Talk:Firefox/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Trying to come to some sort of agreement

Right, so we seem to have come to a stage where people are saying 'the article is pov because these facts are missing'. No-one has said that those facts should not be included. No one has said that criticism should not be included. The only request that has been made is that all claims be accompanied by a reliable source - this means: no blogs, forums, mailing lists or social sites - unless they are the postings of a person with notability themselves. Also, just to make sure everyone understands - mozilla and its emplyees are acceptable sources of information on this article (this includes blogs, forum posts and mailing list posts - so long as there is no doubt that it is really them making the statement). Also, including bits of source code is acceptable - drawing conclusions from this is not, unless it has a source to back up those conclusions. So, now that I have summarised the entire argument regarding the inclusion of information, how can we go about bringing this rather long winded and in most cases, off topic, argument to a conclusion and remove the npov banner? My proposal is: unless someone can provide third party sources (per policy) backing up each of the 'missing' criticisms, we should remove the npov banner. I would also propose that this be done in the next few days (as the editors discussing this have been quite active so should be able to do it in a couple of days). Objections? If so, why?-Localzuk^(talk) 19:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no NPOV banner anymore. Some users added "Google relationship" section (I've also made some changes and corrections to it) and they removed NPOV banner. Personally, as long as this section (mentioning important things such default antiphishing that connects often with Google and related privacy issues) is present I am not going to add NPOV banner again.

There are still important issues missing and worth mentioning (like implementation of <a ping> and other things from WHATWG specification [which is _not_ spec. from W3C]), but I hope they will be added in the future (perhaps by me). 193.219.28.146 01:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Small explanation about antiphishing in FF2.0

Just to clear some things up; I don't want to misinform any users.

Some users added (thank you) section "Google relationship" to the article. It includes sentence: "The default security feature of builds by the Mozilla Foundation activate an anti-phishing feature to provide live protection and send user data to Google[85]". Well, actually, it is not fully correct.

There are two modes of antiphishing protection in FF2.0. One ("basic") is enabled by default, and it is based on list of "phishy" pages. This list is on user's computer and is updated at regular (0.5h) intervals. Nice (and, I believe, fully correct) explanation was given by user "Myk Melez" in comment on this site. This log was created when browser was in this (default) mode. It basically shows that browser connects each half hour with Google's server and fetches (or not) some update. That's all. (Unfortunately, there is also Cookie: header, but from cookie alone Google can't harvest any personal info. [But if user never clears cookie - then Google is able to relate (with help of cookie) all requests to Google's servers to one person... Well, my English sucks, so I guess I've failed with this part of explanation... Read article about HTTP cookie if you are interested...]).

The second mode ("advanced", "live protection") is _not_ enabled by default. User must explicitly opt-in for it. Then, all URLs he/she visits are sent to Google. (Also, there is some indication in source code that in this mode cookie is _not_ sent, but I have to do further research.)

So, I've changed some things in aforemetioned (on the beginning) section. 193.219.28.146 00:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What planet...

...is depicted on the Firefox logo? - Sikon 04:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[1] --Nonpareility 17:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

heres what I read, It is no real planet, but it's sort of earth, with an extra unknown (intentionally) unreal continent displayed, so as not to promote on country of users over another, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oxinabox1 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Firefox 3 release pushed back?

While this Firefox release schedule shows the release date being May 2007, it was last updated Sept. 23 2006; this release roadmap shows the release date as November 2007, and was last updated Nov. 8 2006. Also. this PC World article from Dec. 8 2006 says the release of Firefox 3 is still a year away. Kat, Queen of Typos 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, every source I've read quotes the release date as being sometime late 2007. So I think I'll edit that sentence, so that it says just that: late 2007. (Cabin Tom 04:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

The roadmap has been updated with no suggested dates for the release of Firefox 3. Boris Zbarsky says that Firefox 3 should be out within a year at Mozillazine.org. It should be noted that he is a developer for Gecko_(layout_engine) and not Firefox. Kbrosnan 06:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

There is no criticism section in the article which is a little bit controversial issue for some users. For all interested parties that want to improve article in this regard here are some links to recently archived threads in talk page: Criticism - prefetching, Allegations that this article is not NPOV, Criticisms of Firefox section, Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox merged, Criticisms of 2.0. 193.219.28.146 18:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We have been over this about 50 times. The general consensus both here and now at Opera (internet suite) is that criticism should be merged into the article. Jimbo also agrees with this concept.

Why should we split the article into 'pro' and 'anti' sections? Why should we add a big shining 'come troll here' badge to the page? I have not yet seen any compelling arguments for this.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is nice that you started discussion on Opera's talk page about spreading out criticism throughout the article (instead of separated section). I hope you (or some other person) will do the same with article about MSIE in the future...

About my first comment - when I wrote about "improving article in this regard" I was also thinking about adding criticism to the article in relevant places (not only in [non-existent] "criticism" section). 193.219.28.146 19:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I do intend to head over to the IE page after I have finished with the Opera one - one thing at a time, especially with this topic (as it causes an uproar with some users who eventually realise the point of the exercise).

I also think that any criticism is welcome on this page, the opera page or the IE page - so long as it abides by our guidelines and policies. The problem with most criticism is that it comes in the form of whining on forums and the like rather than from reliable sources. -Localzuk^(talk) 19:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the Internet constantly evolves so I think we all should be a little bit more elastic in regard of treating "forums and the like" as reliable sources (or not). Sometimes a lot of useful and correct information is placed on forums or blogs (e.g. security researchers' blogs )... After all, even Wikipedia could be considered as one big "forum or the like" - it is created completely by ordinary users from all over the world. 193.219.28.146 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the problem exists with verifiability. Someone could go to a forum or blog and rant about how their computer got hacked through firefox or something and then loads of people join in with their 'me too' posts. Without some form of peer reviewed evidence, we wouldn't be able to actually confirm that as being true, and the 'me too' posts could all just be the same person bolstering the numbers of people confirming the issue. Whereas, on this site, all information is supposed to be sourced in order to verify it. So we are different to a forum or blog.

This sort of thing shouldn't be discussed here, however, instead it should be discussed here or here.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Saw in my logs that Platinax had been linked to previously from here, probably used as a citation for the privacy concerns raised. Whether Wikipedia links to the Platinax story or not doesn't really concern me, but as a citation the original story was published on Platinax and covered on multiple media sites. Platinax is a UK corp and Google News source, and not simply a "blog". - Brian

Just throwing in link to article about security bugs in FF: http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3650106 I hope it will be included in the article as "reliable source" in some time in the future... 193.219.28.146 02:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Though we shouldn't let our biases in favor of (or against) Firefox influence our edits, we should also not compromise this article's accuracy by purposefully conjuring a bogus criticism section. Other browsers have lengthy criticism sections because there is a lot to criticize. That doesn't mean, however, that Firefox is without flaw. For example, earlier versions assumed the user had a good understanding of computers. Firefox 2.0 added little new features (I admit, however, that the importance of browsers' features is overblown). The bottom line is that though we need to accurately cover Firefox's flaws we shouldn't put it in the same light as more flawed browsers just for the sake of objectivity; that in itself would compromise the accuracy of our encyclopedia. Sims2789 08:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course, but I think the fact that important and widely known security issue was not fixed in the newer version should be mentioned somewhere. At least few users are quite disgruntled with this... 193.219.28.146 04:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm at it, we should update the statistics. The .PNG chart only goes up to the first quarter of 2006. Sims2789 08:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Tense

I corrected some tenses in the history section, firefox 2 ghas been released for over month, it is nolonger acceptable to have "will be", i corrected 2, bnut there are probable more.

