Talk:GrapheneOS/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

GitHub (or Gitlab) as sources at Wikipedia

The counts don't always carry much weight, but GitHub has been insource nearly 11000 times,[1] and gitlab around 550 times[2] So using GitHub as a WP:PRIMARY source is not wiki-forbidden. Someone should review Reliable Sources Noticeboard for discussions. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

A significant portion of the (~11000) Github citations were actually either the repositories themselves (github.com/<username>/<reponame> which in turn actually goes to a user-created "README" file in the root of the repository) or Github.io websites (Github Pages[3]) which are also user generated/authored (<username>.github.io) in some manner by someone/something with push access to the repository and would be considered WP:UGC, more specifically Github Pages are blogs. Commits are authored by humans or bots and they are pushed to the repository by someone with push access, either the same person as the commit author or another human/bot and is all entirely situational to each environment. Commit histories can also be overwritten, changed, removed, moved around, etc and the only way for someone to have the original commit is if they have the commit hash which would require WP:OR into finding the specific commit hash and it would still be WP:UGC. This applies the same to Gitlab as they have the exact same functionality over there regarding issues and commits and version control. I do see a tiny fraction of Github issues used as citations, but I will explain why I disagree with their usages here.

Github issues and discussions are different and can be authored by anyone unless the repository blocks creation of these discussions by outsiders, but Github issues can be deleted or locked only by someone with push access or admin access to the repo or organization[4]. It certainly falls under WP:PRIMARY but I don't believe these would be reliable citations because these are significantly WP:UGC and have heavy inherent bias because the repository owners or administrators can control the narrative. A repository owner can block someone from commenting on an issue but refuse to delete it and allow others to post on it, forbidding them to comment in response to others. They can delete issues they don't like or lock discussions on them while the admins can still comment on it. Even if a secondary source decided to report on it (which many have already regarding the Bromite situation), the repository admins have the full ability to control the narrative in some way whether it's deleting the discussion, deleting parts of it, hiding comments, locking it, etc. Until the repository is put in an "archived" state or is deleted, the admins can manage everything there [5].

In short, Github and Gitlab are entirely revolved around WP:UGC and admins of the repositories can control everything there. EndariV (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You gave no specific examples, only general claims, so I won't respond to most of what was said. As to criteria for inclusion:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

Micay saying his GrapheneOS project wants other projects to not use GrapheneOS sources is almost the opposite of self-serving, in my view, and I see nothing unusual or surprising WP:REDFLAG about what is found in these WP:ABOUTSELF sources to be cited.

• it does not involve claims about third parties;

The individual WP:ABOUTSELF statements by Micay to be cited do not involve such claims. They simply say Micay wishes for other projects to not use GrapheneOS sources. If you follow entire discussion threads, it may be true eventually Micay makes general claims about third parties, with no specific examples; these are not the statements to be cited.

• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

No unrelated events are involved, as far as can see.

• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and

True. Claims otherwise are, basically, being intentionally dumb.

• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

True with caveats. Some of the other sources cited in this article, if not most, are based on Micay tweets, GrapheneOS website, or other self-published info being re-published with more or less additional info' from the source authors. Sources in this article should be examined more closely to see if they are really "reliable" sources, or are in essence just re-publishers of WP:PRIMARY material.

Re: admins can manage (content at Github): Yes, this is why citing archive.org links is preferred. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It's actually preferable to preserve the original URL in cite template. If needed, use |url-status=unfit with an archive-url to hide the original URL. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

To make it easier to find the suggested WP:PRIMARY, WP:ABOUTSELF published information, here are the links. The first two are enough.[6][7] The third example provides more discussion, but is probably too critical of 3rd parties to be used. It also demonstrates why one might call it "badgering" or "abuse" for descriptive purposes - not for the article.[8] Yae4 (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Note regarding "insource" search at top of this Talk section. My understanding is that search shows where github (or gitlab) was used as "references" although spot checks show it also pulls from external links.

Two footnotes have been added with only neutral paraphrase or brief quotes from Micay statements, consistent with the criteria outlined above as I understand them. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Many of the GitHub sources also come from Wikidata or articles for infobox latest software release information. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Do not add them, per EndariV. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

No response to my point-by-point justification of how it meets all criteria for inclusion? -- Yae4 (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Not warranted of my time, with remaining other issues about interpretation / original research and undue weight. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Origo.hu source deletion

I will be removing this source. No one has spoken out in favor of this source, aside from me, long ago, and limited mixed support by 84.x. 84.x previously said "Origo citation is trivial, I favor to remove it if it's not needed to establish notability of the subject." I agree on "trivial". IMO, being "needed to establish notability" is irrelevant although I previously did use similar arguments; it does not support "reliability" of the source, and thus does not really more than trivially support notability of GrapheneOS. After reviewing the source again, it also has the following weaknesses:

• It uses a photo sourced from AndroidPIT; they did not even get their own photo (which has only entertainment value, not particular to GrapheneOS).
• It references a Packt pub article for a portion of the info'. In previous discussions, Packt pub is generally agreed to be a poor source. -- Yae4 (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Newlinger said above (adding excerpt), "commenters in deletion discussions generally expect qualifying sources to be longer than the Origo article. Packt Hub is a blog that promotes Packt's main publishing business – the blog is a borderline source, and routine announcements like the page provided tend to be ignored in deletion discussions when it's not coming from a more highly regarded source." This was talking about article "notability", slightly different context, but point is: Packt Hub is an unreliable source; Origo article partly used Packt Hub as a source; therefore, all considerations combined, Origo is an unreliable source, in this Article context. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The citation was supporting statements ("open source" and project history) previously disputed on this talk page before removal. By removing this source, the lede is now only supported by a singular other (albeit trivial) secondary source, which weakens the independent coverage and verifiability (what secondary sources say) on subject. Deleting it outright – without evaluation of reliability in context (straightforward and uncontroversial statements) – as a participant to such dispute could be seen as disruptive or tendentious editing. In other words, my words should be interpreted to at least support using it in the lede (an Android-based, open-source, privacy and security-focused mobile operating system). No particular issue taken to remove it from the history section right now, because there is a good availability of citations to support the statements made there. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Note addition above in this section.

• Please commit. In your opinion is that particular origo.hu source "reliable" and "independent" enough to use here, or is it a short, poor, unreliable non-independent source? I am trying hard to understand your meanings and WP:AGF. I thought I did. Clarity on your bottom lines would be appreciated, to avoid mis-understanding.
• Re: "the citation was supporting statements": Unless I am mistaken, we are supposed to follow where reliable secondary and limited primary sources lead. We are supposed to include information based on those reliable secondary or limited primary sources, not decide what we wish to include, then select sources to support those statements. Statements unlikely to be challenged do not even require sources; See WP:WHYCITE.
• Re:"Tendentious": WP:TENDENTIOUS is a serious thing to bring up, especially repeatedly or in context of Talk like this. See section WP:AOTE. See section WP:BRINK. See also essay WP:BRD. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Re: "The citation was supporting statements ("open source"": A 2019 source cannot say anything about 2021 and 2022 requests by GrapheneOS for CalyxOS and bromite projects to not use GrapheneOS sources. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliable for an Android-based, open-source, privacy and security-focused mobile operating system. Do not misinterpret statements from 2021-2022 to have changed source model / development model, which were also not relevant or significant to be covered in secondary sources. The statement from a 2019 source still seems 100% valid. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources added on 21 July 2022

