From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Yuilop)
Jump to: navigation, search


To address the "free" status of this application, I have used the term based on several secondary and independent sources that call it "free".

Even though I consider it free because it can be easily used while never spending any money, that's unimportant as it's my feelings on the definition of the word "free" which could easily be considered WP:OR. There are several references in the article that use the word "free" to describe the app in the title of the article. If you need more than that, check the sources found after the word free near the beginning of the article. WCS100 (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yuilop is not free software[edit]

Yuilop is not free software, yet WCS100 decided to revert my edit removing the article from free software categories. Somebody please remove the incorrect free software categories from the article and explain the situation to him. Palosirkka (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've already given my reasoning in a section above. Your reasoning seems to be based on your own opinion of the word.
Personally, I think that the more eyes on any situation the better but between adding the {{help}} template to my talk page and here, I think you're abusing the template and wasting the time of editors who help editors that need it, not settle your content disputes for you. WCS100 (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Use dispute resolution for content disputes. --I dream of horses (T) @ 19:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The categories in question give an indication of what they are for; in both cases (and "Cross-platform free software") they state (and have done for some years) that they mean it in the sense of free software, not "no cost", and hence User:Palosirkka appears to be correct. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Since when has a definition in an article overridden secondary sources in a barely related article? I'd be interested to see some evidence that supports this. I can show you 10 articles that are described as free for the same reasons, at least until Palosirkka removed that claim. Either case would be WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments and making our own definition for the word "free" would be WP:OR. I don't see a reason to disregard the definition used by numerous secondary independent sources.
One could argue that the definition should be more ubiquitous but is Wikipedia really the place for us to be defining words? WCS100 (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This seems a curious way of looking at it. "Free" has more than one meaning in this context; it is entirely sensible that the category page should disambiguate which meaning it refers to, and that being done, that we should place things in that category which are "free" in the sense that the category is being used for. (We're not in any sense making our own definition; the other sense of "free" is equally well supported by sources. The word simply has two meanings.)
If Category:Pants follows British usage and says it refers to short undergarments, Jeans doesn't go in there, no matter how many American English sources describe them as "pants". If you think it would be more sensible to follow the other usage, surely the place to take that up is on the category's talk page. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, while I'm not interested enough to do it, I _do_ think that would be more sensible - rename the existing "free XYZ software" categories to "open-source XYZ software" and have "free XYZ software" categories mean "available at no cost". But that's not where we are now. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I think your look at this is the best I've seen so far. As I've stated before, I don't particularly consider this service "free" but that's by my own personal definition. Having one category that defines "free" and another that essentially catches everything else doesn't seem to make much sense. I'd be willing to do the work to make that happen if other think that's the best way to go. I don't want to do the work if it's not what people agree on, though. I've already received a lot of backlash for bringing up what I thought was a routine discussion. WCS100 (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Freemium: Hello guys. RFCbot invited me here. I checked the Yuilop's EULA and I have no doubt whatsoever that it does not correspond to the definition given in free software article. It is in fact freemium, a form of freeware that offers extended services for a price. That said, I find WCS100's revert unjustifiable. It is okay if WCS100 disagrees with the definition given in free software article; indeed everyone's opinion is respectable. But then, WCS100 should refrain from making edits bound by the said definition but defy them. In this case, Category:Free instant messaging clients and Category:Free VoIP software both require that their members adhere to the definition of free software article.
I also checked the next edit by WCS100 and I am afraid it is not allowed either, per WP:SYNTH because it supports a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Like I've already said, I find my opinion about it's "free" status to be unimportant in this matter. If it did matter, "Freemium" sounds like the best way to describe it.
As for my next edit "not being allowed", I don't follow. Are you suggesting I violated a policy? If so, which one? As for WP:SYNTH you may want to reread WP:OR. Synthesis is where one picks and chooses multiple sources to reach my own conclusion which I'm really having trouble seeing and you haven't really explained at all. As for your claim that the sources added don't call the app free, that's false and I'd appreciate it if you would correct yourself as it suggests that I've intentionally or unintentionally submitted references that don't support my claim.
Here is what the articles say:
  • "While Head of Communications for Yuilop Jen Allerson said the app is similar to Skype in using cloud-based communication, what sets it apart is that it is entirely free."Ref 1
  • "The service ... allows users to make free calls and send free messages to anyone – including those who don’t have the Yuilop app – by providing them with their own unique phone number on the PSTN"Ref 2
I can go on and find more references that call the app free, if you'd like. I found these two in a matter of 30 seconds. There are more in the article that aren't placed directly after that claim (I don't like placing references inside of sentences). Again, I would appreciate it if you would correct your mistake as I feel that it suggests that I have intentionally or unintentionally made a claim that is false.
I've said this before but the question doesn't seem to be if the app is called "free". The question seems to be if the adjective used to describe the subject of this article in multiple secondary sources should be used over the adjective defined on Wikipedia.