Too little history

There is too little info about versions 1 and 2. It is fine to have the separate History-of article full of dense tech stuff, but there should be a good summary of user-relevant matters here. 69.87.193.234 20:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox has allegedly been merged into the article but I can find no criticisms and no real treatent of the cruddy 2.0 so hence the tag, SqueakBox 21:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms are weaved throughout the article. The ones which were poorly sourced (ie. blogs, forums and the like) were deleted. Feel free to add any criticisms that are missing - but please provide reliable sources for them. Also, please put the criticism where it is appropriate and do not create a criticism section. Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 21:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In particular the 'performance' section has a fairly large amount of criticism in it, as does the licensing section, the industrial and institutional adoption sections and the google relationship section. Please remember that criticism doesn't have to contain the word 'criticism' or 'criticised'. Also remember that criticism needs to be presented in a neutral manner.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Most articles of this nature have a criticism section. This article looks as if it is has some biased pro Mozilla editors dominating it as I couldnt find any criticisms, SqueakBox 21:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but the issue of a Criticisms section has been discussed in a lot of detail on this talk page and in the archives of the Talk:Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox pages. Please can you tell me why we should break information out of the article, so that a reader has to read about the positive side of things and then go and see if there is a negative side of things? Criticism sections are troll magnets (as is evidenced by pretty much every Criticism section on the site).

Regarding the information you added - I have went through it bit by bit and have found that all of it is already included in either this article or the Features of Mozilla Firefox article.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me you are removing any criticisms of Mozilla. Please reconsider, SqueakBox 22:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And while criticism sections are inappro[priate in living humans I dont think they are troll magnets or anything of the kind otherwise, SqueakBox 22:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I have not removed any criticism. Please read through both this article and the features article in full and you will see that all the information you added is already present - most of with the exact same wording.

Criticism sections are troll magnets, full stop. We battled with trollish additions to the section on this page, and the Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox when they existed. We then had a large discussion about the issue and decided that the best course of action was to re-merge the pages and spread the criticism out. As I said before, why should we break up information into a 'pro' and 'anti' section? If you have a 'Criticisms' section, should we also have a 'Praise' section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Localzuk (talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

To Localzuk (and other users) in response to the above post: Having a praise section would turn Wikipedia from an encycopedia to a Website that merely reports both sides of an issue regardless of validity. We must not confuse objectivity with lack of bias and certainly must not let objectivity compromise accuracy. Sims2789 08:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A praise section wouldnt be necessary in this article as it is very pro Mozilla Firefox anyway, SqueakBox 22:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, what I said was why should we split the information into pro vs anti? I personally do not see any pro bias in the article - I see it as well balanced. Can you show where the bias is? Also, can you say what criticism is missing?-Localzuk^(talk) 22:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

For instance this is the description of 2.0. "On October 24, 2006, Mozilla released Firefox 2. This version includes changes to the tabbed browsing environment[5]; enhancements to the extensions manager; enhancements to the GUI[10] (including a more glossy-looking default theme); improvements to the find, search and software update engines; a greater level of accessibility; session and download restore; and new anti-phishing features." Sound like an ad to you? It certainly does to me, especially as I ahve read of criticism and am highly critical myself (2 installs, 2 uninstalls), SqueakBox 22:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that seems like a description of the features that have been announced with the product. If you have criticism, please add it - but make sure, as I have said, that you add reliable sources for it. Also, please leave your own opinions and point of view at the door - it is not wanted and it clouds your judgement when editing. We should all be striving to edit in a WP:NPOV manner - and basing your edits on your personal experiences will not lead to a better article.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There are at least 5 references to spreadfirefox.com -- it is totally biased source, so I don't understand why you consider it as reliable source all the time... 193.219.28.146 17:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Because, if you read our guideline on this, you will see that self-sources are acceptable on articles about a company/organisation and/or its products/services.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

From Spread Firefox: "Spread Firefox, often abbreviated as SFX, is a community of tens of thousands of Mozilla Firefox enthusiasts whose goal is to spread Firefox as far and wide as possible." (...) "(It is) marketing effort."

So... it is a biased source. It is maintained by (biased) enthusiasts, not only by "producers" of the product. 193.219.28.146 18:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not denying that it is biased (that would be like calling water dry). I simply told you what our policy is with regards to self-published sources (which this is, according to the disclaimer at the bottom of the site Spread Firefox is... ...Mozilla's official community marketing site.). Therefore, it is an acceptable source.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is I really don't like marketing BS. I always thought that Wikipedia should be as free from "sales pitch" as possible. It is (should be) its biggest advantage in comparison with other sources of information, after all. Unfortunately, IMO language in this article is heavily influenced by marketing efforts... 193.219.28.146 18:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely sounds to me like an ad... I've made few changes to section mentioned by you. Actually, few other parts of the article also need rewriting, IMO... (but I will not do this now probably) 193.219.28.146 17:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am very aware of how to edit this encyclopedia re sources and npov as being at the heart of our work, thanks, and I will indeed try to gather some criticisms together re issues such as the initial incompatibility of Tab Mix Plus, the inability to (having uninstalled) reload 1.5 from the site or a link from the site (having seen a source for over 100,000 uninstalls during those first days after its release from people thinking like me), its slowness (I couldnt edit here because of a time lag) etc etc, SqueakBox 23:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I support this NPOV tag although I'm a Fx user... Various sections of the article read like advertisements yes, or they are cunningly worded seemingly trying to deceive non-techies into believing Fx is somehow magically more secure etc than their current browser. One example is the part I tried to remove... --Doc aberdeen 06:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I had no idea what you found deceptive about the text you tried to remove several times until you explained that it could be misread that Firefox uses encryption even on unencrypted pages. I simply clarified that encryption is used only with the HTTPS protocol rather than remove useful information. Are there other examples you can find that could somehow possibly be misread by someone who is not familiar with technical details? If so, point them out so they can be clarified. Also, please assume good faith—I don't see any evidence that editors are trying to be deceptive and make Firefox look better than other browsers in any way other than what reliable sources say. -- Schapel 01:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

New bugfix versions in preparation

Firefox nightly folder contains two new interesting entries holding release candidates for 1.5.0.9 and 2.0.0.1. It looks they will be released in the very near future. --Denniss 23:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

They're released now, I run 2.0.0.1, when I'm experimenting with SVG and such advanced things - but some other browser otherwise. (The intention of this smalltalk bla was to comment that it has occurred) Rursus 11:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

License link

I corrected the license link in the summary box to point to the Mozilla EULA and it was reverted in under 2 minutes by someone pointing me to the Licensing section in-page. There are two problems with this: (1) the Licensing section doesn't mention the EULA at all, and (2) the claim that Firefox is distributed under the MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license is factually incorrect. Firefox is *based* on a mountain of source code which is under the tri-license, but Firefox itself is distributed under the Mozilla EULA. MarkPilgrim 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think I can see where the confusion comes frome. The tri-license refers to the source code, the EULA refers to the binary download available from the Mozilla site. We are in fact both correct...-Localzuk^(talk) 19:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The tri-license refers to the source code (well, most of it anyway). But "Firefox" refers to an end-user product, the result of compiling that source code with a certain flag (specifically, by putting "ac_add_options --enable-official-branding" into your .mozconfig file), which creates a product that includes the graphic files stored in other-licenses/branding/firefox/ (which are strictly copyrighted). Compiling without that .mozconfig flag creates a different product (variously named Deer Park, Bon Echo, Minefield, or Gran Paradiso) with graphic files from browser/base/branding/ (which are tri-licensed). The statement "Gran Paradiso is tri-licensed under the MPL/GPL/LGPL" is correct. The statement "Firefox is based in part on code which is tri-licensed under the MPL/GPL/LGPL" is correct but perhaps a bit misleading without a link to to the actual EULA. The statement "Firefox is tri-licensed under the MPL/GPL/LGPL" is simply incorrect. MarkPilgrim 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I re-did the change, now with explanation of why exactly this is in the Licensing section. Hope this satisfies everyone? Grauw 14:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article

Once again, the neutrality of the article is disputed, although no one is pointing out any specific problem. There is a claim that the article uses weasel words, but what sentence, paragraph, or section is to blame? Rather then simply tagging the article with vague allegations of non-neutrality, please be specific about what in which specific part of the article is not neutral. -- Schapel 17:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Your recent changes (on 21st December) shows quite nice what the problem with this article is, I think... 193.219.28.146 22:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have cited reliable sources for the content I have put in the article, rather than doing original research and presenting my personal opinions and conclusions. I have presented all sides of the issues that I can find in the sources. Most of your revertions were justified by the fact that this article has no Criticisms section, although most people agree that not having such a section results in a more neutral article. It seems to me that your edits are unfair, and you're simply trying to make Firefox look bad rather than state what the sources say. Please come up with better justification for your edits here before making them again. -- Schapel 00:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

about:config is hidden, there is no documentaion included with browser about preferences. These are facts, obvious for any user of FF. Install FF and check it.