As of Special:Permalink/1099531430 and the subsequent {{Advert}} and {{Primary sources}} tagging: I agree. The features section probably has indiscriminate examples of features since Special:Diff/1099482303/1099531430, and much of them are sourced to a primary source (the official website). I would remove what's not said in secondary sources, it may bear no encyclopedic significance if it's not discussed in those. But I think the new "supported devices" table in the compatibility could be kept as more up-to-date information of existing information mentioned in secondary sources, even if cited to a primary source – sans the user-generated endoflife.date source, I would remove that one reference. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

For reasoning about primary sources, I'll refer to User:Amolith's messages from 6–7 July 2022 here. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I rechecked, the primary source doesn't support it (and the one from FAQ previously discussed is more difficult to verify). There is no good verifiability for the table. I'd remove it, unless there's a better citation soon. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

See also WP:NOTCATALOG I would remove all of the fluffy advertising details. It's non-encyclopedic, and we should not copy the website to wikipedia. Anybody interested in the advertising details can go read the website. Lastly "Secure Camera and Secure PDF Viewer" already appear in History, with secondary source, so we don't need to repeat it with added advertising details. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have a better idea what you see as "advertising", so be WP:BOLD. Improve it, or if it can't be improved, delete it. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

CellularNews source addition and removal, and conflict with HowToGeek

So two new citations were added by User:Stellarnebula in Special:Diff/1096514055 to address WP:NPOV by adding some disadvantages about the OS. I don't see any reason to revert this, but the last citation needs to be reverted. The two new citations by "CellularNews" and HowToGeek have conflicting information, mainly regarding whether you can actually install Google apps and some other miscellaneous information. The HowToGeek article[9] was created in March 23, 2022. The CellularNews article[10] does not appear to have a creation date so I'm inclined to believe some WP:OR was done here to determine where this creation date of June 28, 2021 came from that would not be easily accessible to the reader. In the HTG article it states that "Technically, you could install the Google Play Store yourself" (...) while in CellularNews it states "GrapheneOS, on the other hand, won’t let even the slightest implementation of Google into its system". I'm not an Android developer, but from my understanding this is "still letting Google into your system" and implies there is still a way to "let Google into your system" which are not aligned with what HTG says which is saying you can install Google Play Store, otherwise it would not have been possible and there would not have been any reason for HTG to say that. The CellularNews article is directly conflicting the device support information that the HTG article states. CellularNews says only up to the Google Pixel 5 (smartphone) is supported when HTG says up to the Google Pixel 6 Pro is supported. (Some minor original research here) The CellularNews appears to have copy-pasted a portion of information about "supported installation OS's" from the primary source grapheneos.org's installation guide[11]. And in my opinion, the stuff about "Slight Performance Decrease" by CellularNews seems very opinionated and are based on personal observation rather than any real statistics or testing and lack much context other than a supposed "two second delay". The CellularNews article doesn't seem like a good citation to include and if we want disadvantages we should probably find something else, but I don't know if a "pros and cons" is a good idea to improve the WP:NPOV situation as Wikipedia isn't for "pros and cons". _{I don't know why User:Jabrodoah reverted my attempt at being friendly to new contributors to the page, but sorry if I cannot do that.. Thank you IP 84.250.14.116} EndariV (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I do appreciate User:Stellarnebula and in general more outside users that help out with the page that is in dire need of more outside contributors. Hope that's clear with everyone :) EndariV (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The cellular news summary and source added in Special:Diff/1096514055 was removed in Special:Diff/1096554423. with edit summary "Remove outdated and conflicting citation" See Talk, which was confusingly added to an unrelated September 2020 monologue. I have moved the newer discussion to this new section for less confusion.

• Re "The CellularNews article[12] does not appear to have a creation date so..."

False. It clearly says: "Published: June 28, 2021" slightly below the title.

• Re Conflicting information between sources

This does make things more difficult, but it is not reason to ignore one source while including others you may consider to be more accurate. We are supposed to:

WP:NPOV in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

• Re "The CellularNews article doesn't seem like a good citation..."

I also had doubts about the Cellular News source, because it is another advert'-infested click-bait site like so many others. I also agree it has some conflicting information I do not agree with. I agree it appears to regurgitate information from Micay's website and Twitter. However, they gave a relatively thorough review, and independent secondary sources (if they really are) are allowed to give their opinions. Unless they have no editorial policy, or have been found to be a non-reliable source at wikipedia, or some valid reasons they are unreliable, we should discuss how to explain it in the article.

For now, without having formed an firm opinion on reliability of the source, I will therefore be restoring the source previously added by Stellarnebula, and including a modified summary. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The creation date (modified date) is June 25, 2021. The publication date is June 28, 2021. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Cherry picking "history" section from CopperheadOS#History

I was OK with and support having very brief or limited coverage of history pre-Graphene (2019) in this article, with link to CopperheadOS#History for more detail. The article as recently edited by IP editor has copied more from CopperheadOS#History, but only including selected bits, and excluding other parts. IMO, this leaves a clearly non-WP:NPOV presentation in this article. I suggest going back to the previous, more neutral, brief, limited coverage, and let interested readers go to the other article for the ugly, gory details. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

See #History, transition from CopperheadOS with "Android Hardening", to GrapheneOS. The previous revision gave an impression Micay transitioned to work on GrapheneOS in 2019, which could be somewhat misleading or inaccurate (while cited sources state Micay wanted to continue developing CopperheadOS and Android Hardening before rebranding in 2019 as GrapheneOS). The current revision is the minimal information of history necessary. The CopperheadOS history section summarizes well for the CopperheadOS article subject what happened after (the rebranding to GrapheneOS and legal dispute), in the context it is necessary for that article. Rehearsing this argument again on this talk page isn't improving the article. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC); edited 11:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

To express my concern with the previous version more fluently, I (as the reader) had an impression that the project started in 2019, while it seemed (according to cited sources) in fact be a continuation of former projects under a new branding. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

As a more or less objective, and definitely un-connected editor of this article, IMO the GrapheneOS project by that name did start in 2019; before that it was something else, even less notable and not really worthy of mention here. I am well aware of the "continuation" narrative and POV Micay/GrapheneOS wishes to push (see also new section to follow), and the seemingly endless efforts to push that here and elsewhere. I am also aware Micay may have been "fired",... and suffice to say this article currently is not neutral, IMO. I agree I also have no desire to discuss or debate the actual history, but as already stated I prefer less detail over misleading, biased detail, as the article now stands. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no doubts the initial release of the operating system under the GrapheneOS name was in 2019, and so I've kept the infobox "initial release" date as 2019. I believe the history section is accurate now and representative of what multiple cited sources say, however if you still find me biased, consider citing reliable sources (like how I've done) to represent an alternative viewpoint of this dispute (if it fits the policy). Consider also dispute resolution, such as WP:3O. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

