User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I am User:Claw of Slime now. If you have any question about edit by, please come to User talk:Claw of Slime.-- (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

こんばんは, さん.

I agree, that the source choosed (Mozilla Support) is not one we can trust for. They still have to work more to make it WP:RS.

But the remove of users' access to the javascript option is a security problem/feature as well as the mentioned in the same section third-party cookies feature ("In February 2013, plans were announced for Firefox 22 to disable third-party cookies by default. However, the introduction of the feature has since been delayed so Mozilla developers can "collect and analyze data on the effect of blocking some third-party cookies.").

So, I will change the text I added to the article. But will left it in the same section.

Appreciating your big contribution to the Mozilla Foundation related articles, I ask you to look at MF decisions objectively. The WP page is not a list of only ad stuff of the product. Their flaws are also have to be reflected there. And, have to say, the guy posted the comment to the SUMO, express the security skilled users' point of view clear and with good explanation. Of course, what he did say about some stupid developer in MF is not polite. But, unfortunately, he depicted the real situation. Actually, it is even worse: not only developer... but there are some management staff - that made the considering decision - that have some brain issues.

This decision later - with no doubts - will be considered as a biggest MF mistake. They set up their users. They left them disarmed in front of threats. They forces securityawared of them to move to another browsers or to use addons that MF did not marked trusted(!!!).

The problem is, that there is a lack of WP:RS-satisfied content that reflects point of view other than the producer of the product has. It is not only FF issue. You will not be able to find WP:RS-resource to objectively describe changes in IE (they removed a lot of useful features in last versions. But there is no article in NY Times. There is only in blogs of IT professionals. But... guess... they are not WP:RS-satisfied stuff.) The same problem with pharmasuitical companies. You can find WP:RS-ok info only after the big scandal. There is no place for altrernative (but still professional) point of view. And this makes Wikipedia unobjective.

If you know the solution to the problem, then, please, share it. Hope, you are also want to keep WP as objective resource - not as just another ad server.

Best regards! (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)