Second issue - I gave reliable sources to support claim that bugs in bugzilla are closed for a long time - just check references please. Pay attention to long period -- bug reported in official sec. adv. in April is still unaccessible in December. Come on, you cannot justify so long time just with "we don't want to disclosure details too soon"-policy. And this is rather rule than exception. Check other bugs in some older security advisories if you don't believe me. If you think wording used by me is misleading -- please, reformulate it and/or put in more relevant place (if it is misplaced) instead of removing it completely.

Next issue - "According to the Mozilla Corporation" is much better language. One user above claims that this section sounds like an ad for him. I agree with him on this. Also, there is only one source added to support these claims (with exception of antiphishing), it's site of producer of the browser, so it is biased by definition. Hence, "according to...". 193.219.28.146 01:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of your edits seem fine to me, but a couple don't. The usage of "undocumented" seems inaccurate even with the attempted clarification; it'd read fine without it. Also, the long Bugzilla statement doesn't seem to have much of a point and/or is badly worded. --Kamasutra 02:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

First issue - you cite no source that "about:config is hidden" and there is no documentation included with the browser about the preferences. It seems to be original research, explicitly disallowed from articles.

Second issue - a "long time" is your own conclusion, more original research. I also agree with the above poster that the sentence you put in the paragraph about bugs being confidential for a long time doesn't make much sense. Perhaps if you put the content in the proper place and worded it so that it makes sense, does not convey your personal opinion, and bolsters the point of a paragraph, we could let it stay in. However, I don't see how we could word it so that it would say what you want it to say and still be considered not original research and NPOV.

Third issue - I've never seen in a review or description of a computer program or any other product a phrase such as "<manufacturer> claims to support..." or "according to <manufacturer>..." to describe the features of the product. It makes it sound like there's some sort of controversy whether the product really does support those features, or imply that the manufacturer is untrustworthy or unreliable. That sort of tone seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.

Furthermore, why aren't you editing other articles to use similar language? It seems like every one of your edits this month has been in this one article. Why is this specific article the target of these sort of your edits? Why don't you mention in the Opera article that it has similar hidden preferences, for example? Are you really trying to improve Wikipedia articles, or are you just trying to make Firefox look bad? -- Schapel 08:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I know FF, I don't know other browsers as good as FF.

My POV doesn't matter. Quality of article is important. Bits of criticism (even without the word "criticism") are important, because: 1) NOTHING is perfect; 2) there is no "Criticism" section (I'm fine with this, as long as there is some criticism in the article somewhere). So, I believe adding pieces of criticism to the article improve overall quality of it.

And once again -- I'm not native English speaker, my English is far from perfect. Try to reformulate sentences considered by you as worded in wrong way, but don't delete it completely. Thank you in advance. 193.219.28.146 16:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You are asking me "why aren't you editing other articles to use similar language?"... Well, I could ask you, why aren't you editing other articles about browsers to remove big "Criticism" sections (Localzuk explained in talk pages that these sections are potential troll magnets etc...; BTW - it's a pity he is on vacation now; he is good mediator and he really tries to be fully objective and unbiased). 193.219.28.146 16:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW -- "According to..." was added by Localzuk, not by me. And BTW - could someone explain me, what was wrong with this edit? 193.219.28.146 17:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to know Opera to make the same sorts of edits to the Opera article. You can simply put in "According to Opera Software ASA, ..." when its features are listed.

Adding criticism is fine. Just make sure you adhere to Wikipedia's policies of citing reliable sources and presenting all sides of the issues.

I believe that when I have deleted sentences, they have either made no sense or I could not find a reliable source to justify the inclusion of material in the article. It's not just that the edits were written poorly. If that were the only problem with them, I would have simply copy edited them.

Why am I not editing other articles to remove their criticisms sections? Because I have never edited any article to remove their criticism section. I am not treating different articles according to different standards. I even suggested that on the Opera article's talk page that they should merge their criticism section into the rest of the article, as was done in this article. On the other hand, people accusing this article of being unfair don't seem to uphold other articles to the same standards they uphold this one to. Why the double standard? -- Schapel 08:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with this edit? Does that edit seem to cover all of the issues about WHATWG and the fact that Firefox is adding some features that that working group is developing? Or did the edit cover only one particular point of view of those topics? It seems to me that your exit was highly POV, which is what you complain about this article being. You cannot make an article NPOV by adding POV edits. -- Schapel 05:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

First issue - you cite no source that "about:config is hidden" and there is no documentation included with the browser about the preferences. It seems to be original research, explicitly disallowed from articles.

OK, so how about removing the following sentence from the article: "Mozilla Firefox supports many software standards, including, but not restricted to: HTML, XML, XHTML, CSS, ECMAScript (JavaScript), DOM, MathML, DTD, XSL, SVG, XPath and PNG images with alpha transparency. Firefox release builds do not yet pass the Acid2 standards-compliance test."

Nobody cited reliable source to support these claims, so I guess this is original research as well. 193.219.28.146 21:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You do have a good point. The article should cite a reliable source that verifies all of those claims. There will be no trouble finding reliable sources to verify all of those claims. -- Schapel 05:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you found some reliable source already? If the answer is "yes", please post it here, so we can discuss its validity (actually, discussing is all we can do, because article is still protected...).

I've randomly checked history of the article, focusing on claims about supporting standards. Claims about support of these standards were present for a really long time and nobody cited reliable source. This shows general problem with the article -- positive edits about FF (even without sources) are added and stay for a long time without protests, but edits mentioning criticism are quite often removed almost immediately with demands of reliable sources (even if there are some) and/or accusations about adding original research. Citing SqueakBox: "This article looks as if it is has some biased pro Mozilla editors dominating it."

BTW - I've found source about lack of documentation included with the browser regarding preferences in about:config. This problem is known for FF's devs for a long time (2 years and counting) and won't be fixed: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=269423 193.219.28.146 05:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the aspect of the issue that you're missing is that most of the editors of this article just know what features Firefox supports. If someone wants to verify that Firefox supports the standards mentioned, all they need to do is pick up just about any web development book. There isn't any dispute about the matter, and it's one of the more important facts to mention. I suppose we really do need to be complete and cite reliable sources. Simply mark what needs to be cited with the appropriate template.