If something was excluded, this article currently doesn't mention "firing" Micay or how the two "defected" there, although it mentions a "schism". Worthwhile to maybe add there. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Other sources at CopperheadOS support "...led to Donaldson firing Micay in June of that year.". Aside: Micay's reddit post stating he was fired is also in archive. Again, best to keep it shorter and sweeter here, but not misleading. By packing in selected marginal notability, marginal source details to your liking, you open it up for expansion, and more discussion. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Which marginal source details are you referring to? 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"Micay continued the development of CopperheadOS as well as the Android Hardening project." and "the Android Hardening project rebranded. This was explained extensively above[13]. Can you explain the strengths of Origo blurb/post(?)[14] and pro-linux.de slightly longer post(?)[15] as sources? Again, they previously (weakly) supported notability arguments earlier, but do you think they are strong articles/sources? You think those particular tidbits are important for readers, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE in context of this article on the OS? If so, why/how? -- Yae4 (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Both have significant coverage in multiple sources, without controversial statements or doubts expressed here about them being unreliable. If you find there is undue weight, state and cite another viewpoint (if it fits the policy) – I'm really confused how you come up to these conclusions or debates about NPOV, without citing a contrary argument/viewpoint. Is the author's expertise somehow at question? Origo citation is trivial, I favor to remove it if it's not needed to establish notability of the subject. I don't see wrongs about the Pro-Linux citation. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You criticized LinuxReviews, and previously supported Origo, in general hand-waving ways. So I am asking you to give specific reasoning why you support or don't support these particular sources. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

For general scrutiny, I first and foremost view if it's a WP:UGC source (generally unacceptable), such as in the case of LinuxReviews but not in the case of Origo (gave less initial doubt for Origo, than i.e. issues on GitHub). Thenafter, I used the existing sources (added by you in 2019: Special:Diff/916126712), and we now seem to agree the Origo source is at least trivial (further scrutiny). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I've understood, while such citation is not good standalone, it may be used to support a statement cited by another source. And that information may be of interest to readers, because multiple cited sources agreed and wrote about it (didn't notice disagreements, else they would have been given their own viewpoint for WP:DUE). I'm willing to take Pro-Linux to WP:RSN, if that's somehow a problem (again, it was already in the article and not scrutinized by either of us before this conversation). 84.250.14.116 (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

For github, don't forget to scroll down from WP:UGC to WP:SELFSOURCE to see how that can be allowable. PS. You should change your tags to something more like WP:PRIMARY, and less like dubious or user-generated, but we are mixing topics here; this should be in the other section. On the other publications, I was hoping to see points from WP:NEWSORG, or what makes you think one is a blog or the other has editorial oversight, etc. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

GitHub WP:SELFSOURCE, points 1/2/4 are not met or are in doubt for the statements, particularly unable to directly verify their authenticity (without additional references to establish them to be self-published and correctly attributed).

Pro-Linux impressum: Eine Haftung für die Richtigkeit der veröffentlichten Artikel kann trotz sorgfältiger Prüfung durch die Redaktion von Pro-Linux nicht übernommen werden., if that points to anything about general reliability of Pro-Linux. However, I also could not find a separate editorial policy (Redaktionspolitik). As the statements from the Pro-Linux citation could be found elsewhere too, I have no doubts about its reliability for supporting the specific statements in this article. The authors are also not anonymous, nor using anonymous sources.

Likewise, Origo's impressum lists the staff/editors, before I repeat myself.

I don't want to argue about this anymore here, this is a topic for WP:RSN. Care has been taken to make sure statements from "marginal sources" are supported by other sources as well, with no indications made of them being generally unreliable or consciously publishing false information.

84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I've added history about the dismissal. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm also done here, with the adequate sourcing available. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Android MAC randomization

In the features section, there is (or may be) a footnote about MAC address randomization.

In comparison to AOSP, devices running Android 10 or Android 11 use a persistent randomized MAC address by default. As of Android 12, persistent randomization is used by default but non-persistent randomization is used in specific scenarios; non-persistent randomization can also be enabled from a developer options screen by users on devices running Android 11 or Android 12.

I was looking for third-party sources to cite for the footnote. This topic could warrant its own article upon more research, but the history of different versions of MAC randomization goes further back in Android timeline to Android 5.0 through 7.1, or 8.0 depending on source. The prior example (from the old days of Android 7.1) also explains a threat model for contextualization (to convert the text into prose with educational encyclopedic text). 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

A quick side-note: There's a chance these annotations (footnotes) could be more suited for Wikibooks, so I've not expanded upon this. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Jonathan Lamont's review at MobileSyrup

Lamont, Jonathan (20 March 2022). "A week with GrapheneOS exposed my over-reliance on Google". MobileSyrup. Blue Ant Media. Retrieved 6 July 2022.

While I believe the MobileSyrup site has some low-quality clickbait posts too, I believe this article (and other news reporting by Lamont at MobileSyrup) could be considered reliable in context for WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV statements in the reception section, with convincing critical evaluation of the subject (and also used to possibly demonstrate an alternative viewpoint versus the c't 3003 reception I previously added, which was removed). There's a question if the article (biased as an opinion piece) could be used to support another disputed but straightforward statement ("open-source") as a fact.

Engadget has also published a news article using one of Lamont's articles (to my surprise) at MobileSyrup as a source, so anecdotally Lamont's work in the technology field could be seen as previously published by an independent, reliable publication. Actually, searching with DuckDuckGo web search engine, I found several other Engadget and VentureBeat articles using MobileSyrup as a source, though I trust Engadget's editorial team more for fact-based, non-opinion statements.

Referencing the article it in the reception section would also address some concerns of neutral point of view. Particularly, Lamont says works quite well but also it's often not a seamless experience like using an unmodified Pixel or an iPhone. It also agrees with the (now removed) statement from Janssen (c't 3003) about Google Play working well in the operating system (despite the different approach). 84.250.14.116 (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I am also aware of some promotional / sponsored articles (not entirely independent, disguised under news) being published at MobileSyrup (including from Lamont), so non-opinion statements passed as a fact at MobileSyrup need to be given more critical evaluation whether they are reliable or appropriate in context. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Poor first impression of MobileSyrup but will consider more carefully, and comment again later. I also previously, briefly looked at this source, because it is on Micay's suggested sources list in Github. My first impression is: "advert infested clickbait" group blog similar to Liliputing.
• Did you not see the linked "I replaced Android on a Pixel 3 with an Android-based privacy OS" in the first sentence? It did not appear on Micay's list either. Any reason not to consider both?
• About MobileSyrup[16]: "All news and reviews are proudly written by Canadians. MobileSyrup.com is Canada's source for the latest and most interesting stories in mobile technology. Tech is for everyone." may indicate biased favorable presentation of Canadian efforts, such as GrapheneOS.
• I do give credit for being somewhat lengthy "review" style. Independence and reliability is an open question.
• Another article by same author, not specifically covering GrapheneOS, did not impress by including Twitter as a source or reference. -- Yae4 (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• mobilesyrup has been wiki-sourced 200+ times,[17] for what it's worth.
• Mobilesyrup.com is not on perennial sources list, and was not found in a search of RSN discussions.[18]
• Author's words support group blog post quality: Lamont wrote, mid-way, "In my first impressions post, I mentioned running into an issue with my contacts not syncing. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for expanding from the earlier article. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Understand clearly: I oppose using this "advert infested click bait" group blog (low, unreliable) quality source. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Off we go to WP:RSN#Jonathan Lamont's review at MobileSyrup. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 379#Jonathan Lamont's review at MobileSyrup, for future reference. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  How would you summarize that discussion? Do you think the comments there justify using Mobilesyrup 5+1 times? To me, there was a lack of endorsement of the source. -- ~~~~ Yae4 (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  My summary is somewhere between Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply, and Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting, with only 4 opinions given. We've probably used it too much. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Advert tag

Special:Diff/1100779326: Added {{Advert}} tag: Considered NPOV tag, but the presentation is so biased, Advertising is still justified. One example: Lacking context of "Dirty Pipe". ArsTechnica source says "many third-party ROMs like GrapheneOS were able to integrate the patch in early March." which is a passing mention in Article about Samsung.

