Talk:/e/ (operating system)

November 2018

The /e/ project has created a new functioning mobile operating system, is run through a public interest French-registered trust, and has an active community of supporters. It has an upward battle in a mobile operating system world strongly dominated by two players: Apple, who claim high ideas with regard to privacy but have everything locked in proprietary formats, and Google who give away plenty of free services in exchange for colossal data harvesting. The /e/ project aims to deliver a privacy-oriented open-source mobile operating system to provide a real alternative to those who don't want to be locked in to either Apple or Google. I'm just a volunteer in the community, but we've been fielding comments wondering where our wikipedia page is, hence Manoj's contribution here. Neither of us are experts at Wikipedia; if there are specific changes needed to make the page acceptable, please let us know. Russell. 49.3.11.211 (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Please note there is a page dedicated to /e/ project on Wikipedia in German. Please can someone from the editorial team explain why different standards are being applied, to the same topic with similar references but in different languages.As mentioned by Russell above in case there is any issue in the formatting or template please let us know. The references quoted are all from national newspapers and popular websites from across the world.Manoj Nair (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Recent edits by User:Yae4

This discussion is continued from User talk:Yae4 § /e/ (operating system).

Yae4, thanks for refraining from using forum posts with your most recent edits. However, the following additions is still not neutral.

Ironically, in January 2018 Duval acknowledged using Google Adwords to analyze and improve "driving people to my two different landing pages."

With the word Ironically, you are using a non-neutral and unencyclopedic tone in your prose. Additionally, the above sentence is unrelated to the subject of the article (the operating system), and should be removed from the article as undue weight.

As of August 2019, half the resulting issues were still open in Gitlab.

This type of criticism, sourced to a primary source, is a form of original research that is undue in the article. If this were covered by a reliable secondary source in a way that is pertinent to the article content, then it can be added to the article, but primary sources should not be used to form controversial conclusions that are not supported by secondary sources.

Please also take some time to review Wikipedia's no original research policy. In particular, we should prefer reliable secondary sources as the basis for the majority of the article's content. — Newslinger talk 19:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

References

These issues were addressed. "Ironically" was deleted. The sentence is related to background of the Kickstarter campaign, which was already included, so it should remain for balanced presentation of "non-Google" development.

"Original research" sentence was deleted.

InfoSec Handbook should be allowed as a 2nd party independent reference. Self-published PR by e foundation calls them experts, and InfoSec Handbook is one of few (or only one) to publish detailed investigation with professional form.

-- Yae4 (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

unfortunately that source does not fulfill the requirements for an acceptable source. Oldosfan (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

They publish articles. The writers are recognized as experts, including by /e/ staff. And, the publisher, while having small staff, uses a panel who are involved in a wide range of sites. Unlike most other sources, they do not display advertisements. Please tell me specifically what requirement they do not fulfill?

Yae4 (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This is starting to look like a reliability edge case to me. I'll start a noticeboard discussion to get more opinions. — Newslinger talk 03:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is at: WP:RSN § Hacker Noon (hackernoon.com) and InfoSec Handbook (infosec-handbook.eu) for /e/ (operating system). — Newslinger talk 03:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Gitlab tracking of Issues from InfoSec Handbook. For future reference, at:

https://medium.com/hackernoon/leaving-apple-google-how-is-e-actually-google-free-1ba24e29efb9 https://www.indidea.org/gael/blog/leaving-apple-google-how-is-e-actually-google-free/

Duval published the following supplement comment, referring to /e/'s tracking of the issues in their GitLab:

"Gaël Duval April 29, 2019

All those points have been converted to issues in our GitLab: https://gitlab.e.foundation/search?group_id=&project_id=&repository_ref=&scope=issues&search=Infosec+Handbook+Review "

Therefore, referring to Gitlab tracking of the issues is NOT original research. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