On the other hand, the "criticisms" that keep getting immediately reverted look like someone's personal opinion on the matter. They aren't particularly important, often can't be verified, and are seemingly never presented with all points of view considered. The difference is not that positive comments are kept and negative ones removed; it's that important obvious comments are kept, and unimportant, uncited, POV comments are removed. If someone added a comment such as "Firefox is the best at blocking popups" I would remove it immediately also. But no one ever adds comments like that, do they? -- Schapel 05:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose there are some edits like that. For example, this one where I reverted a change that made Firefox's usage share look much better than it really is. I remove bad edits, whether they make Firefox look good or bad. -- Schapel 07:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is far too positive, doesnt mention any real criticisms and thus fails to fit our WP:NPOV exacting standards. The fact that the dditor who removed the tag also reverted criticisms from another user of Mozilla at the same time indicates we have at worst pov opushing problem and at best a dispute. Given we have a dispute we shopuld keep the tag on until this is resolved. For me as an experienced wikipedia editor and almost exclusively an FF user this is one of the most POV articles it has been my misfortune to come acrosss, SqueakBox 19:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many real criticisms in the article. For example, some people complain Firefox uses too much memory and takes longer to start than other browsers. The FSF complains that Firefox contains trademarks, copyrighted artwork, and proprietary software. In what exact way does the article not fit Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy? Can you give an example of a criticism missing from the article and a reliable source for that criticism? Or any other specific way that the article is not NPOV? Be specific about which exact section you are referring to instead of making sweeping generalizations that appear to be completely fabricated. -- Schapel 08:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just read through this and the Features article, and I have to say that while the main article does seems a bit positive, it does mention criticisms and I think it does meet NPOV standards. The Features article in particular mentions criticisms fairly well. Since no one can give specific examples of the articles breaking NPOV, why is this article still marked? --Hench 21:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Because not everyone agrees with you about it being almost neutral. The fact that there are criiticisms in features means that article is less POV and this is a separate article which needs to be NPOV. Having said that it is far less POV afetr I edited it but still somewhat POV and I am not sure that all editors accept my edits NPOVing it, ie thjat we still have a dispute, SqueakBox 21:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. You claim that it is "still somewhat POV". What specifically is somewhat POV? I still don't see any evidence that the article does not abide by the neutral point of view policy. -- Schapel 05:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

After page protection I didn't see any comments from users who reverted my edits (I'm talking about this and this). So, please, could you explain your actions and what are your objections? 193.219.28.146 18:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"Neutrality" != "criticisms"

It seems to be a common misconception around here that article neutrality has something to do with the number of different opinions it represents. It doesn't, except in the unusual case of articles that are about an opinion, a political position, or what-have-you. It is the chief job of an encyclopedia article to represent the facts, not to represent opinions. Consider the following example:

Opinion: Some people think Firefox rocks because it has tabbed browsing.
Opinion: Some people think Firefox sucks because it doesn't support ActiveX.
Fact: Firefox has tabbed browsing and doesn't support ActiveX.

This article is not about a political position, a religion, a fashion trend, or some other congeries of opinion. It is about a piece of software that objectively exists and has a certain, knowable history and feature set. Describing the features, bugs, and history of the software does not mean taking a position for Firefox over other browsers, any more than describing the features and history of San Francisco means advocating it in some regard over other cities.

The present trend on Wikipedia with regards to "criticisms" on articles such as this one, is unencyclopedic. The trend is to spend a lot of time and article space on contrasting opinions about the subject to the neglect of providing more facts and background about the subject and allowing the reader to form his/her own opinions. It is possible to describe features and bugs or absent features of a piece of software without resorting to opinion claims ... just as it is possible to describe a city such as San Francisco without resorting to citing people's opinions on whether San Francisco rocks and Los Angeles sucks, or whatever.

Consider: There is a contested opinion claim in the article that Mozilla Firefox uses a lot of memory. However, there are no facts stated as to how much memory it uses. Saying that Firefox uses too much memory is an opinion. Saying that under certain conditions a Firefox process under Kubuntu with 10 tabs open, has a virtual memory size of 212MB, a resident set size of 96MB, of which 27MB is shared memory, is a fact. (That describes my current Firefox process, and is original research; but you get the idea.)

(Likewise, claims about startup time, documented security holes & patch release speed, and so forth, can all also be documented as facts rather than presented as opinions.)

This article is not entitled "Opinions about Mozilla Firefox". It is about the software (including its history, security holes, features, what-have-you). It should focus on that, not on opinion. --FOo 19:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a few loaded phrases that should be reworded (ie: Mozilla Firefox is a free software/open source, cross-platform graphical web browser developed by the Mozilla Corporation and hundreds of unpaid workers.) Examples such as that can be reworded more neutrally, but as an admitted IE fan [I rarely use FF, if I have to use an alternate browser I use Opera], its an otherwise solid article and FA material. Can we all just grow up and fix the minor issues and not get into an edit war? Tigerhawkvok 04:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Firefox user and totally agree (with user FOo statements as well). Making a statement such as "hundreds of unpaid workers" is heavy POV. I looked at the source and it makes no mention of the list being employees, workers, or being unpaid. The section should be worded in a way to convey "contributors of significant code, documentation or quality assurance" and not "hundreds of unpaid workers".--I already forgot 05:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through the posts on this page from the last few weeks, and I think I've addressed all the specific POV issues brought up. Does anyone else see any specific POV problems with the article now? Remember, not containing enough criticism is not a POV issue. However, if you do have a reliable source that contains criticism of Firefox that isn't already in the article, let's have it. If no one brings up any issues, I suggest removing the NPOV template from the page. -- Schapel 06:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Article is still far from being NPOV. There are still sentences like "Firefox has been positively reviewed in various media outlets", there is still no mention about lack of documentation about preferences in about:config (which is hidden, BTW), no mention about numerous implemented features from non-standard WHATWG spec., etc... 193.219.28.146 19:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Forbes called Firefox the best browser. What specific rule in the NPOV policy says we can't say that in the article? NPOV is less about not saying good and bad things, and more about expressing all points of view. If a reliable source says that it's the best browser, we can say that in the article neutrally, just as long if another reliable source calls it the worst browser, we put that point of view in the article also. I agree with others that the article should focus on facts rather than opinions, but we should at least put in the most important opinions.

I also don't understand why you say not mentioning the details you list makes the article POV. Is there a reliable source pointing out these as shortcomings? If so, let's see the sources. -- Schapel 20:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I pointed to this article some time ago above, it is still not included in the article. So, add it please, security is important. 193.219.28.146 22:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I added information straight from Secunia's vulnerability reports. I also added statistics for IE, because the paragraph about security compared Firefox's security to IE's. -- Schapel 03:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutralitas in absurdum

Normally I use to browse over neutrality discussions as fast as possible!! (Grr!) The reason is that I use to filter data to remove subjectivities myself. The few POV i object against is if humans or living species are falsely slandered, or if data is missing or misrepresented because the author applied his own filter when writing. Now, consider: every browser deserves some blame (Mozilla too), every browser deserves some praise (MSIE too), (if you're an MSIE affiniado, turn the stmts) - are the topics for blame/praise irrelevant for the readers of the article? What's most important:

A. every fact available and correctly represented for reader? or,

B. no reader whatsoever never annoyed because he/she never perceives the article representing a faulty opinion?

PLEASE!! Be sensitive - I want to know, not to be served politically correct mashed baby-food. Rursus 11:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"the best browser"

There are two occurences of the phrase "best browser" in the article (added here and here). Personally, I think there is no place for such strong opinions in fully NPOV article. What do others think about this? 193.219.28.146 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In both of these quotes I see it some other entity than Wikipedia giving the opinion. I don't see this as NPOV.Gutworth 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean no strong opinions. It means representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source and that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. If a reliable source publishes the view that Firefox is the best browser, that should be represented fairly and without bias. If another, equally significant, reliable source publishes the view that Firefox is the worst browser, that should be represented fairly and without bias also. -- Schapel 01:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I use FF nearly exclusively and love it, but FF is not the only best-in-class product. Industry ratings do not belong in the lead section; see the iPod article for an example of where they can go. In particular, the lead section is not the place for blanket quality ratings, or ratings of any kind; it is a place to summarize the article itself. In particular