Does Special:Diff/1101224032/1101235151 address the concern about Dirty Pipe? Are there remaining concerns about viewpoint or advertising? 84.250.14.116 (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Every little bit helps, but does it address my comment or include context like: ArsTechnica source says "'''many third-party ROMs''' like GrapheneOS were able to integrate the patch in early March." No, it did not. Is it really "notable" or "different" that GrapheneOS provides a camera app? No, but the article is written to imply it. Is including a PDF viewer worthy of mention twice, and is it really "different" to be included? No. And then there's the biased excerpt of the 2018-2019 history. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

What you are saying does not make sense. Instead of tagging this as an advertisement, try to actually elaborate on why the Camera app from GrapheneOS is "notable". And there are lots of reasons for it:

- It does not require storage permission at all, in contrast with other camera apps, including gcam. Instead, it uses the media API. Source: https://github.com/GrapheneOS/Camera/blob/main/app/src/main/AndroidManifest.xml See that there is no storage permission declared there. This is verifiable by actually downloading the camera app and observing that it does not ask for storage permission, and that you cannot grant it the permisson even if you want to (because it is not declared in the manifest).

- Automatic removal of exif metadata except for the orientation. Source: https://grapheneos.org/usage#grapheneos-camera-app. This verifiable by downloading the app, taking a picture and checking the Exif metadata so that you do not have to take their words for it.

- Not hardcoding the microphone permission, so that the user can record videos or taking pictures without granting it said privileges. Source: https://grapheneos.org/usage#grapheneos-camera-app

This is verifiable by actually downloading the app, running it while not granting it the microphone permission.

The same thing goes for the PDF Viewer app: it does not require the storage permission to function. Source: https://github.com/GrapheneOS/PdfViewer/blob/main/app/src/main/AndroidManifest.xml

Once again, this is verifiable by literally just downlading the app and seeing that it does not ask for storage permissions, nor can you grant it said permission even if you wanted to.

Bear in mind that these permissions are enforced by the operating system and is not something an app developer can bypass/lie about: https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/permissions/overview

These are absolutely worth mentioning and more emphasis should be put on why these apps are substantially more secure/private than the alternatives, not the other way around. LennartMcKenzie (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Statements should be cited to reliable sources and require no original research to verify. Preferably independent sources. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC); edited 05:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with much of what Yae4 says here about the apps in the current state of the article, however I'm not aware how the 2018-2019 history is "biased" in your view? Is there a viewpoint which has not been given any weight? 84.250.14.116 (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:GrapheneOS#Cherry_picking_"history"_section_from_CopperheadOS#History, not resolved, or start another new section. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, my concern with the "many third-party ROMs" wording is {{Which}} tagging (weasel words). Only GrapheneOS was mentioned in the source, so in my original edit, I only said GrapheneOS instead of quoting the source. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Independent sources may place the uniqueness or not into context. This article should give context, and not imply GrapheneOS was the only one when they were not, according to independent source. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but I've now added another viewpoint to "ROM" as a footnote. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Disagree, further adding on to LennartMcKenzie PDF viewers have been historically devastatingly insecure and responsible for a large amount of malware. There have even been code execution vulnerabilities recently in PDF-XChange (I think it was this, one of the Windows ones). 98.97.32.199 (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The pdf.js article has discussion about security. XDA source says "Secure PDF Viewer" is based on pdf.js. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

How-To Geek reference

Just a note, the How-To Geek reference looks to me to be dictated by advertisers or written with a conflict of interest. I do not consider it to be an independent source. But what am I to judge. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Not entirely disagreeing, but they had enough insight to say, "Of course, GrapheneOS is just like any other Android operating system. You can sideload apps and games from places like APKMirror." as well as mention F-Droid as an option. This source, as some others, also brings to light how the Apps app and sandboxed play may be recent developments, because as they say, "GrapheneOS doesn’t include any sort of app store by default. Technically, you could install the Google Play Store yourself, but that defeats the purpose of many of the privacy enhancements." It's probably WP:OR to connect those dots, but may be factors in whether to have "current" Features section (wiki is not a newspaper) or only History. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

References

XDA source on Camera and PDF Viewer, and 9to5Google source on "early 12L release" parrot Twitter?

Also see Talk:GrapheneOS/Archive 2#Citation_by_Huff_at_Android_Police_repeats_and_references_a_citation_by_Hazarika_at_XDA for earlier discussion. It says at the bottom, "Source: GrapheneOS on Twitter (1, 2)" with links.[19] Should this source treated as an independent, reliable source? Or should it be avoided, or treated as a primary source per WP:RSPTWITTER? -- Yae4 (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Same thing for 9to5Google source on release of 12L before Google.[20]. Questionable sources. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Device compatibility and support table

I've created a new device support comparison table for the article, after removing the previous one cited to user-generated sources not WP:ABOUTSELF.

Device support comparison

GrapheneOS supports end-of-life devices through extended support releases. Device support comparison (as of 24 July 2022) Device OEM security updates GrapheneOS support Pixel Old version, no longer maintained: End-of-life ? Pixel XL Old version, no longer maintained: End-of-life ? Pixel 2 Old version, no longer maintained: End-of-life ? Pixel 2 XL Old version, no longer maintained: End-of-life ? Pixel 3 Old version, no longer maintained: End-of-life Old version, yet still maintained: Extended support Pixel 3 XL Old version, no longer maintained: End-of-life Old version, yet still maintained: Extended support Pixel 3a Old version, yet still maintained: Security updates until May 2022 Old version, yet still maintained: Extended support Pixel 3a XL Old version, yet still maintained: Security updates until May 2022 Old version, yet still maintained: Extended support Pixel 4 Old version, yet still maintained: Security updates until October 2022 Current stable version: Supported Pixel 4 XL Old version, yet still maintained: Security updates until October 2022 Current stable version: Supported Pixel 4a Old version, yet still maintained: Security updates until August 2023 Current stable version: Supported Pixel 4a (5G) Old version, yet still maintained: Security updates until November 2023 Current stable version: Supported Pixel 5 Old version, yet still maintained: Security updates until October 2023 Current stable version: Supported Pixel 5a (with 5G) Old version, yet still maintained: Security updates until August 2024 Current stable version: Supported Pixel 6 Current stable version: Security updates until October 2026 Current stable version: Supported Pixel 6 Pro Current stable version: Security updates until October 2026 Current stable version: Supported Pixel 6a Current stable version: Security updates until July 2027 Future release: Planned support Legend: Old version, not maintained Old version, still maintained Current stable version Latest preview version Future release

I didn't want to add this table to the article right away, due to concerns of this being promotional and using primary sources for the data. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to use Debian version history#Release table as a reference for implementation, before deviating from it. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

That article is "list class". Suggest looking for a "Good Article" to emulate instead. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Re. primary sources, I think those should be fine under WP:PRIMARY:

> A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

A device compatibility table seems like a "straightforward statement of fact", and also seems broadly analogous to the discographies/track listings example. 98.97.32.199 (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Basic facts like the project lead asking other projects to not use GrapheneOS sources should be in this article under the same criteria. Device compatibility tables are rather more like catalogs or technical manuals, which wikipedia is not. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

What on Earth? No, interpretations of statements that may or may not have been made by the project lead are not "basic facts" in the vein layed out by WP:PRIMARY. Besides, I thought the broad consensus of this talk page, and particularly the "open source" label discussion, has been that you do not have WP:NPOV on this point. I personally don't think it unenforcable statements made by one developer on Twitter (?) is notable, but I digress - regardless, this has nothing to do with the device compatibility table.