/e/'s GitLab repository is a primary source, and your statement is an extrapolation of the primary source that is not covered by reliable secondary sources. Adding this statement would introduce undue weight into the article, and it would also be non-neutral because it paints the subject in a negative light ("still"). If you review articles on similar topics (LineageOS, CyanogenMod, and Android (operating system)) or just about any other open-source software article on Wikipedia, you'll see that none (or almost none) of them mention the proportion of open/closed issues in the tracker. Including this information when it's only cited to a primary source would significantly deviate from the norms on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 22:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The other similar topics include "negative" material and criticism, for more neutral coverage of the topic. This article still reads mostly positive, like an advertisement, aside from the couple statements you are pushing to remove. We are struggling to find replacements for the primary sources. Almost all of the secondary sources we find are really based on repeating the primary sources with some secondary interpretation, or based interviews of Duval, who is the primary source. In truth, if it wasn't for some success in getting primary source material repeated by "reliable" secondary sources, this article would be up for deletion. I'll reword the statement. We seem to agree mentioning tracking in gitlab is no longer original research. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The article has already been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion//e/ mobile operating system, and there was consensus to keep the article based on the availability of independent reliable sources. I absolutely do not agree with you on GitLab: your statement on the proportion of open/closed issues is both original research (interpretation of raw data) and undue weight (trivia outside the norms of software articles), and should be removed. We should be working to remove the content in the article that is not cited to independent reliable sources, and adding content that is. This article should be primarily based on these kinds of sources:

1. "Now Is the Time to Start Planning for the Post-Android World - Linux Journal". Linux Journal.
2. Vaughan-Nichols, Steven J. "Eelo: A Google-less Android alternative emerges". ZDNet. Retrieved 2019-08-30.
3. Wallen, Jack. "Is /e/ good or bad for mobility?". TechRepublic. Retrieved 2019-08-30.
4. "Eelo : l'OS mobile open source de Gaël Duval sort en bêta - Le Monde Informatique" [Eelo: Gaël Duval's open source mobile OS is released in beta]. Le Monde informatique (in French). Retrieved 2019-08-30.
5. Andrew Orlowski 24 Sep 2018 at 16:40. "Open-source alt-droid wants to know if it's still leaking data to Google". www.theregister.co.uk. Retrieved 2019-08-29.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

On the other hand, content sourced to group blogs with no reputations should be removed:

1. "Eelo: Gaël Duval's Open Source, Privacy Respecting Android Phone Clone". FOSS Force. 2017-12-27. Retrieved 2019-08-30.
2. https://www.livemint.com/Technology/KMKuwDabJhVOIH4wDe0wUI/Eelos-crowdfunding-success-shows-how-important-data-privacy.html

Self-published sources have an exception for uncontroversial self-descriptions, in which they are treated as equivalents to primary sources, but they can not be used for descriptions of things other than themselves. — Newslinger talk 17:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Please catch up on the gitlab statement; it has been changed.

I agree FossForce and LiveMint are poor sources. However, I also think 1-5 are not much better. Infosec-handbook.eu is the only place I've found independent, professional looking, detailed coverage of /e/ that does not simply parrot or regurgitate the primary source info' for details on /e/.

Some notes on the list of references, and whether they are on the "reliable sources" list.

Linux Journal - No. Also, author Glyn Moody wrote book, Rebel Code: Linux And The Open Source Revolution, which has a chapter on Duval and Mandrake, and is highly praised in Duval's blog about page. This could indicate some lack of independence, collaboration, or favorable bias. In addition, the article has several links to hackernoon (non-reliable, primary source) and indidea (Duval's personal blog).

ZDNet - Yes. However, the article uses indidea (Duval's blog) and kickstarter links as the main source for details.

Tech Republic - No. Also references hackernoon and e's gitlab for details.

The Register - Yes, "reliable." However, also references hackernoon and e's gitlab for details.

Medium - Yes, but Non reliable.

Foss Force - No. Only 4 writers. Articles on /e/ are by Christine Hall, editor. So who edits the editor? Also references indidea (Duval blog) and e's kickstarter.

Live Mint - No. Also, Mostly uses kickstarter as source. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Caliwing deletion of FastCompany Source and statement, Claim of non-neutral edits

Please revert most of User:Yae4 edits and block him. He is clearly trying to hurt the project with non-neutral content. This can not be accepted Caliwing (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

aka Fairly representing all significant viewpoints (WP:DUE), including from the Fast Company article

I'm open to revising the statements from the apparently reliable source, to give due weight to its views. I'm not open to ignoring it.

 https://www.fastcompany.com/90385283/these-startups-aim-to-smash-apple-and-googles-smartphone-duopoly 

This source, Fast_Company, gives a fairly thorough coverage of e foundation and Purism/PureOS/Librem 5, and compares and contrasts the two. Partly because it includes similar info' as published by Free Software Foundation, the following was chosen for this article.