"Forbes called Firefox the best browser"

is a rating and in itself does not summarize the article or describe FF. I spent way too much time digging this up on wikipedia so I'm going to put a link to: Wikipedia:Lead_section#Provide_an_accessible_overview Mistercupcake 02:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Main screenshot

Is this really the best we can do? Could it not be of a typical set-up - standard Windows XP theme, 1024x768? Seegoon 21:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with using a photo from the Linux version of the program? -Localzuk^(talk) 23:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Windows always? Mozilla Firefox also runs on other operating systems, Ubuntu looks good. --Emx 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Because people using Luna Blue at 1024x768 are probably less likely to use FF. --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the linux setup or colour scheme - but it would be nice if it illustrated the FF2.0 tabs, tabbed browsing being a key feature of the browser. 82.15.249.72 22:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Why it is a problem: because the vast majority of users are running Windows. Even better idea: change to Vista screenshot because it is the latest version of Windows. -Kingy 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Does it even matter, since interface is the same across all platforms? I think not. -- TheDarkArchon 13:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy (also the policy of Wikimedia Commons) mandates that a freely licensed image be used and the current main screenshot image fits the criteria. Images with visuals of Windows are not preferred and should be avoided when a freely-licensed alternative can be provided. Reasons why visuals of Windows do not fit the criteria —
Microsoft Windows is governed by a proprietary EULA. This means that the image could only be used under a Fair Use rationale, but that would preclude use of the image in Wikimedia Commons and anywhere else than the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy allows the use of an unfree image only if no free alternative exists (For example, if the software is proprietary and Windows-only, such as a screenshot of AutoCAD).
In the case of many screenshots, free alternatives are available, as there is free software available.
Read more at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria.
-Mardus 06:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your argument is really, hmm, interesting, considering the fact that logo of FF is also non-free. There was mention about this in the article, but one overzealous editor removed it recently. I cannot fix this edit, because article is semi-protected at this time; feel free to rv. this edit. Oh, and Happy New Year (it is 2007 in my timezone now). 193.219.28.146 00:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The logo of Firefox does have trademark restrictions, true (as the article already says the official artwork is trademarked and copyrighted, as I mentioned when I removed the duplicate mention of this fact). However, we are not using the image as the artwork of a browser. -- Schapel 00:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no mention about EULA in the article. This is bad, users are under impression that FF is completely free software (free as in freedom), but in reality it is also governed by EULA, like MS Windows (of course, details of both EULAs are completely different, but it is EULA anyway). FF is fully commercial product. Users from all over the world contribute code, bug test it, etc., but in reality the last word about general direction of FF development belongs to Google. OK, back to the subject :-) -- English Wikipedia uses logo of FF under fair-use clause. I think editor above was not fully aware about this fact... I just wanted to remind this. Consequence of this is e.g. that on Polish Wikipedia there is no logo of FF in article about Mozilla Firefox, because they don't use images on fair-use clause (personally, I don't agree with this decision, because servers of Wikimedia are in U.S., AFAIK, so there is no real reason to not using fair-use images in non-English Wikipedias, but my opinion probably doesn't matter...). 193.219.28.146 01:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the information about the EULA covered by the sentence about the clickwrap agreement? The FSF considers the official Firefox binaries released by Mozilla to not be free software because they include the proprietary crash reporter Talkback, have trademark restrictions on the Firefox name and artwork, and force the user to accept a clickwrap agreement (the latter only applies to the Windows version). If not, what information do you believe to be missing from the article about Firefox's EULA? -- Schapel 01:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no word 'EULA' in the article. Also, issues related with licensing should be as clear as possible. I believe state of this section before your removal was much better than it is now. See also discussion above, I am not the one who added this clarification. 193.219.28.146 02:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

So, the page has been protected from editing because of an edit war. I noticed a few days ago that this was a featured article, and I began the featured article review process. The goal of everyone involved should be to bring this article back to good condition. Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Mozilla_Firefox

If you look at WP:Summary style#Levels of desired details, it describes the main article "a set of multi-paragraph sections" as providing "a moderate amount of info on the topic's more important points". The problem here is that we're not following this guideline.

We need to think of this article from that person's perspective and remove the extra information. This is the information that is involved in the edit war. We need to strip it out of there. If you wish to make more detailed articles about this, then do so. But do not place this more detailed information into the main article.

Also, make sure that all the information in the main article is well-sourced. Blogs, wikis, and many mozilla.org citations are not acceptable.

These two things will make a world of difference here. Extra special attention to these guidelines is especially important when the topic of the article is something in which you have a personal interest. Vir4030 06:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Among all the problems with the information involved in the edit war, the most fundamental and unchanging factor was that the information was simply unimportant. The important criticisms have been added. However, some editors think that there's not enough criticism in the article and that they need to scrounge up more. What they come up with is trivial and has no place in a general encyclopedia article on the topic. My opinion is that if a criticism is worth noting in the article, it will be noted as a criticism in a product review, in a magazine article on browsers, in a web development book, by a security expert, by a web advocacy group (such as the Web Standards Project), a privacy advocacy group, or some other authority. There will be no need to point to Slashdot articles or Bugzilla bug reports to find any mention of criticism.

There's quite a bit of other trivia in the article, such as in the Market adoption section. I suggest that we put that section into a subarticle and summarize it in the main article. Most importantly, let's move away from adding every single nitpick that can possibly be substantiated and instead focus on improving the article. -- Schapel 07:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Criticism is POV unless it’s notable (such as well known security issues and such). Using the argument that an article (any article) needs more criticism for the sake of having criticism makes no sense at all.--I already forgot 05:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand talking about other articles (in situation when other articles have full "Criticism" sections) as basis for replacing NPOV language with less-NPOV language is also not so good, don't you think? 193.219.28.146 18:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As I explained before, I don't think it's POV to simply state what features a browser supports. Again, show me any description of a product that contains language such as "According to <developer of the software>, this product supports..." It comes off as awkward and implies that Mozilla is somehow untrustworthy. -- Schapel 05:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it is "untrustworthy" -- producer of the product is always biased source. He always wants to show his product in the best light possible. So, I object to this change:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mozilla_Firefox&diff=next&oldid=97286228 . I want to be bold, but I can't. I guess some people are really happy about this situation (i.e. I am not able to edit).

Here is suggested change: replace this:

"Mozilla Firefox supports many software standards, including, but not restricted to: [[HTML]], [[XML]], [[XHTML]], [[Cascading Style Sheets|CSS]], [[ECMAScript]] ([[JavaScript]]), [[Document Object Model|DOM]], [[MathML]], [[Document Type Definition|DTD]], [[Extensible Stylesheet Language|XSL]], [[SVG]], [[XPath]] and [[PNG]] images with [[alpha transparency]].<ref>[http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Gecko_FAQ#Which_open_standards_is_the_Gecko_development_project_working_to_support.2C_and_to_what_extent_does_it_support_them.3F Gecko FAQ]. ''mozilla developer center''.</ref>"

with this (based on sentence from Features of Mozilla Firefox article):

"Firefox has support for most basic Web standards including [[HTML]], [[XML]], [[XHTML]], [[Cascading Style Sheets|CSS]], [[JavaScript]], [[Document Object Model|DOM]], [[MathML]], [[SVG]], [[Extensible Stylesheet Language|XSL]] and [[XPath]].<ref>Web Browser Standard Support[http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support.php]</ref>"