> Device compatibility tables are rather more like catalogs or technical manuals, which Wikipedia is not.

Hard disagree. Completely disagree that compatibility tables are only for catalogs or technical manuals, they are invaluable information in an encyclopedia and much of Wikipedia already makes use of such: see games listing compatible platforms, the version support table in LineageOS#Development, "compatible" devices in IBM_PC_compatible#First-generation_PC_workalikes_by_IBM_competitors, etc, etc, etc.

(do note if you haven't seen already on my talk page: I am also 71.212.97.11 and 75.172.38.252 due to networking configuration recently, this IP should stay consistent.) 98.97.32.199 (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I found several non-primary sources for device support: [21][22][23] (the last being outdated, but mentioning GrapheneOS previously had support for the 2 and the 2 XL). But again, I think that device compatibility is a "straightforward statement of fact" that can be supported by just a primary source.

I'll be WP:BOLD shortly and add it in with the citations. 98.97.36.93 (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

techtudo is a republisher: Com informações de Android Police, How-To Geek e GraphneOs; same for mobirank: źródło: GraphenOS | Android Police; Little or no discussion of those to in WP:RSN, but re-using Android Police is not a good sign. csoonline is copyright 2020 (not sure when published) so newer than the 2019 citations. There is some concern about IDG publications in previous RSN discussions. The re-brand to "Foundry (formerly IDG Communications)" doesn't make it look better IMO, but this source pre-dates that. That source does give some perspective by comparing /e/ and GrapheneOS.

"straightforward statement of fact": What Micay said to other projects on Github is also "straightforward statement of fact", so this seems to be less straightforward than it should be. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the republishers, I've removed those sources. I think Android Police itself (obviously not republishers) warrants further discussion: I've opened a new talk section about it.

What does CSOOnline being published in 2020 imply?

> What Micay said to other projects...

I find it strange you're so holed up on this point. This is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. 98.97.36.93 (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

At a minimum, the table needs another column for "References". I'd also like to have the table colors tweaked to a more neutral representation. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

My ideal would've been to find more detailed start/end dates for support, but I don't think that's easily available if not from primary sources and some Wayback Machine snapshots (which isn't great). 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

For future reference, no collapse template required in the article. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

References

CSO Online reference

In the meantime, I removed a comparison table which had a CSO Online reference. Needs consideration where this can be cited for supporting statements in the article. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

References

WebTekno sources Yugatech, another poor source

Webtekno source is a republisher of another tweet regurgitator Yugatech. See before adverts:

Kaynak : https://www.yugatech.com/news/grapheneos-is-a-security-and-privacy-focused-mobile-operating-system/#sthash.Pf6wd9sd.dpbs#WhlMqUtvpLPwVEDO.97

-- Yae4 (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Yae4 (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

YugaTech is still cited in the article directly. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Keeping fresh updates

Moot

 – 84.250.14.116 (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't understand why my modification has been canceled. The latest version of GrapheneOS was released the 11/05/2022, not 2 months ago.

I'm doing the modification again, please keep the section updated.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didyme33 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Because the edit also deleted a phrase and tag, without mentioning or justifying in edit summary. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding, re "please keep the section updated": A problem with articles like this is keeping such minutia details up to date, unless setup to be done automatically. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

revision 1090257312 reverted

Stale

 – No reliable, independent sources or new information to add. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason why this has been reverted.

> delete statement based only on twitter - unreliable source This makes absolutely no sense. The text said the GrapheneOS team announced something and I gave a link to the actual announcement by GrapheneOS, which was on Twitter. How is this not a reliable source for this matter?

Gaussgroessereuler (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RSPTWITTER and links from there. The referenced tweet is not only for "an uncontroversial self-description", and "Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight." -- Yae4 (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

It is an uncontroversial self-description, though... The text that the source was used for said that GrapheneOS announced something and the tweet contains the announcement by the official GrapheneOS twitter account. I don't see how that would constitute undue weight. Gaussgroessereuler (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Controversial - Was it accurate? Did it happen as predicted in a "few months" from February 2022 (i.e. May)? Self-description - No, it involves un-named third parties. Undue weight - See WP:UNDUE, and WP:RSUW. -- Yae4 (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

​​Following up: Because an apparently reliable source, Android Police covered the same info', it seems marginally OK for inclusion, although the undue weight issue is still a concern. I still feel we should not link Twitter, although some others editing the article would like to, for selected tweets. I will be seeking independent advice. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected, thanks to 84.x correlating Android Police with Valnet properties at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Apologies for ever adding statements based only on Android Police sources. Now removed. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Whether to include or mention celebrity tweets?

2nd opinion requested

 – More opinions could be desirable for a clearer consensus. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Finally, as suggested by El_C, I would support removing the statements about Dorsey tweet (and additionally Snowden tweet), as they add little. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more appropriate to address all the low effort endorsements to a single sentence list of celebrity endorsements. "GrapheneOS has been endorsed by Ed Snowden and Jack Dorsey." Perhaps endorsed isn't the right word, but that sort of list of celebrity nods seems common on musician/artist articles. Anonymous526 (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Admin El C said "I'm not sure why that entire paragraph about Jack Dorsey's tweet is even worth mentioning at all, Derek Lee'ing or not. But then again, this is the first time I've heard of this OS."[24] With this advice and WP:RSPTWITTER, it seems appropriate to delete statements about tweets. This is obviously not a "musician/artist" article. I originally added the bit about a Snowden tweet because we were struggling to convince reviewers this article was even notable, in late 2019,[25] and it and a wiki-link[26] might give the article a smidge of a notability push. If you've looked for recent "reliable" source coverage recently, as I have, you know there still isn't much now. Nevertheless, the tweet garbage should be deleted. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

That was just something that confused me. I'm not actually interested looking into this further, in any capacity, really. El_C 12:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the Dorsey tweet is pretty pathetic. I've now removed it. Perhaps the Snowden tweet is still needed for its original purpose. Has the OS/article now accrued sufficient notability independent of it? Anonymous526 (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete it. It's a poor source. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I was inclining to keep the Snowden tweet because of the "Did you know?" this article had, but I'll stay neutral to this opinion so I don't have to express better arguments based on policy. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I count two IDs saying let's delete tweet-only sources, and one abstaining. Sounds like time to delete the Snowden tweet mention too. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSPTWITTER isn't an issue for the Snowden tweets. The article is not citing the tweet itself directly, but multiple news sources mentioning it. Seems okay for the reception section, unless it's weighting for WP:UNDUE. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought we were near agreement that sources mainly regurgitating tweets would be considered not-usable? Here you favor regurgitating tweets because why? Defend notability, or make GrapheneOS look good/endorsed? Also, what about the 2-1 consensus? Maybe we should request more 3rd party opinions here too. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Snowden isn't a primary source, nor are the third-parties quoting Snowden. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Snowden is a self-published (unreliable, except maybe about himself) source. The third-party sources need to be judged on their merits, considering WP:DUE as well as meaning and intent of WP:RSPTWITTER. Sure, it made a catchy "hook" for DYK, but that time has passed. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

And the third-party sources aren't self-publications from Snowden. Simple fallacies. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

We can judge how much the cited sources relied only on paraphrasing tweets from Snowden. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Snowden tweets

I reviewed the sources (or 2 of 3) more carefully; here are my notes:

• Der Standard: says, "The ex-secret service employee would not leave standard Android on the device, but replace it with Graphene OS."[27] Source Weaknesses: passing mention in article about Snowden. Article is based only on paraphrasing Snowden tweets, so very weak source as a whole.