Boiled down these are the questions that I think have been posed: Is using the WP definition of "free" or "freeware" original research? Should we use the adjective used in multiple independent secondary sources, even if it's not the most precise definition of the word?
If anyone wants to chime in with what the questions are, please do. I'm on the fence at this point. WCS100 (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, WCS100. I appreciate your reply. First, I'd like to assure you that not only I assume good faith here, I have a very broad definition of it too. Therefore, no, I do not believe that any deliberate falsification was at work. I general, I don't believe Wikipedians usually falsify anything.
As for WP:SYNTH violation, an experienced editor reminded me that as long as you agree this computer program does not fall within the domain of Category:Free instant messaging clients and Category:Free VoIP software, I can safely withdraw that objection. This a bold advice but it has merit. So, since we have a consensus about categories, good luck. Happy editing.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree that it doesn't fall within the domain of those categories and you didn't withdraw your false claim the the references don't supports a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. I refuted that claim which you seem to have missed or ignored which poorly reflects upon you.
I'm not particularly sure that you read my statement at all. WCS100 (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Now, now! I wish I had seen this before having all those user talk page conversations. You just called me a liar! This a rude personal attack! And all along I was thinking why do you expect rudeness and mercilessness from me...
Kid, I studied your comments carefully before choosing what to write: Your comments were nothing but crude condemnation of everything and anything that disagree with you. I don't change or take back my response because you think you and you alone in this world are correct and have decided to retaliate disagreement with rudeness. Bottom line so far: You and both of your edits are in violation of a previously-established consensus, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPA. Some regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Please, Codename Lisa. Let's take a step back, here. I didn't call you a liar. I said that the statement you made was false, showed why it was, and simply asked you to either clarify or correct yourself. If you assumed that I called you a liar, you assumed that I believe that you intentionally made a false statement, which I did and do not.
Futhermore, I'm sure you know that calling me kid, which is another false statement, isn't helping here. Where did your very broad definition of assuming good faith go?
To make this discussion productive, why don't you provide proof for your claims. If there's a consensus, show it. All anyone has shown is that there's an article on Wikipedia that defines the free-ness of this subject in one way. I can show you were, up until days ago, the definition of "free" carried in this article was found widely across Wikipedia. If there's synth, provide references that show that I've cherry-picked my references to show it's free. Where are the references? You haven't provided a single one to support your WP:SYNTH claim. As for personal attacks, you've made a false statement about the references that I added and when I asked you to address the issue at hand, you said, "as long as you agree this computer program does not fall within the domain of Category:Free instant messaging clients and Category:Free VoIP software, I can safely withdraw that objection". Perhaps the use of "you" was a mistake? Did you mean "one" or "we"? Because that's not what you said. I've explicitly stated that I don't agree and have done so several times. Surely you can see how your writing could be misunderstood. I can't come up with a way that this statement that you made isn't you putting words in my mouth.
I'm really trying to figure out what your belief is but so far, all I've seen are claims that you provide zero evidence for. I'm not attacking you, I'm simply asking that you provide evidence.
As for me reverting your edit, Palosirkka, there's not an inkling of a consensus at this RFC. The RFC hasn't even closed yet. Your edit was premature. WCS100 (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
She said she has a broad definition of good faith, she never said she has a delusion of infallibility. "Your false claim" = "you are liar". And obviously, you don't know the meaning of "kid" or "consensus". So, check a dictionary. CL, Palosirka and Pinkbeast agree on the same point; that is called a consensus. For the rest, too long; didn't read. (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I re-did my original edit based on this discussion and WCS100 re-reverted it... Palosirkka (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I reinstated your edit to establish my stance but this getting out of hand. So, I am bailing out. I hope we don't have to report him to WP:ANEW, although if he do one more revert, it's WP:3RR violation and that is probably what's coming down to him. I'm not going to reply to him anyway. I said what I have to say; he can read and re-read it again and again and again. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, hey... an anonymous WP:SPA has appeared to vote for consensus.
People make false statements for reasons other that lying. Mistakes, for instance. Miss-communications and misunderstood statements are others. All I asked is that Codename Lisa clarify their statement to help me understand or correct themselves. Assuming I implied "liar" is to assume that I think it was intentional, which I do not. That's also the definition of an assumption of bad faith.
This clearly isn't going anywhere in this condition and not a shred of evidence has been provided yet. I've started a dispute resolution here that I welcome you all to comment on. WCS100 (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'd like to invite everyone to start over. Does anyone have any evidence that there's a consensus across Wikipedia that software such as Yuilop is not free, even though numerous independent and reliable secondary sources call it free? WCS100 (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This seems to me to be simply ignoring the point that "free" has more than one meaning in this context and that the category pages disambiguate which one they mean. Edited to add: the place to start is at those categories' talk pages. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Pinkbeast. What you said, just the tip of the iceberg! Category descriptions explicitly say:

This is a category of articles relating to software which can be freely used, copied, studied, modified, and redistributed by everyone that obtains a copy: "free software" or "open source software". Typically, this means software which is distributed with a free software license, and whose source code is available to anyone who receives a copy of the software.