External source is better than producer of the product. 193.219.28.146 18:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Firefox has support for most basic Web standards..." is already leaning to POV, because the stress would be on "most basic web standards" (the meaning would then change to "most web standards that are basic") and not on how many diverse standards Firefox actually supports. On the other hand, "... Firefox supports many [...] standards, including, but not restricted to: ..." sounds almost like legalese to me. -Mardus 07:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, source added by you is a little bit outdated, it also doesn't mention MathML, DTD, SVG and PNG with alpha transparency at all; XSL and XPath are mentioned in context of future work, i.e. "Work is already underway (...) to enable the integration of an XSLT engine (...)". So, find better source than this site on mozilla.org, please. 193.219.28.146 00:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I've added enough sources to cover all the claims now. Check out the sources and feel free to point out any more unsourced claims you can find. -- Schapel 04:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is no reason to trust them, because they're using "weasel words", even in comments in source code: http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/browser/app/profile/firefox.js#500 : "Safe browsing does nothing unless both these prefs are set." Well, on these (default) settings FF connects each half hour to Google's servers, see wider explanation above (BTW -- the situation with antiphishing (i.e. sending cookie etc.) is still the same in 2.0.0.1). 193.219.28.146 20:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is POV? I havent heard that one before and wonder where you plucke dit from, it certainly isnt wikipedia policy. If we start favouring this we browser over others such as IE then we are indeed breaking NPOV, SqueakBox 18:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If this article criticizes Firefox because of X, that's non-NPOV. If this article says that reliable sources criticize Firefox because of X, that is NPOV. Get it?--Nonpareility 19:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I see the main problem as being that some language used is slightly biased. While I am a devout FFX user, and I do believe that the criticism is well-implemented and the facts correct, some words imply POV, such as "improved" or "enhanced". Here is a sample of what I think this article should read like:

On October 24, 2006, Mozilla released Firefox 2. This version includes updates to the tabbed browsing environment, the extensions manager, the GUI, and the find, search and software update engines. It also includes a new session restore feature, inline spell checking, and anti-phishing features which were implemented by Google[10] as an extension and later merged into the program itself.[11]

(reply to SqueakBox) Criticism is the act of adversely criticizing. What one person may adversely criticize another may praise, so there shouldn’t be a problem adding a praise section to remain neutral right? Nope, both are a pov style of edit. There are plenty of ways to add notable criticism to the subject of the article without a blatant section of nitpicks. --I already forgot 16:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether we have a criticism section or not is not what is relevant but that we have an equal amount of criticism and praise, and we are nowhere near that balance on this article, SqueakBox 16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion there needs to be less of both and more of the straight facts. For example: "Firefox has been positively reviewed in various media outlets, including Forbes" sounds like it came from the marketing department. Both praise and criticism needs to be canned. --I already forgot 16:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with praise and criticism? When written in such a way that it expresses all points of view and with citations from reliable sources, both praise and criticism are useful and informative. Without criticism, how can we discuss any problems with the product? Additionally, expecting to have "an equal amount of criticism and praise" is ridiculous. Some browsers are better than others. For example, it's only natural that Internet Explorer is criticized more than Firefox. -- Schapel 02:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess it’s a matter of opinion. I did not find the example I gave above informative or useful. Intentional praise or criticism always comes off as POV. Take the same bit of info and add it to the article without sounding like praise or criticism and you end up with just the facts. That's what I'm looking for, change positive and negative to neutral and we have a winner. --I already forgot 04:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It originally cam with Tab Mix Plus disabled (so much for better tabbing) and I personally couldnt edit wikipedia with it due toi an irritatinjg time lag of several seconds. I'll try and find the page with the number of people who uninstalled it (me twice now) and criticisms of the original incompatibility of Tab Mix Plus, SqueakBox 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Update" is NPOV, because, while it states that something has been changed, it does not imply that it is now better. -Kingy 20:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your proposition of wording about FF2 is good. But, there is small ambiguity, I think. User could think that "session restore feature, inline spell checking, and anti-phishing features" were all implemented by Google as extension before, which is not true AFAIK. Only antiphishing was. So, the last sentence could be: "It also includes a new session restore feature, inline spell checking, and anti-phishing feature which was implemented by Google[10] as an extension and later merged into the program itself.[11]" 193.219.28.146 21:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As another note, maybe we should re-write the IE, Opera, Netscape, Safari, Konqueror, etc. articles so that they read the same way as this article, for greater consistency among the browser articles. -Kingy 20:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support this, SqueakBox 20:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so now we're getting somewhere! The only problem is, we can't implement any changes until this article is unprotected. -Kingy 20:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm, to the original section poster who said 'many mozilla.org citations are not acceptable.'. Yes they are, for uncontroversial issues (so saying there have been changes made to X feature and citing the mozilla.org release notes etc...) - please take a look at our citation and verifiability policies.

And on the other note, I agree that words such as 'improved' have no place in this article (or any other!) as they are POV. Neutral words such as 'changed', 'expanded' etc... are much better.

Also, I think all criticism (and praise!) should be sourced as per our policies (this is what I have said with regards all articles since I started editing here). The problem exists that some editors simply do not pay attention to this and try and insert criticism that is unsourced but 'everyone knows it' and then shout and cause a fuss when it is removed as unsourced.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested Status Change

From "protected" to "protected from vandalism". -Kingy 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll go for this too, at the end of the day we need to make progress and get this article in better shape, SqueakBox 20:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What does "protected from vandalism" mean in practice? That non-registered users are unable to edit article (as opposed to registered)? 193.219.28.146 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Unregistered and newly registered cant edit a semi protected article, SqueakBox 21:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

However, that's better than not letting anybody edit it. At least some progress can be made. -Kingy 21:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it will prevent me from editing article... How about fully unprotecting the article? I didn't see any vandalism from IPs before protection. 193.219.28.146 21:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like your suggestion was tried, and immediately anonymous editors started vandalizing the article. At least with semi-protection we can get the page into good shape. If you see any problems you'd like to see addressed, discuss them. I've already addressed one of your concerns by citing a reference. -- Schapel 05:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have objections to this reference, see above for details. I also have objection to this edit. There is no mention about EULA in this section, it should be included; also, this sentence clarifies situation with tri-licensing; please revert this change. BTW -- could someone inform me how long will this situation (i.e. semiprotection) last? I am not able to edit article... 193.219.28.146 19:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Tabbed browsing

"Firefox 2. This version includes improvements to the tabbed browsing environment"
This statement is not NPOV. It is marketing hype. V2 breaks the 1.5x tabbed browsing functioning that millions of 1.5x users expect. The NPOV statement would be "includes changes to the tabbed browsing" or even "includes significant changes to the tabbed browsing"... (By the way, apparently there are easy ways to change some hidden settings to restore the traditional functions. I can't be sure, I've been too afraid to risk "upgrading".) 69.87.193.126 23:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is already listed above. Why did you have to go and start a new section about it? By the way, you are correct, the old options are restorable, seeing as almost every feature in Firefox is tweakable. In fact, it is not the only feature you can revert. However, I am curious, what are you afraid of upgrading for? -Kingy 05:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolving the Issue