• la republica, about Snowden says: "The former contractor recommends using GrapheneOS software as the phone's base operating system," (and would do a bunch of other things).[28] Source weaknesses: Same weaknesses as above.

• Futurezone.de: Not Found error page (verification fail), but I am confident it has at least the same source weaknesses as above.[29]

Note: Glancing at Edward Snowden these sources - which are about Edward Snowden - were not found, nor was even mention of GrapheneOS. If weak sources about Snowden are not used there, what does it say about using them here, in an article about GrapheneOS.

Summary: Passing mentions of GrapheneOS in weak sources based on tweets, does not justify giving the tweet any weight. WP:RSPTWITTER says tweets do not carry much weight, WP:DUE, unless covered by reliable sources: these sources are weak paraphrasers of tweets. Also, "Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons." It also makes the article look like an advertisement. So, the Snowden tweet statement is stretching the intent of a lot of guidance, and it should be removed. -- Yae4 (talk)

Mentions of Snowden also appear in the Golem.de and heise online citations. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

When several factors point to not using it, why are you so determined to use it anyway? The Heise citation is a transcript of "independent" YouTube productions, i.e. non-reliable source. See Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion, ongoing. If we cite Golem.de much more, we will be including the whole article. It already is cited several times. Can find any non-bio, or better any related "tech" wiki-articles with similar endorsement tweet statements as this article? I tried and failed. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Plan to delete Unless someone provides support for why the Snowden tweet sentence should remain, or improves or better defends the citations, for reasons above, I plan to delete the sentence soon. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  There was a WP:3O request on this, but no volunteer responded. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete redundant repetitions of security and privacy in lead

Resolved

 – Special:Diff/1094619241, Special:Diff/1095466917. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

In the second sentence, "It is focused on privacy and security," is repetition of "security-hardened, privacy focused," in the first sentence. I suggest deleting the second, and attaching "and is compatible..." to the first sentence. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done 84.250.14.116 (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. "for selected smartphones, and is compatible with several Google Pixel smartphones." is odd, and should be changed to just ",and is compatible with several Google Pixel smartphones". Sorry I didn't catch that sooner. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's awkward right now, but there may be a small distinction between what it's aimed for and what it's compatible (or officially supported) with. So not done for now. I couldn't think of a better way to say it. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It should be changed. I still favor what I suggested. Also, I believe somewhere guidance says the lead does not need sources, and the lead material should have been included already in the body. -- Yae4 (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding: See MOS:CITELEAD -- Yae4 (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but because of this, the second request was not so easy to change, it takes more time to analyze the citations that are there and what they say about the jargon of definitions and support of Google Pixel devices. So not done for now. That's what I was trying to say when I couldn't think of a better way to say it. If you'd like to change this before your partial block is over, please propose the exact text to be replaced, what it's going to be replaced with, and what to do with the citations in more detail. Wikipedia:Edit requests style. It may take multiple steps. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I'm in no hurry, so let's go the easier route and wait a few days. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Citation by Huff at Android Police repeats and references a citation by Hazarika at XDA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Special:Diff/1094410995 added the following (see the diff for attribution, parts of reference improvements were by me):

In March 2022, [...] GrapheneOS applications Secure Camera and Secure PDF Viewer were released to the Google Play Store.

The latter citation by Huff says: As first noted by XDA, linking to the citation from Hazarika, hardly adding any new critical analysis of its own. I don't think this recycling of news is needed, I'd remove the Huff citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.14.116 (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

(1) Current version as modified by you "GrapheneOS applications Secure Camera and Secure PDF Viewer were released to the Google Play Store." is misleading and inaccurate summary of the source, because play store is not the only place they were released, as the XDA source you prefer[30] says: "For any app developers that read this, they are open source, so you can..." and includes link to github. This is why my version (you linked to diff above) says "GrapheneOS applications Secure Camera and Secure PDF were released, including at Google Play Store." This is a more correct summary of the source (and the true facts).

(2) By deleting the Huff source[31] you make it appear less attention was given by "independent" sources to the announcements of the apps, which risks criticism under WP:DUE. Personally, I doubt whether the 2 apps merit any mention in this article. Let's be honest, both XDA and androidPolice are heavily advert-infested sites; they publish whatever announcements they think their readers may look at; they are basically parroting what Micay tweeted or self-published about the apps - See the "Source" links to two tweets at the bottom of the XDA source. Neither source shows any signs of "critical review" or real independent thought, not that it's a criteria for wikipedia. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

For the record, the wording was changed by another user there: Special:Diff/1094647324. Because the latter source is no longer referenced, I'm inclined to keep the current revision as is, or agree with you to remove the paragraph. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The XDA links leans on WP:SYNTHESIS for released on GitHub, however if a compromise must be made then I would use the Android Police reference for avoidance of doubt, keep your original wording (revert Special:Diff/1094647324), and remove the XDA reference. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Independent, secondary, reliable sources are allowed to synthesize information. It is wikipedia editors who are not supposed to. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, and the XDA reference does not explicitly say they are released on GitHub. XDA says it's "open source" while linking to repositories (which we also do from the infobox in general). Huff says it's open source and the code is available on GitHub. Say "made available" instead of "released", to be so pedantic. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The meaning of the source is plain as day to me (plus consistent with the facts as I know them, not that that carries any weight at wikipedia). This twisting of meanings does make AGF difficult. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proprietary firmware, statement in Infobox?

