rewritten, you simply remove what you don't like! Iunaw (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware I would never suggest baring anyone from this or any other page, as Mr. lunaw has, especially those most knowledgeable of the product line. These are just desperate attempts at POV pushing, as most of us are quite aware. The over use of adjectives, and his inability to speak in a neutral, “third person” voice are all evidence to that fact. If anything we should encourage Mr. lanaw to continue, after all he himself presents my best evidence. I would encourage Mr. lanaw to familiarize himself with the Wikipedia rules, which would allow him to make more compelling arguments. I am sorry Mr. lanaw had a bad experience with the product but there are others who use it quite successfully and enjoy working with it. Dvescovi (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trolling and pushing the discussion in the wrong direction. Most information on this article has been added by by a Gumstix employee (COI). I have made contributions to balance a bit, and because i wasn't sure if it could be considered biased i have asked kindly a third person for advice *on my first edit* to check my own contributions. In the meantime you, a person that sells products/services based on Gumstix, have started an edit war, making COI edits and poisoning this discussion with false information. Sorry but i believe you are acting on bad faith the whole time. I really wish that more persons would participate on this article, and not only persons that have commercial interests and try to push their POV violating Wikipia policies Iunaw (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Open source vs Closed source

Dvescovi You have changed on your project description on the article "closed source" with "open source" [2], adding (again) misleading information to the article. The source code of your project is not openly available as described on the open source article but is only available when you sign an NDA and for a 300$ fee (according to the information on the website of your project [3]) so it is considered closed source. I'll quote it from the article pages for you:

• Open source: Open source is a set of principles and practices on how to write software, the most important of which is that the source code is openly available.
• Closed source: The source code of such programs is usually regarded as a trade secret by the owner. Access to source code by third parties commonly requires the party to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

STOP! Your COI edits with false and misleading information do not benefit Wikipedia in any way. This is not the place to promote your products/services Iunaw (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

STOP! Please quit trying to insinuate this is “my” web site. Codeplex and GumstixIII is a community development project of which I am a coordinator. The initial work was done by several dedicated developers and we are actively looking for more. All are welcome to join by just asking..even Mr lanuaw … that is if he promises not to trash it. Dvescovi (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll change it to closed source again, leaving the rest untouched, as it is *false* that it is an open source project. Iunaw (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please also change your refference list, I don't think "popper" is a very nice word. Even as bitter as you are, I don't think you ment to say that. Dvescovi (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right here. Done. Iunaw (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is plenty of source code include. But I guess that does not count as with your POV pushing anything but "printed" documentation does not count "real" documentation and email and news group postings do not count as "real" technical support. Dvescovi (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

??? Iunaw (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it *again* to closed source. This is like dealing with a small child, you keep doing what you want and give false information on the article Iunaw (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest Noticeboard

This article has been included in the COIN. You can follow the discussion here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Gumstix Iunaw (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Categorization as Microcomputer questionable

While by today's standards, the gumstix are fairly small (smaller than so called micro atx, for instance), Microcomputer is a term from early computing used to refer to what we would call a desktop computer today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.0.26 (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree somewhat with you. On the one hand Gumstix could fit in the Microcomputer category like any microcontroller/microprocessor device considering the definition on the Microcomputer article, but there are on the other hand other categories that would fit better in current nomenclature conventions. I've changed the article to be included in the Embedded Linux and Embedded systems categories instead. Iunaw (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wither edit wars?

lunaw and Dvescovi: Cool it, both of you. No magic administrator is going to step in and solve everything or protect the article, so it's up to both of you to approach this article with a more responsible perspective and good wikipedian practice.

lunaw: Read a few other articles here on Wikipedia. Look at the tone of the writing, and then compare to your own:

"Gumstix products come with no printed documentation[2][3], customers have to search themselves on the mailing list archives or on the user wiki, with information split on different faq's, articles and mailing list posts that sometimes contradict each other[4][5]."

While it looks to me as though your contributions (like this one) are factually correct and do add valuable information to the article, your edits come across as slightly negative: a little bit bitter and mean-spirited. That attitude doesn't have any place on Wikipedia. Your end of the bargain-- that you get to edit the articles-- comes with the restriction that you conform to the style manual and maintain a neutral tone. In practice, that means that you need to write articles with a presumption of good faith unless you can cite clear evidence to the contrary. Here's another way of thinking about it: There are a lot of other embedded computer platforms. If you trash this one but not all of them, how does that achieve neutrality?

Here is an example of how one might phrase the above sentence in a more neutral fashion: "Gumsticks products are supported through several different forms of online documentation, including articles, FAQ lists, and a user-maintained wiki and mailing list." This really is neither a good nor bad thing.

Dvescovi: If, as lunaw contends, you are selling gumstix-related products or services, you do have a very real conflict of interest and you should abstain from editing this article. That should be perfectly clear to you. Wikipedia is not here to provide advertising for you, whether or not you are in business. You have no inherent right to add a link to your project from any wikipedia article. Any suggestion that you have about what should appear on an article should be suggested from the talk page and, if someone else agrees that it is worthwhile to add to the page, they will add it. Now, I can hardly list how many times I wanted to add a link to one of my projects or web pages from a wikipedia page-- but I don't, because it's not the right thing to do. Get with the program.