Let us agree, then, that all language with any POV connotation be removed and/or replaced, and all sources will be properly cited or the uncited content (or content cited to an invalid/unreliable source according to Wikipedia's guidelines) will be promptly and without hesitation removed. -A Moderate Voice in Chaotic Times 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Let's just get something done about it. We need to get this article's status changed. -Kingy 18:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I would ask that uncited material that has been in the article for months not be immediately removed, but instead marked with the citation needed template. If a citation isn't found relatively quickly, then someone may remove the material. I'm just concerned about some overzealous editors gratuitously removing important material. -- Schapel 05:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a pity that you're not equally concerned about removals of my fully sourced edits like this one. 193.219.28.146 20:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the problem with that post as far as I can tell was that you were not mentioning the 99% of the things the WHATWG is doing, but rather only mentioning the things you were criticizing. That means you did not present the information from a neutral point of view; specifically, you gave undue weight to the thing you were criticizing. You keep complaining that the article is not NPOV, and then making a POV edit to attempt to correct it. You'll never make an article more NPOV by adding POV edits. If you cover all of whatWHATWG is doing by explaining all sides of the issues and "treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" I think the edit would be a good one. However, that would include far more detail than should appear in the Firefox article, so should be placed in another article anyway. -- Schapel 03:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest then, that mentioning how Firefox and WHATWG are connected to each other should be in the article and information about WHATWG that directly does not refer to Firefox should be in a separate WHATWG article. -Mardus 07:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the part (only part) of the problem. FF implements numerous features from WHATWG spec. (as you can see there is article about them already) and there is no mention at all in the article about this fact. So, in the article should be included links at least to: WHATWG and Canvas (HTML element). 193.219.28.146 21:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe my edit was, more or less, fully NPOV. There are straight facts presented, very important facts, all well sourced. So, it should be included in the article, especially that info about it is somewhat hidden; users use encyclopedia to learn about subject and/or to know more. There is no mention about pref. browser.send_pings in the article on mozillazine about preferences in about:config. Of course, someone may claim that this shouldn't be included there, because it is only in testing (i.e. Gran Paradiso) builds. The problem is - after release of stable FF3.0 (which will very probably include support for "ping" attr.) it will be too late to do something with this. So, if you want to be permanently spied in the future (read also WHATWG spec. about persistent cross-domain storage -- how do you feel about cross-domain cookies?), feel free to ignore me and censor info about "ping" attribute.

And about "other side" - I'm sorry, but there is no "other side" of the "ping"-attribute issue. Its only purpose is tracking clicking on links. It is that simple. It gives completely nothing to user, but all to advertisers (using user's machine). So, if you want to show POV of advertisers, feel free to add it, but don't remove my (non-existant at this time) edit.193.219.28.146 22:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Your only source for claiming that "The only purpose of this additional attribute is tracking clicking on links" was a newsgroup post. That's not a reliable source. Further, I can't see anywhere in the newsgroup post that it even makes that statement. As if that's not enough, you completely neglected to mention information from another one of your sources, Darin Fisher's blog, and instead used a comment from the blog as a source, when a comment from a blog from a non-notable person can't be used as a reliable source. Please read about reliable sources and neutral point of view yet again see see the many problems with your edit. -- Schapel 01:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ian Hickson is notable person. That's the reason why I linked to his post. He is editor of WHATWG Web Apps. draft (see top of this page). I believe he is also involved somehow in development of FF - I saw him numerous times on channel #firefox on irc.mozilla.org (he has nick 'hixie' or something like that, AFAIR). (BTW - he is also Google's emloyee - see top of WHATWG spec. again). Perhaps this link was a little bit misplaced, but it is obvious for any person that is able to read specification and knows basics of HTTP/HTML, that "ping" is only for tracking. From other references included in my edit: from http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#ping : "The ping attribute, if present, gives the URIs of the resources that are interested in being notified if the user follows the hyperlink." From http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.send_pings : "The attribute would be useful for letting websites track visitors’ clicks." If you think there is some other purpose of this additional attribute, please tell me about it. (And BTW -- don't give me link to WP:OR again, please. Thanks.)

I know that it doesn't look good, but it is not my fault, really. "Don't shoot the messenger." Don't be angry on me that I talk about this issues. 193.219.28.146 02:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, blog/forum are only included to support the word 'controversial'. Please, read my edit carefully. 193.219.28.146 02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing: Darin Fisher also works for Google. (You can also look for some bugs in bugzilla, like this one - pay attention to "Assigned To" line). And how does Google earn money? From advertisements and from gathering statistics about users (i.e. tracking them) and selling this data. Coincidence? I don't think so... 193.219.28.146 03:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Another link to support the word 'controversial' in my edit : http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=2027414 193.219.28.146 03:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is "obvious for any person that is able to read specification and knows basics of HTTP/HTML, that "ping" is only for tracking" you still cannot say so in a Wikipedia article unless you have what is regarded as a reliable source that actually says the same thing. You cannot say that a controversy exists unless you have a reliable source that says there's a controversy. There is no analysis or synthesis of sources allowed. Please read the WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS policies yet again rather than continuing to post in your defense. Really what you were doing is citing sources to back up your original research. And even then, you're still stating only one particular POV, therefore not adhering to WP:NPOV. -- Schapel 04:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You completely ignored the rest of my statement. We're discussing and discussing but we are still nowhere, there is no progess. So, I guess it will be permanent edit war. This issue is too important to ignore it and not mention in the article, sorry. And I gave reliable sources to support my claims. 193.219.28.146 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't any progress because you're still not reading the links I've given. You were clearly trying to add original research to the article. All you can add is what reliable sources say. You cannot take several reliable sources and give your interpretation (analysis or synthesis) of what they say, no matter how "obvious" that interpretation may be. If you can give a reliable source that states the same thing as what you're trying to add to the article, I would have no problem with anyone adding the material to the article. They can't merely "support your claims" — they have to claim exactly the same thing you're claiming in the article. Read the original research link I keep giving and you will see it is a non-negotiable Wikipedia policy. -- Schapel 21:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself all the time... And I asked you above for not giving me a link to WP:OR again and again, it is rude. Anyway, I will try one more time: please, tell me, what is the other purpose of the "ping" attribute, as specified in WHATWG spec.? 193.219.28.146 22:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he is repeating himself because you are not quite understanding his point. It is not his job to provide 'other uses' for ping, it is your job to provide sources that comply with our policies. If you do not, then you are engaging in original research (as he has tried to point out several times).

Looking back through the archives of this talk page I can see a lot of occasions where you have been pointed at the relevant policies but you have either mis-interpreted them or simply ignored them. Please, to stop these never-ending arguments over something as simple as this, read them and ask questions if you do not understand what they mean. I can see that you mean to add information to the article but you must comply with our policies if you do.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have to repeat myself again:

From other references included in my edit: from http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#ping : "The ping attribute, if present, gives the URIs of the resources that are interested in being notified if the user follows the hyperlink." From http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.send_pings : "The attribute would be useful for letting websites track visitors’ clicks."

What's wrong with the fully sourced sentence in my edit: "The only purpose of this additional attribute is tracking clicking on links."? What other "reliable sources" do I have to find to include it? I gave reliable sources. They (i.e. WHATWG or FF's devs) will not formulate it in this way, because they want to propagate this attribute as wide as possible. But this sentence is true. There isn't other purpose of this attribute. 193.219.28.146 23:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

First you did not provide any source that says "The only purpose of this additional attribute is tracking clicking on links." That seems to be a conclusion you have drawn based on the sources you cite. Second, Darin Fisher says, "the benefits (listed in the replies above and all over the net) are seemingly quite obvious: 1. It actually gives you more control over privacy if adopted, since you can turn it off. You can't turn off redirect links which are already used all over the web. 2. It makes URLs more obvious to end-users. 3. You can get to the destination site, even if the tracking script fails or goes offline. I can't actually think of disadvantages to list, so you'll have to think up your own to refute these benefits." and "If the net result of this work is not a benefit to the user, then it's not worth doing." It seems to me that the main purpose of this attribute is to benefit end-users, as the source I cite says. Web sites already track visitors’ clicks without this attribute. The only difference with using the ping attribute is the benefits to end-users. -- Schapel 01:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no reason to trust him. He also wrote: "(...) this change is being considered with the utmost regard for user privacy". Really, what a joke... implementing spyware-like feature is for user's privacy... Did you read comments from people that are opposed to this idea? If not - please, do it. OK, now, counter-arguments to the list above:

1. there is big IF; personally, I doubt it will completely replace methods used today; AFAIK MSIE already implemented "gping", so right now there are two different "standards"; "turning it off" - there is no GUI to turn it off, only about:config (and probably there will not be GUI in the future); so, in practice this will be another thing that advertisers could use to (very effectively in case of "ping") spy users;

2. there is big IF (if widely adopted), see my answer to 1. above;

3. sorry, but there shouldn't be external "tracking script" in the first place; if someone wants to spy users in this way, then he must pay the price -- redirects (in general, not only to external server) are more costly (in terms of bandwith) than solution with "ping"; also, implementor of this tracking method risks that in case when tracking server fails, user will not see the destination, so he will go away and service will lose user; so, this method of tracking discourages its wide usage; on the other hand, "ping" doesn't have this disadvantages, so in practice it means Internet with a lot more spying than it is now, because it will be much easier and cheaper (in terms of bandwidth). 193.219.28.146 02:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why I called this 'spyware-like feature'... Because user is not able to distinguish between links with tracking and normal links. There is no indication about presence of "ping" attr. when hovering over link. Download Gran Paradiso and check it if you don't believe me. The only method to check it is either study source code of the page or click right mouse button on link and check properties. This won't be fixed, see this bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=324642 . (Comment from Darin Fisher (Google): "OK, marking this bug WONTFIX since showing pings in the status bar is just way too geeky." 193.219.28.146 15:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) - Darin Fisher is a developer on the project, so his word is as good as gold when it comes to what the intentions of the software (which he helped to create) was. Your reaction to him is the opposite to our policies - which again indicates to me that you still haven't read any of them (I won't bother linking to them again). All 3 of your comments are original research.

So, all 3 of his comments is also original research. 193.219.28.146 15:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're showing a complete lack of understanding of the problem. Other publications can publish original research. Once they have done so, Wikipedia can cite those publications as sources and therefore Wikipedia does not contain original research. If Darin Fisher had posted his comments in Wikipedia without citing a reliable source, that would be disallowed. -- Schapel 15:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he was referring to your 3 comments.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What three comments of mine? The only three comments I can see are in the quotes from Darin Fisher. Did I make comments in a Wikipedia article that are original research? -- Schapel 18:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Goes and re-reads* - Ah, indeed. His response makes no sense then.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, back to your comment about 'The only purpose of this additional attribute is tracking clicking on links.' This would require a source to back up that the purpose of the attribute is 'only' to track people. Can you provide this? If not, then it is simply original research. If the source you can provide says that the attribute can be used for tracking, then we can only state 'This additional attribute can be used for tracking' and nothing more.

So, again, I don't want to sound like a broken record but you simply need to read our policies on neutrality and original research. They cover this in great detail. Localzuk^(talk) 09:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I also don't want to sound like a broken record, but I gave reliable sources. I'll give you them again:

From other references included in my edit: from http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#ping :"The ping attribute, if present, gives the URIs of the resources that are interested in being notified if the user follows the hyperlink." From http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.send_pings : "The attribute would be useful for letting websites track visitors’ clicks." (Also there: "(...) the feature has possible privacy implications (...).")

I am not going to include these (first two from above) sentences in verbatim, because they don't state the raw truth. It is 'politically-correct' version. The truth is this attribute is only for tracking clicking on links. And that's what I am going to put in the article, because readers of encyclopedia deserve correct and uncensored information. 193.219.28.146 15:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the sentence "The only purpose of this additional attribute is tracking clicking on links." is fully NPOV. It simply states the truth. There is not a single word of criticism in the sentence. It doesn't say that is bad (or good), it is up to the reader to draw his/her own conclusions. 193.219.28.146 15:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You have just stated in plain language that you are using original research. You have stated that regardless of what the sources say, the only use of the attribute is tracking. This is original research. Can you provide a source that states that the only use is tracking clicking on links? If not, you should repeat what the source states as closely as possible, which you aren't doing. You may think they are 'politically correct' versions - but as you are using them as the sources, you can only summarise what they say and not what you think they mean.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't emphasize only, it is your choice. And I didn't add 'only' "regardless of what the sources say" -- sources doesn't say that it is not true (i.e. sources doesn't say that there is some other purpose of this attribute -- because there isn't). So, removing 'only' is IMO censoring important information, it doesn't show purpose of this attribute. Please, tell us -- what is the other purpose of this attribute, if tracking clicking on links is not the only one. 193.219.28.146 16:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I emphasised the 'only' bit because you seem to be missing the point here. You are saying 'only' without backing it up with a source. Yes, the ping attribute is used for tracking clicks but that doesn't mean it is 'only' used for that... Remember, Wikipedia isn't about 'truth' it is about verifiability - so regardless of how true you think it is, you still must provide a source to back it up. I do not have to disprove your statement - you have to prove the entire thing.

Also, the sentence you are trying to insert is poorly constructed and doesn't read very easily. Maybe something like 'This additional attribute can be used to track the usage of links' - note the 'can' there (which is the same terminology as your first reference). This conveys exactly what your references say and nothing more. Please, please, please read the policies we have linked to!! It is getting highly irritating having to continually tell you things that are blatantly against the policies.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but 'can' is definitely not acceptable. Why? Because it implies that there are other purposes than tracking clicking on links (which is not true). On the other hand "The purpose of this additional attribute is tracking clicking on links." or equivalent is better (note missing "only" - it should be there, but you demand other sources than already given by me).

And please, stop talking all the time about policies, because they are used to censor uncomfortable information. In particular, I think semi-protection was introduced with violation of Semi-protection policy (see also below). But guess what -- nobody cares about violation of these policies... 193.219.28.146 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I will address your wide and sweeping assumption of bad faith with regards to mentioning policies. You must always assume good faith when editing and discussing on this site (unless you have a very good reason not to). I see no evidence against myself or Schapel to indicate we are trying to censor anything - we are simply trying to prevent a pov being pushed by including unsourced information. The policies are there for a reason - don't ignore them.

The very fact that you think the policies are being used to censor does indeed show to me that you still have not read and understood them.

However, I do agree that semi-protection should not have been placed on this article and I will go and ask for it to be removed (3 edits by IP's does not constitute considerable vandalism...). I strongly care when policies are used incorrectly (for example I recently had another article unprotected for this same reason...).

Now, onto your new sentence. I agree that this new sentence is ok and would not argue against its inclusion (as long as the sources are provided with it). -Localzuk^(talk) 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:RFP and make the request there, say we have consensus to unportect, SqueakBox 18:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been done. The article is now semi-protected. Vir4030 16:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandals...

Some people keep vandalizing the page? I fixed it, but should this be protected? ThreeDee912 04:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

nvm

nvm. Just saw it was semi-protected

Help me out?

I found an SVG version of the Firefox logo online and uploaded it as Image:Firefox-logo.svg. When I try to add it to the Firefox article the image becomes invisible. Can anyone help? --SpongeBrain 19:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The image is visible to me (using Firefox 2.0.0.1). -Mardus 07:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The image is visible to me too, but when I add it to the Firefox article it isn't visible. Maybe, I'll try it again. --SpongeBrain 20:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)-

Alright, fixed. It turns out that the image just doesn't work at 92 pixels. The image looks a little rough so hopefully, people will help fix it up. --SpongeBrain 21:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article semiprotected?

After protection has been lifted I saw only three vandalizing edits, from the same IP (actually, another IP even corrected vandalism, see recent history of the article). So, according to Semi-protection policy it should not be semi-protected in this case. This situation could be considered "as response to regular content disputes, since it may restrict some editors and not others". 193.219.28.146 19:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

The word positively is positively not a weasel word. Using weasel words refers to words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. Please read the explanations of weasel words and NPOV before erroneously complaining that the article uses weasel words and is not NPOV. -- Schapel 21:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)