Stale

 – The consensus seems to be between no consensus and "open source". The article moved on from "Open source with proprietary firmware" to "Open source" for source model, which is supported by multiple sources in the article. No reliable, independent and unambiguous sources have been brought up in this discussion to support the former "proprietary firmware" statement. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone found sources to support the proprietary components (firmware) statement in the infobox? It's been there for a long time without a supporting reference (since at least December 2021). If I had to take an educated guess, it may be something to do with baseband radio firmware and Android bootloader (Aboot), but so far the sources cited have only supported the statement of "open source" source model. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand it to refer to proprietary firmware blobs that must be included for some hardware components to function. It appears inconsistently in ROM articles, but Replicant_(operating_system) correctly says only "open source" as their goal is to entirely remove all proprietary blobs. Other articles the same phrase "Open source with proprietary components" is used include Resurrection_Remix_OS, LineageOS, and OmniROM. "Source model" could also be interpreted to include whether the ROM supports adding proprietary apps or not, as some, like GrapheneOS do, and others like Replicant do not. Template:Infobox_OS says, "Source model of the operating system." Thus, "Open source with proprietary components" is correct for GrapheneOS. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Though I seem to agree what you said about the ROM articles and Replicant in general, no original research. The statements must be verifiable. I'm also fine with leaving the citation tag there for longer if needed. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox OS/doc actually says development methodology. Leaning on synthesis here, but I've understood from the sources available in the article and GrapheneOS FAQ the project development model of GrapheneOS is described as "open-source", but firmware (security updates) is reliant on OEMs like Google. Google doesn't develop GrapheneOS (they develop Android), so I'm a bit more inclined to call it just "open-source" and stick to sources. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I've not found indication GrapheneOS builds their own hardware / firmware (yet). 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not really WP:OR. It's almost common knowledge, or should be. Wikipedia is unreliable, but see Android_(operating_system)#Licensing, search for "proprietary components", "blob" or "firmware" and look for sources if you wish. This is a basic Android thing, with only one exception AFAIK. Why are you asking, really? This has all appearances of continually trying to make GrapheneOS appear less "proprietary" and more "open source" in this article than they really are or behave. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to making a distinction where the development model differs between "open source" and "proprietary". It's a matter of question which entities follow which development model, and if the proprietary firmware development is related to GrapheneOS (this article subject) at all. Right now the infobox could be understood as GrapheneOS developing their own proprietary firmware, but I can't verify. The purpose is to clarify; perhaps {{Clarify}} would've also been appropriate or more appropriate, to improve verifiability. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

For GrapheneOS specifically: I'm not sure if there are actually relevant proprietary firmware blobs. The Pixel line of phones has fully open source kernel drivers and is a reason for why it's so widely supported among custom Android distributions. Other projects like LineageOS deal with a far wider range of phones, many of which do have proprietary drivers.

The LTE/baseband/SoC code is a closed-source blob. But this is closed-source in the same way that CPU microcode on typical computers is closed: it's a low level component that fully open source operating systems have to interact with, that doesn't affect their being open. (You wouldn't consider Arch partially closed-source, for example).

I think the question is, if binary blobs are

- not distributed with the project

- not a part of the GrapheneOS codebase

- but still necessary for the project to work

Is the project fully open source? I would say yes.

I'll also call back over to the Android article: their "Source Model" tag in the sidebar says "Open source (most devices includes proprietary versions of the OS with proprietary components, such as Google Play)". GrapheneOS's OS is open source (being an open fork of AOSP) and it doesn't contain proprietary components (Google Play must be downloaded manually if desired). 75.172.38.252 (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Almost ignoring the github (and twitter) posts by Micay asking or demanding other projects to not use their sources, those low level components necessary to make the devices work do make those things less than FOSS, and less than "open" source. Re the aside on Arch_Linux, FSF does not list Arch, although they list Hyperbola and Parabola, based on Arch[32]. Even unreliable wikipedia says "the default Arch Linux kernel contains nonfree proprietary blobs, hence the distribution is not endorsed by the GNU project." As I understand it, these issues are what distinguishes Replicant and makes it fully open, unlike most others. Finally, GrapheneOS adding features to help install proprietary apps, and use play services, makes the project far less than fully "open source" in my opinion. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Arch's nonfree blobs statement is referenced and verifiable in that article. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources backing up your claims of demands by the GrapheneOS project for other projects to not use their sources. However, asking other projects to not use their sources would be fine and not affect open source status as they can use them anyway. I could see valid reasons for this attitude from the developers if the GrapheneOS source code contains many device-specific or project-specific tweaks, but I'll note again that that does not affect nor put an asterisk on the project being open source.

Re. Arch Linux again, I brought it up because Wikipedia lists it as "Open Source" without any qualifications. The Free Software Foundation considers Hyperbola and Parabola (and not Arch) "free software" which is a distinct and much more loaded term than "open source". If we agree that Arch Linux falls into the same category of openness as GrapheneOS, then we should remove the "proprietary components (firmware)" label (and as I previously mentioned, it is unsourced and misleading: components implies things distributed with the project, like kernel drivers, which are all open source).

> GrapheneOS adding features to help install proprietary apps, and use play services, makes the project far less than fully "open source" in my opinion.

This is definitely wrong. Open-source's requirement lies within the code, not what the code does. Would you consider a web browser to be "less than open source" because it provides access to websites running obfuscated and nonfree JavaScript?

Yae4, please give a read through the section of the below article for the difference between free software and open source software, I believe you're conflating the two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software#Overview 71.212.97.112 (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yae4, I do not think you understand how open source software works. Under your wrapped definition of what an "open source operating system" is, you would have to add the "proprietary components (firmware)" label to almost every relevant operating systems out there, including Red Hat Enterprise Linux, all variants of Fedora Linux, all variants of Ubuntu and the vast majority of its derivatives, all variants of openSUSE and the vast majority of its derivatives, Arch Linux and the vast majority of its alternatives, and so on. In fact, you would need to add it to every single Linux distribution that's not using the Linux-libre kernel, since the Linux kernel itself contains blobs. Even then, operating systems like ReplicantOS or /e/OS require proprietary firmware to function. Just because they do not ship firmware updates doesn't mean the proprietary firmware isn't there. It gets to the point where the label no longer means anything, because it doesn't make any sense.

Next, let's have a look at your "help install proprietary apps" claim. As IP user 84.250.14.116 said, it does not matter what the code does, what matters is what the code actually is. GrapheneOS's codebase is entirely open source. Just because it gives the user the freedom to install whatever they want (including proprietary packages) does not make it not so. Are you going to make the claim that every Linux distribution which allows users to install proprietary packages from its repository not fully open source? Are you going to claim that Flatpak (especially with its defacto FlatHub repository) and AppImages are not fully open source, just because of they give the user the freedom to install proprietary software? This is total non-sense.

Finally, you mentioned Micay's tweets. It doesn't matter what his wishes are. What matters here is the licenses that he uses, which are Apache, MIT, GPLv2, and various open source licenses. Your code doesn't magically become proprietary if you express your wish that certain people don't use it when it is licensed under GPLv2.

Please, let Wikipedia be the place for objective information, and not your personal blog expressing your opinion. LennartMcKenzie (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I see your links, and suggest you WP:5P1, WP:5P2, and WP:NPOV, particularly the "nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." Sides and context here include both the letter of the Copyrights and Licenses, and the other-than-open statements of the project leader. It is difficult to summarize "GrapheneOS" in terms of a one category "source model", but all sides of the characterization should be included, somewhere, with due weight. Zero weight (as is now) to the post-2019 controversies over licensing is too low, even if, so far, the only sources are primary. Much other information has been added to the article based only on primary sources. Due weight is due weight in all relevant topics. I am OK with explanatory notes, or a whole section on Controversies, but zero mention is insufficient. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the problem with what you are doing. You are taking a side and attempting to impose your bias to a factual page.

Just because you do not like the lead developer doesn't mean that you can magically change what the License their code actually use and who owns the Copyright to what.

Let's apply the Neutral point of view here: If you think that every operating system that require proprietary firmware to function (practically all major relevant operating systems) should have the label "with proprietary firmware", then you should add it to almost every single operating systems artcile out there. Not doing so but only doing it to GrapheneOS is being biased and taking sides.