We are talking about articles with 49 + 19 + 67 sources (135 sources). Why I am reading phrases like "original research" and "no evidence" in this discussion? Hint: My last sentence was not a question. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
CL, I'm glad you decided to return to the discussion.
How many of those 135 were changed in the sweep done by Palosirkka that in part resulted in this RfC? This has been my question from the start regarding the "consensus" found across Wikipedia. I could have gone and reverted him at every turn to create my own "consensus" but I decided that having a discussion here would be more productive.
As for your "best regards", that seems sort of contrary to your attitude at this point. I tried starting over with you once before. Can we not try starting over? As I've already said, I think this confrontation is the result of one or several miss-communications. WCS100 (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Your messages, WCS100, is like a nuclear bomb bearing the text "let's live in peace"! If you indeed want to start over, don't comment on contributors ever. Then, wait a few days before ever attempting to starting over. (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
This comment wasn't directed at you.
As for my "personal attack", I asked someone to correct or clarify what I see as an error. It's really unimportant to me now. Shouting at others about personal attacks rarely helps anything which is why I haven't attacked anyone for doing so. I'd just like to address the issue at hand, at this point. I'm not even sure what you're bringing to this conversation as an anonymous WP:SPA.
As for my rebuttal, it has still yet to be addressed. WCS100 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support removal of the category tags from this article. The category pages make it perfectly clear that they are intended to list free-as-in-freedom software, not free-as-in-beer software. If WCS100 (or anyone else) doesn't like this categorization scheme, then this should be discussed on the category talk pages, or in a separate RFC about the categories. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Psychonaut, thanks for commenting here. This has nothing to do with what I "like". I'm not even completely convinced that your opinion is incorrect.
My question is and has been, do we use the definitions in those articles that is carried by the category and ignore the words used in secondary sources specifically about this subject? Sources explicitly call Yuilop "free". Again, I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm not as quick to ignore the word used by independent and reliable sources specifically for the subject of this article.
Is that something you already thought about? If so and your opinion hasn't change, I'm completely satisfied with your response. WCS100 (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we use the definition given by the category. We don't add, for example, Left Bank (Biscay) to Category:Banks of Spain just because the article and its sources correctly state that it's a bank located in Bilbao. Many words, like "free" and "bank", have multiple meanings which are perfectly correct in their given contexts, but Wikipedia categories need to be unambiguous, lest they confuse readers by grouping together many unrelated articles. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
That's the first solid argument I've seen yet.
It seems like the best course of action would be to reduce the ambiguity created by only having two categories. Would you agree? I'm not suggesting that by agreeing that you're committing yourself to doing any work to make that happen. WCS100 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
That is the only argument you have seen so far. Everyone used the same argument. (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you think that's a solid argument. What a pity you didn't notice when I made it on the 15th. I think you may need to be more specific about what change you propose to categories. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. I didn't understand the proposal. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC by Staszek Lem[edit]

I am going to be impartial therefore I intentionally did not read any references, only the article itself. So, here are some questions:

  • (Q1) Which part of the article text makes anybody to want it to be categorized as "free software"? I see only statements that calls are free.
  • (Q2) It seems that the word "free" is abused here. Calls are actually not free; they are "free of charge", i.e., you don't have to pay money. However money is but one form of payment. If an app requires you do deposit a banana to a food bank per call, it is formally "free of charge", but I would not call this free. Just the same, as I see it demands tokens, vouchers, and even a kind of e-Ponzi scheme, i.e., you ultimately have to pay some e-bananas, whcih you have to earn by wasting your time, which is most precious for some.
  • (Q3) I am sure numerous sources may freely call it free, especially in press releases and from bloggers who only read PrRel. It is part of hype. What we need is not sources which call it free, but the ones which explain why and what and how exactly it is free.
  • (Q4) Please keep im mind, that an app may be free, but all what it does is just a free wrapper over a payful service. Formally it is free software. Yes/no?