"Until e Foundation can offer its own hardware designed from scratch, it will have to rely on third-party hardware drivers that it doesn’t control. Avoiding that liability is one of the main goals of Purism and its forthcoming smartphone, the Librem 5."

Other comparisons not included in this article so far:

"Its eOS aspires to be a Google-free version of Android that has a wide range of device support. It’s not a new idea:..."

"Purism has been shipping laptops with a strong focus on security and privacy since 2015. It’s used the revenue from its laptops to fund development of its first smartphone. Like its previous devices, the phone runs Purism’s own version of Linux, giving it even more distance from the Google ecosystem than e Foundation’s Android-based system."

"With eOS, e Foundation is taking a Google-like approach, by trying to get its software on as many smartphones as possible in order to reach ubiquity. Purism, by contrast, is pursuing Apple-like vertical integration by developing its own operating system, optimizing hardware to run on it, and even launching a group of services under the banner of Librem One."

Suggestions for fair and neutral statements to include? -- Yae4 (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox, Package Manager

The section to the right has a reference to Package Manager where it mentions '...optional Repositories like F-Droid, Amazon Appstore or Google Play Store) (if installed)' this comment is out of place here. None of these Apps are installed in the /e/ ROM so a 'if installed' seems to be mischievous and entire sentence from optional to installed' needs to removed.Mnair69 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. That part of the infobox has been like that since May, before my edits began. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

No one is accusing you. The info box has wrong information which needs to be removed and is a request to the moderators. It mentions '...optional Repositories like F-Droid, Amazon Appstore or Google Play Store) (if installed)' this comment is out of place here. None of these Apps are installed in the /e/ ROM or can be installed on /e/ ROM's. An app like Google play store will not work on an OS like /e/ which has MicroG preinstalled. So a 'if installed' seems to be mischievous and entire sentence from optional to installed' needs to removed. -- Mnair69 (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Then I suggest taking more care with words like "mischievous" and where you put comments. We could discuss details like f-droid, Yalp or Aurora being installable, or details of /e/'s store, but this article has bigger problems with advertising tone, primary sources, original research, and conflict of interest. How much "features" detail to include is already being discussed below. Maybe other editors will have suggestions soon. I've already been criticized for deleting too much. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Features Section (was Recent edit by User:Yae4)

I do not believe that an uncited block of features belong on an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, since it makes it seem like an advertisement, and probably doesn't fulfill WP:NOTABILITY (if that is applicable to content). Oldosfan (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. For the record, all I did was re-format the material, with some small changes.

Yae4 (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice, should I remove it then? Oldosfan (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it should probably be removed. I'm going to add some reliable secondary sources to the article. If there is enough information in those articles to form a "Features" section, we can rewrite it. — Newslinger talk 04:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

done. if there's anything else that needs to be done just ask Oldosfan (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I tend to disagree here. Listing the main core features to show the specificities of a project is appropriate for an Encyclopedia. It's just facts. Why should this be considered advertisement to list features? Caliwing (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Liliputing.com versus InfoSec-Handbook.eu, as secondary sources

I added a liliputing reference without giving it too much thought, but now that infosec handbook has been challenged, and I noticed the liliputing article was based on an XDA Developers article, and none of the 3 is in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources , I'd appreciate some help with comparing and contrasting why one is a good source but the other isn't, because I'm not seeing it. Here's my start.

Liliputing	Infosec Handbook
No wiki page	also no wiki page
Used many times in wikipedia	Only once in wikipedia, so far
Wide ranging	Security speciality
5 staff in about	4 staff in about
popular articles	very detailed articles
takes advertisements and donations	self-funded
promotes products	no promotion

More? -- Yae4 (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Liliputing is not on WP:RSP because it has never been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard. Popular group blogs like Liliputing are a borderline case, since editors could classify it as either a self-published source or a marginally reliable publication. Feel free to start a noticeboard discussion to clarify the issue, if you want to determine whether Liliputing should be removed from other articles. — Newslinger talk 17:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:MicroG for improvement, if interested

There should be a microG page; /e/ uses it... Could you help make the draft, Draft:MicroG, better? -- Yae4 (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the talk page for /e/ Operating System. Not sure why this particular section asking help for a page on MicroG has been added -- Mnair69 (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Case User:Yae4

