Talk:Defective by Design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Defective by Design article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Free Software (Rated Start-Class) Free software Portal This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles. Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale Low rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale

[edit] Older Discussion

This page looks biased to me. Also, I came here for specific information on the campaign, such as on what date it started, who was responsible for it, etc. and that information is not here. Can someone help? -- Skyfaller

I agree with the above assessment, it also does not cite sources for the claims made. I am sure there are some wikipedians out there that can help you with your questions, but it would be easier for them if you signed your comments using four tildes. Like this. Sosobra 02:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I edited the "impact of DRM" section and attempted to make it more neutral than the original authors had left it. I don't know what it takes to remove a "disputed neutrality" tag, so I didn't remove it myself. If you think it's better, than you might pull the tag. Daniel J. Mount 16:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we even need to keep the "imapct of DRM" section. I'm not sure it belongs on this page at all? People can go to the DRM article for that.ConditionalZenith 23:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

While this article certainly does need some work, I believe that the "questionable notability" tag is incorrect. It gets quite a bit of notice in sites that discuss DRM issues, and as a campaign operated by the Free Software Foundation, an organization that is certainly notable, it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. I'd like to get a consensus to remove that tag. RandyKaelber 22:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the best way to show that a group is notable is to show that the group has been mentioned in reliable, third-party sources such as news sources. In this case, that shouldn't be too hard. I had a look a while back and wasn't able to come up with much, though. But if you know of some mainstream newspapers that have given this group nontrivial mentions, I think the case for removing the tag would be iron-clad. Even newsgroup type mentions would help some. Another thing that I think will help is converting the in-line url links to the footnote style references, so the reader can see what's being cited without having to leave the article. I can work on this. delldot | talk 01:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading an interview with Jonas Öberg of FSFE, about a DbD action. It was in a major Swedish newspaper (IIRC either Metro International or the weekly technical newspaper Ny Teknik)--Erik 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Large edit

I've just finished a large edit, which I hope everyone is OK with. In addition to converting the refs as I mentioned I'd do earlier, I made some other bold edits. I removed "the first blog post appears to be from May 2006 [1]" because this seems to be the original research by the writer: to whom does that appear to be the case? Let's find a citation for that information if we decide to keep it. Sorry if this seems overly picky. My other reason for this removal was that I thought that sentence was too long: The campaign was launched in summer 2006 (the first blog post appears to be from May 2006 [2]) with an anti-DRM protest at WinHEC featuring FSF members in yellow hazmat suits "handing out pamphlets explaining that Microsoft products are — in the words of the key slogan for the campaign — 'defective by design' because of the DRM technologies included in them." I cut the sentence in two.

I also merged the former "goals" section with the lead so that the latter would be more than just a single sentence.

One thing that I think would help this article (aside from more references!) would be a consice description of what exactly DRM is, for the uninitiated. Just a sentence near the beginning of the lead would be great. Anyway, I hope there aren't any problems with my edit, if there are undo them or discuss here. Thanks, delldot | talk 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the somewhat contentious nature of the DRM debate, I think it would be exceedingly difficult to craft a concise description in NPOV and a link to the main DRM article is probably the better choice. RandyKaelber 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)