The same thing goes with licensing: If the developer express their opinion that certain people do not use their open source code warrants you calling it "less than open source", then you should also give that label to every single piece of software licensed under restrictive licenses like GPLv3. That license is a VERY restrictive license, prohibiting the use of that piece of software in any project (open source or not) that do not use the same license. People who write software under the Apache, MIT, or BSD licenses cannot use GPLv3 code at all. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html Does that make GPLv3 sftware not open source? Likewise, Bromie being GPLv3 cannot use Vanadium code because it is GPLv2, does that make Vanadium/GrapheneOS any less than open source?

Your logic does not make sense and y ou should really look past your bias and be neutral here. LennartMcKenzie (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Red_herring and Straw_man illogic doesn't help. Repeated lies about me or my feelings are just personal attacks per WP:NOPA. As for fixing all the other articles, don't worry, 84.250.14.116 has seen some light and is on the job.[33] -- Yae4 (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

So are accusing others of your own sins at this point. You are quite literally violating the rules about neutrality while accusing others of it. LennartMcKenzie (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

You are&* LennartMcKenzie (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

That said, the documented/primary-sourced requests by GrapheneOS for other projects to NOT USE THEIR SOURCES, should be at least noted in this article. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Relevance (or irrelevance) aside, the statement had no apparent effect on the source model or firmware. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

"As of" in past tense

Resolved

 – The statement was restored to "As of March 2022", and the citations have been replaced. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe Special:Diff/1100306954 changed the "As of" year to 2019 and then to past tense; formerly it was 2019 in current tense, with reliably sourced information (while 2022 information was unreliably referenced). Template:As of/doc#Usage guidelines suggests it is used only in cases where an article is intended to provide the most current information available and should not be used for historical information that will not change. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Statements sourced to 2019 articles should be attributed to the author and dates. It is not "history that won't change". One reason is if you dig into the releases, you will find mentions of "other devices". Thus, the real history is one thing, and the advertised history is another. Therefore, attribute and "as of" the old 2019-based statements. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Importance

Disregard

 – There are no more "importance" inline tags in the Features section, and the features list was rewritten as prose. Editors are encouraged to further demonstrate encyclopedic significance for statements in the features section. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

There are lots of "importance" superscripts in this article. The answer to every single one of those is that the item in question demonstrates the security and privacy of GrapheneOS over Android, just as the text before that list indicates. These can be expanded if that is deemed necessary. (I don't disagree with the stated "low importance" of this article as a whole. GrapheneOS aspires to be as relevant an Android ~fork as say OpenBSD is a relevant NetBSD fork.) Adam KatzΔ☎ 19:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to read more about their significance from independent, reliable sources, so that the features list is not an indiscriminate collection of information (or accidentally a feature list of the Android Open Source Project). 84.250.14.116 (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

One example about MAC randomization: Does it really demonstrate any security or privacy improvements (for a non-technical reader)? In my opinion, no. A threat model is not described or contextualized. Discussion at #Android MAC randomization can improve it. The few others tagged with "importance" I've already removed. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting Android Police's reliability

I'd like to revisit the discussion of Android Police's reliability after finding it used as a citation across a number of articles: Android (operating system), Android 10, Android 11, Android 12, Google Pixel, Smartphone, Google.

It seems - I wasn't here for this discussion, and I may be missing some context - that Android Police was decided to be binned after finding that Valnet, which owns some sources considered to be unreliable, also owns Android Police. I do not see why the owning publisher should be used primarily as a basis for reliability.

Furthermore, searching through the Reliable Sources noticeboard for other Valnet properties: I see that ScreenRant is broadly considered to be reliable, MakeUseOf is considered marginally reliable (with minimal discussion, however), and Comic Book Resources is considered unreliable. The reliability of these sources seems to me independent of the publisher: and so as that seems to have been the basis of Android Police's removal, and noticing the presence of Android Police citations in other, high-quality articles: I would like to discuss its reliability once again (and maybe get some more opinions than from just the three of us).

And Yae4: I would appreciate it if you leaned towards peer review and removing problematic citations rather than bulk-removing any large changes. I find that behavior unwelcome. 98.97.36.93 (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

My opinions: Articles by Alessandro Mascellino at Android Police are not independent, in my opinion. Those should be treated the same as Valnet Inc's other publication MakeUseOf (advertising / promotional / sponsored), as they add no critical evaluation or history on its own but rehearse a primary source (the official website), from what I've seen.

My RFC-like rating at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard would be option 2: unclear or additional considerations apply (marginally reliable) for the independent news articles from Android Police for uncontroversial statements. It is a borderline group blog (as hinted by Mascellino's posts). The site has fact checking, corrections and ethics policies and the authors are not anonymous. Android Police aclaims Valnet has no influence on the opinions of editors.

Android Police gets occassionally cited in other reliable publications, such as WP:RSP#CNET and WP:RSP#Ars Technica for two examples (there may be more).

You may be interested to start a new discussion at WP:RSN. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

If I had to clarify my opinion, then option 1 or 2 for independent news sources at Android Police, option 2/3 for the rest. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Mascellino at Android Police parrots PR from GrapheneOS like a fan. It's a terrible source to start with, and the cites here are among the worse examples. So it seems we agree - it certainly does not deserve a full paragraph of non-critical advertising, particularly when the cite does say something about pixel 4 and higher versus lower having lesser support. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

See WP:CYCLE. As stated on your Talk page(s?) your edits appear primarily promotional to me, and will likely continue being undone as long as it continues. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Hackaday sources self-published Doug Leith report

Resolved

 – This citation and its inappropriate use has been removed. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This Hackaday source refers heavily to a self-published Leith, academic, study report, which caused The Register to publish a "correction". See more here: Talk:/e/_(operating_system)#Oct._2021_Study_paper_is_self-published? Thus, this Hackaday source quality is in doubt. I haven't looked deeply, but would not be surprised if it republishes without credit other articles like The Guardian's. I won't say I haven't also cited Hackaday, but looking at this now, it has appearances of a group blog (unreliable), and I did not quickly find any evidence of editorial policy etc. Regardless, it is cited for "A sensors permission toggle for apps" which is nowhere mentioned, and therefore a bogus citation.

-- Yae4 (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Yae4 (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The sensors thing was my indirect suggestion in the #Peer review section, which another editor then implemented, however it is inappropriately cited in revision 1102467857 (for the wrong thing); the source speaks of disabling of peripherals via toggles. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Features list selection criteria wording

Disregard

 – The section was rewritten to prose. Special:Diff/1104837594 84.250.14.116 (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Please propose how to include or word the selection criteria for the features list. "includes the following features" is not okay, because the section should not invite editors to turn it into an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:LSC. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

includes a number of security and privacy focused changes compared to standard Android distributions is also not okay, unless it is demonstrated in the article with encyclopedic information (preferably in prose). 84.250.14.116 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Notes need to be in English

Resolved

 – 84.250.14.116 (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

While it's fine for references to be in another language, it's the nature of things, the notes that are manually added need to be in English as they're explanatory for readers of this article. Notes in German need to be deleted or translated. Canterbury Tail talk 16:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:LONGQUOTE says Long quotations may be hidden in the reference as a WP:FOOTNOTE to facilitate verification by other editors without sacrificing readability., however I've now removed those footnotes (they were clearly marked as German-language text and quotes). The alternative would be to input the same CS1 reference multiple times with different |quote= values. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)