Now, I have made a few edits to the article. Unless anyone objects, I'm going to make a separate edit to remove the COI and NPOV flags from the article-- I think that the article, as I've just revised it, is actually in pretty good shape. But of course, I'm happy to discuss it further.

Oskay (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oskay, i know you have to be very cautelous when talking about negative aspects, and i could have expressed that paragraph in a bitter way, i know and i knew it since i made my first edit (i went directly to you, because i didn't knew how to rewrite that information myself). On the other hand, relevant negative aspects have a place here too, like the positive ones, as it is part of what the article is describing and it's own nature. That contributions are rewritten, and different editors help each other to improve the article is evident and positive, but what i do not endorse in any way is that negative aspects are removed and that misleading/false information is added deliberately. Regarding your last sentence: Contributors write about what they know, i can't contribute to all embedded systems articles if i don't know anything about them, but i'm sure others will do it. And i consider 'offending' that you say that i'm trashing the article. I could have expressing that part in a bitter and inappropriate way, but my interest is to have a complete and accurate article, including these facts. All edits i have done were to improve the article, the difference is that this one was about a negative aspect, while others not. I thank you very much for your input and for the time you spend here. Iunaw (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, it's a neutral statement, and i agree with it. But on the other hand it does not reflect the reality that gumstix products come with no printed documentation, that information is split and that some parts are not documented. And this is very important information despite being a negative aspect. How could an electrical engineer or a programmer work with an embedded system if there is no complete documentation and some parts contradict each other? How could an architect build a house if he doesn't know the details of the materials being used? He has to either desist and use other materials or spend an extra time to figure these things out. And as i said, it is not a common practice and that makes it even more worth mentioning it. I'm really sorry to be the bad-guy that says 'hey! but it is not well documented' but i believe i'm doing well doing it. I do not know how it could be rewritten, it's very difficult because it's a negative aspect, but it's information that should be here. Iunaw (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, we are considering they're negative aspects of the product, but this is a POV (reasonable but a POV) , someone could consider it a feature (it's environment-friendly and does not use a lot of paper, it's challenging to have to search through mailing list archives and deal with contradictions). In any case, it's good to know. We could even write it as it were a feature: Gumstix respects the environment and doesn't waste paper for documentation. Use the brain-training wiki instead! ;) (joke to cool things down). Now seriously, we should find a way to give this information in a neutral way. Iunaw (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This could be a smoothed variant based on the current paragraph. I see it overall neutral, mixing what can be considered positive(+) and negative(-) aspects mixed to give a neutral and accurate description:

    Gumsticks products have no printed documentation(-) but are supported instead through several different forms of online documentation(+) 
    spread(-) on articles, FAQ lists, an user-maintained wiki and a mailing list archive. Because it is under constant development(+), 
    some information may be missing, contradictory our outdated(-), but questions get answered on the mailing list, that is very active.(+).

What do you think about it? Discussing this is what i have been trying to do before Dvescovi showed up, but we can now give all our opinions and find the best solution Iunaw (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that including information of that project on the article, on a 3rd party section as it was, is positive and makes it more complete. But as i said, no false/misleading information can be added (calling it an open source project while it is not). Iunaw (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion: First, I refactored Iunaw's post so as to keep Oskay's post from being split apart. Secondly, Oskay's cleanup here is incredible and really, really well done. As long as it doesn't get destroyed due to COI/POV edits, it's fine by me. If you guys need any further help, message me and I'll swing by. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong: Thanks-- I appreciate it. Oskay (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Iunaw: I am neither for nor against including criticisms of Gumstix. However I do not think that is appropriate to include even perfectly true and valid criticisms in the introductory factual description. If the community deems that it is appropriate to include criticisms of Gumstix, it should be done in a very direct, clear, and independent section. (Think: Editorial section of a newspaper versus front page.) Here is a good example: the article on Alex the Parrot has a "criticisms" section. In it are clear and direct statements describing exactly what the criticisms are and who said them. Each of the ones cited has a reference which is can be verified and is from a reliable source. (Note, for example, that blog and/or forum posts are rarely reliable sources.) If you were to find an article from a reliable source (Say, a print magazine like Linux Journal) that mentions the documentation issue then it could possibly be appropriate to include that. Oskay (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not criticism as it is written yet as it only gives information about the product being described in a neutral way. I would agree with you if we were discussing about the older paragraph, that was clearly negative and needed to be rewritten. If critic information is to be added, it should be clearly added on a separate section and cite reliable sources as you say. I'll add the following paragraph to the article, if someone doesn't agree or thinks it is not neutral, we can discuss further how to rewrite it.

    Gumsticks products have no printed documentation but are supported instead through several different 
    forms of online documentation spread on articles, FAQ lists, an user-maintained wiki and a mailing list
    archive. Because it is under constant development, some information may be missing, contradictory our
    outdated, but any questions users have get answered on the mailing list, that is very active.