I hope my questions will distract you from pointless bickering about wikiwho wrote wikiwhat. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Then I simply give you hints. The main dispute here is over putting the article in [Category:Free instant messaging clients] and [Category:Free VoIP software]. It is not even about changing the license in the infobox that reads "proprietary". These categories require the software to be under a form of free software license. Here is the End-User License Agreement of the yuilop App (“EULA”). So, the answer to your final question is "no". (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification, because this is not what I see from RFC tag. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for coming Staszek.
  • Q1 - The app has been called "free" by several independent and reliable secondary sources. I didn't feel comfortable using the word so liberally across the article for the exact reason that we're not having a discussion. From what I understand, from the app, you can make completely free calls while inside the US to any US phone (mobile, app-using, or landline). From the app, you can text any phone completely for free. The "Credits" that are earned/bought are for making international calls out of the US. When outside of the US, texts to phones and calls to mobile phones and landlines, use Credits. Someone may want to check to make sure that's correct. It's a little complicated.
  • Q2 - As for being "abused", I'm not sure that this designation is important. As I've stated before and as you've pointed out, "free" can be defined in many different ways. As has been mentioned by others, we can disambiguate by using words like "freeware" or "freemium". It seems logical, because "free" can mean so many different things, to use the most accurate word.
  • Q3 - I completely agree. Even so, I'm not quick to ignore the adjective used by many independent and secondary reliable sources. My personal opinion is that the app is not "free" but I'm not sure that our opinion matters. This is what I referred to earlier when I suggested that making such a designation might be WP:OR. I don't think that ignoring the references is wrong for the same reason as you but it seems that the alternative is not well defined, either.
  • Q4 - Definitely. I'm sure most of us here have downloaded a "free" app that's basically unusable or has very little use without paying. One thing that is definite is that the app is free to download. The Free software article describes "free software" as being distributed with its source code, and Yuilop does not distribute its source code, as far as I know. Quloquially, I would call it free software to download but the article's definition would exclude Yuilop from being described as "free software" on Wikipedia. WCS100 (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
No, we're not excluded from calling Yuilop free software. If we do use the terms "free" or "free software", however, we shouldn't hyperlink them to an article or category which uses the term in an entirely different sense. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
In fact, there is Free software (disambiguation), where I see the term "freeware", which seems to have some fit to what we are discussing here. If this yuyu is indeed a freeeware, the article can have a footnote to explain that various sources call yuyu "free software" in the sense of "freeware". And include this page into lo! Category:Freeware. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Actually, we do not have to go through all these troubles at all: Put all the vague sources aside. We can use the EULA as our source and simply use freeware which is not as ambiguous as "free". No need for footnotes and clarification of what's already clear. Or better yet, we call it freemium and link to both EULA and terms of services.
Oh, and by the way, if you guys haven't checked the disputed sources yet, here they are: [1][2]. I doubt if any of you could find ambiguity in them (I mean it is obvious that they are talking "free of charge" from their context) but if you did, like I said, we can always put them aside. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, we do have to go through all these troubles: if there are sources which call it "free software", we have to explain that the term has multiple meanings and explain which among these meanings is actually applicable to this software. Otherwise the confusion will propagate. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
That's the point: No we don't. We simply don't use them. It is a matter of a simple choice: You have two equally reliable sources; one is vague and one is crystal clear. Which do you choose? Obviously the crystal clear one. In other words, don't worry about nonexistent imaginary things that even if realized, can be safely regarded as "timed". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm with Staszek. The software has been called free by a plethora of sources. Even outside of Yuilop, other software has been called "free" that has pay services within. Here's three more sources to add to the two in the article and listed in this discussion. [3][4][5]. Does anyone disagree that there seem to be many definitions and therefore uses for the term "free"?
On one hand, I would say that we need to be consistent across the board. Categories should be defined by associated articles (the Freeware category is defined by Freeware) and those articles define the term using sources that specifically talk about the definition and not sources that just use the various terms. On the other hand, that's an awfully tangled web to weave. If, for whatever reason, the industry shifts and the definition for "Freemium" changes, are we really going to rework every software article's categories to fit those definitions? The easiest answer is to just use the words used by secondary sources but I think we all agree at this point that this isn't portraying subjects as accurately as we'd like. WCS100 (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Based on my addition of more references that call the software "free" and the lack of responses, I feel safe saying that Codename Lisa's opinion is not supported. "Proprietary freeware" seems to be the best way to describe this software based on secondary references that cover Yuilop and the definition laid out at Freeware. WCS100 (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
"Freeware" was Codename Lisa's own opinion. Taking other people's ideas without giving them credit is theft; saying "Codename Lisa's opinion is not supported" just makes you a hypocrite. Oh, and you are confusing freemium with free software. (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC) (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I'm choosing to ignore this SPA that's making personal attacks. This really isn't productive. WCS100 (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
[not sure how far i should indent here] Sources support individual statements, they don't definitively characterize or categorize the subject. The article should clarify terms and provide alternate perspectives where appropriate. Common sense and consistent use of terminology should preside in applying categories. In this case, "freeware" seems to best describe the product. It definitely does not fit the definition of "free" software. Bcharles (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I agree completely but I have one minor note about your comment in bracket: I think you should have added your comment well above "RFC by Staszek Lem", although that's my opinion. No pressure. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)