User:Yae4 is doing some repeated vandalism on this page. He has removed most of its content, and is acting repeatedly. His tone is not neutral, he is clearly trying to discretit the /e/ project. Caliwing (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed mosly with comment above. Actually I'm afraid that it is worse: User:Yae4 edits on the /e/OS page is not neutral and according to what he's trying to post, he's clearly trying to advertize some (competing?) projects like Purism on this page. I think this can NOT be accepted on Wikipedia. Indidea (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Re "vandalism": See here: User_talk:Caliwing#September_2019. My user page states my relationship with the topics, does yours? -- Yae4 (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Newslinger Please can we have a moderator intervention to resolve this issue of frequent changes and deletion to the details on the page-- Mnair69 (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that User:Indidea and User:Caliwing are sockpuppets of the User:Mnair69, who may have financial interest in the /e/ project. They have been frequently involved in mono-topic editing which seems very suspicious. Someone should probably do a checkuser Oldosfan (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

also I'd like to add that both users edit history have been concentrated around the /e/ project so much that they seem like single purpose accounts Oldosfan (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No affiliation at all with the proejct, just a tester and observer, and big interest in Linux and open source. On the other hand, the repeated edits from Yae4 on this page clearly show the purpose of his edits. This guy obviously has a destruction mission or I missed something. Caliwing (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

​​​​Hi everyone, I'd like to clarify that I'm not an administrator on Wikipedia. In content disputes, all involved editors (including administrators) have equal voices, and we are expected to reach a solution by consensus. Please note that sockpuppetry is not allowed on Wikipedia, and that everyone is limited to one account in most cases. Also, it is considered bad form to accuse other editors of sockpuppetry without adequate evidence ("casting aspersions"). If there is clear-cut evidence of sockpuppetry, anyone can open a sockpuppet investigation with the evidence and post the link here.

For anyone who missed the discussion here and on the reliable sources noticeboard during the past week, a community discussion has concluded that there were significant portions of this article that did not meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline. We're in the process of removing content based on self-published sources and replacing it with content based on secondary reliable sources to better meet Wikipedia's quality standards. This means that much of the original content from the December 2018 version of the article must be replaced or rewritten.

If you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia's core content policies, please take some time to read the following pages:

• Verifiability
• No original research
• Neutral point of view

Please feel free to ask any questions you may have. — Newslinger talk 16:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the explaination. Yes I have a question about primary and secondary sources because I think in some cases, some facts can clearly be checked from primary sources and you won't find content in secondary sources about it. Let me give an example in the /e/OS case: the list of supported devices, like it was added recently by a user, is on their gitlab. That's facts, can be checked. Is there any issue with using such a source? Another case: reference to source code. That's a primary source, just facts. Does it qualify as an acceptable source? Caliwing (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

​​​​​ FYI, I've asked for help first on including /eOS technical info on Duval's bio page, and a look at recent edits. I don't know how ordinary editors could prove puppetry, but it also appears to me Caliwing and Indidea are unusually attached to Duval and his projects, and have similar behavior on Wikipedia, around the same times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ga%C3%ABl_Duval -- Yae4 (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not affiliated to this project, I'm just a software engineer, curious about open source, privacy and technology in general. However [User:Yae4|Yae4]]: 1) clearly has a bias against the project and his account history shows that he is dedicated mostly to editing the /e/ page 2) has editing practises that go against Wikipedia rules. In particular all his edits show he's removing useful and balanced content in favor or non-neutral content against the project.Caliwing (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

See also section

A few were recently added and deleted, in apparently random order. So, should they be in order of relevance or similarity to eOS, alphabetical, or other? Should it only be mobile operating systems or also include other organizations? Because the pull-downs at the page bottom include extensive lists, divided by types, my opinion is the See also section should only include Wiki pages connected by mention in this article text (and based on sources). eOS is not really in the same category as many now listed. I'd include other Android ROMs - CyanogenMod, CopperheadOS, LineageOS, and Replicant because they are all similarly Android-based or privacy oriented; and PureOS and Purism because of the FastCompany source comparison. The others at the top of the list now (FIrefox, Ubuntu Touch, KaiOS and Sailfish) are non-Android, without sourced comparisons. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

FirefoxOS, UbuntuTouch (and probably Sailfish) have similarities with /e/OS because they are ungoogled mobile OS. (which, on the other hand, is not the case of LineageOS that you are citing). As /e/OS is mostly about unGoogling, I think this really makes sense to have it (KaiOS may be more discutable). Regarding the order, my vote is for alphatical order.Caliwing (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)