When you make that change it is no longer encyclopedic content. It comes across as your own personal experience, and, as phrased, falls under the headings of weasel words ("some information may be", "very active") and wikipedia's policy against publishing your own experiences. It is not possible to verify whether a mailing list is "very active," and it is probably not the case that "any questions" get answered. These, simply put are not facts, but are your own opinions. Your observations may be good and fair descriptions-- I do not remotely dispute that. However, when we make claims about a company that could influence their bottom line, it's important to make sure that everything that we say is backed up by verifiable third-party content from reliable sources. The policies are very clear on this. My (or your) personal experience or evaluation of the quality of their online support is not a sufficient reference as far as wikipedia is concerned. This paragraph needs to be changed to something fully neutral, based on facts, and fully conforming to WP policy. What we have right now-- as you have noted-- is a set of statements both positive and negative. That does not sum to neutral; it sums to one person's experience. Oskay (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it again you are somewhat right, it has to be rewritten to remove weasel words. But i do not agree that it is a personal opinion in itself, but facts that are not well expressed yet (anybody can verify it on the relevant webpages while other claims on the article can not, there is consensus between its users, and considering how it is written and what is written it can't be considered a personal experience but a description of the article. It could be better to say it this way:

    Gumsticks products have no printed documentation but are supported instead through several different 
    forms of online documentation spread on articles, FAQ lists, an user-maintained wiki and a mailing list
    archive. It is under constant development and some information is missing, contradictory our
    outdated.

Removed the smoothing 'may', the 'mailing list very active' and 'because' (relation not demonstrable). It has now only facts that describe the product without using weasel words or being subjective claims. Do you still consider it is not neutral? And the problem with verifiability affects most part of the article, it has lot of claims that are not backed with reliable third party sources. If we are going to be strict with this we will have to rewrite and remove a lot of information and this could really trash the article. For example the 'Software development kit' and the '3D Visualization' sections have no reliable third party sources to back it (you can check yourself that it is veridic through). Or your paragraph Gumsticks products are supported through several different forms of online documentation, including articles, FAQ lists, and a user-maintained wiki and mailing list or the paragraph Commercial customers use gumstix inside a range of devices while professors and students have adopted gumstix technology in a variety of projects, including robotic fish and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). have no reliable third party sources either. We are considering all this information reliable as it can be verified by all users themselves and everybody would agree with it desplite it has not been published by the media, and the same applies to the documentation paragraph, it has no media coverage buy everybody can see on the relevant webpages that it represents verifiable facts, that is, it is not challenged. Iunaw (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW this sentence should be rewritten (remove weasel words: 'large range', 'full-blown'): The software is a full-blown Linux environment and a large range of Linux applications can run on the device. It is at the moment a bit subjective Iunaw (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And talking about sources, i think it is one of the priorities of this article, as notabily hasn't been established yet and it has only self-published sources. This won't be a problem because there are a lot of articles mentioning gumstix on internet. I'll add these on the external links section for the moment:[4][5][6][7]Iunaw (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the uclib information (it is not used by default anymore) Iunaw (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea to add some sources to demonstrate notability. Oskay (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Categorization as "Full-Function" questionable

As far as I can tell, Gumstix computers do not feature "out-of-the-box" support for traditional VGA/DVI displays, support for traditional input devices like keyboards or mice, or plug-n-play support for usb peripherals since the usb port is only for connection to a desktop PC. As such I question the use of the term "full-function" as this leaves the impression that Gumstix can be used as a desktop computer. If the Gumstix lacks support for certain functions it logically follows that one should not describe it as "full-function".

Rather than simply removing the words "full-function" from the article, I decided it would be better to solicit suggestions for a better term. My preferred alternative is "user-configurable headless computer" to acknowledge that describing Gumstix as a "computer" is perfectly accurate, but that Gumstix is not at this time appropriate as a desktop computer. Further support for this terminology can be found at the Wikipedia entry for "headless" that includes the following definition:

"In computer hardware, headless refers to a server with no monitor, graphics card, or keyboard attached. Interaction with it depends on the use of a network connection, serial communications, or the use of a "crash cart."

I have not edited the Gumstix entry myself yet because the Gumstix is not limited to functioning as a server so it doesn't meet the Wikipedia description for "headless". As such I would like to get other people's opinion on the most appropriate term to use.

correction - newer overo gums do have video output, and even verdex versions had touchscreen LCDs we use! If only all this discussion effort had gone into creating a useful page rather than bickering Bravekermit (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The release of the overo seems like a natural time to take another look at this article. A gumstix is now clearly a fully functional computer, in the sense that it can be used as a desktop (provided you're happy with Windows CE). But really the thing is good for prototyping embedded devices, so the angle that it'll make the world's smartest vaccuum cleaner should be emphasized. When I go to this wiki I expect to learn about embedded devices and embedded OS's. I agree with you, kermit, that if the bickering is behind us (and Don Anderson agrees to keep his paws off), this article can be easily improved.Teufelsdroch (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Other possible alternatives might include "programmable" or "customizable" instead of "full-function", and "Linux appliance", "Linux device", or "microcontroller" instead of "computer". Roystonlodge (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)