Talk:/e/ (operating system)/Archive 1

November 2018
The /e/ project has created a new functioning mobile operating system, is run through a public interest French-registered trust, and has an active community of supporters. It has an upward battle in a mobile operating system world strongly dominated by two players: Apple, who claim high ideas with regard to privacy but have everything locked in proprietary formats, and Google who give away plenty of free services in exchange for colossal data harvesting. The /e/ project aims to deliver a privacy-oriented open-source mobile operating system to provide a real alternative to those who don't want to be locked in to either Apple or Google. I'm just a volunteer in the community, but we've been fielding comments wondering where our wikipedia page is, hence Manoj's contribution here. Neither of us are experts at Wikipedia; if there are specific changes needed to make the page acceptable, please let us know. Russell. 49.3.11.211 (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Please note there is a page dedicated to /e/ project on Wikipedia in German. Please can someone from the editorial team explain why different standards are being applied, to the same topic with similar references but in different languages.As mentioned by Russell above in case there is any issue in the formatting or template please let us know. The references quoted are all from national newspapers and popular websites from across the world.Manoj Nair (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Yae4
This discussion is continued from.

, thanks for refraining from using forum posts with your most recent edits. However, the following additions are still not neutral.

With the word Ironically, you are using a non-neutral and unencyclopedic tone in your prose. Additionally, the above sentence is unrelated to the subject of the article (the operating system), and should be removed from the article as undue weight.

This type of criticism, sourced to a primary source, is a form of original research that is undue in the article. If this were covered by a reliable secondary source in a way that is pertinent to the article content, then it can be added to the article, but primary sources should not be used to form controversial conclusions that are not supported by secondary sources.

Please also take some time to review Wikipedia's no original research policy. In particular, we should prefer reliable secondary sources as the basis for the majority of the article's content. —  Newslinger  talk   19:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

These issues were addressed. "Ironically" was deleted. The sentence is related to background of the Kickstarter campaign, which was already included, so it should remain for balanced presentation of "non-Google" development.

"Original research" sentence was deleted.

InfoSec Handbook should be allowed as a 2nd party independent reference. Self-published PR by e foundation calls them experts, and InfoSec Handbook is one of few (or only one) to publish detailed investigation with professional form.

-- Yae4 (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * unfortunately that source does not fulfill the requirements for an acceptable source. Oldosfan (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They publish articles. The writers are recognized as experts, including by /e/ staff. And, the publisher, while having small staff, uses a panel who are involved in a wide range of sites. Unlike most other sources, they do not display advertisements. Please tell me specifically what requirement they do not fulfill?
 * Yae4 (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is starting to look like a reliability edge case to me. I'll start a noticeboard discussion to get more opinions. —  Newslinger  talk   03:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion is at: . —  Newslinger  talk   03:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Gitlab tracking of Issues from InfoSec Handbook. For future reference, at:

https://medium.com/hackernoon/leaving-apple-google-how-is-e-actually-google-free-1ba24e29efb9 https://www.indidea.org/gael/blog/leaving-apple-google-how-is-e-actually-google-free/

Duval published the following supplement comment, referring to /e/'s tracking of the issues in their GitLab:

"Gaël Duval April 29, 2019

All those points have been converted to issues in our GitLab: https://gitlab.e.foundation/search?group_id=&project_id=&repository_ref=&scope=issues&search=Infosec+Handbook+Review "

Therefore, referring to Gitlab tracking of the issues is NOT original research. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * /e/'s GitLab repository is a primary source, and your statement is an extrapolation of the primary source that is not covered by reliable secondary sources. Adding this statement would introduce undue weight into the article, and it would also be non-neutral because it paints the subject in a negative light ("still"). If you review articles on similar topics (LineageOS, CyanogenMod, and Android (operating system)) or just about any other open-source software article on Wikipedia, you'll see that none (or almost none) of them mention the proportion of open/closed issues in the tracker. Including this information when it's only cited to a primary source would significantly deviate from the norms on Wikipedia. —  Newslinger  talk   22:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The other similar topics include "negative" material and criticism, for more neutral coverage of the topic. This article still reads mostly positive, like an advertisement, aside from the couple statements you are pushing to remove. We are struggling to find replacements for the primary sources. Almost all of the secondary sources we find are really based on repeating the primary sources with some secondary interpretation, or based interviews of Duval, who is the primary source. In truth, if it wasn't for some success in getting primary source material repeated by "reliable" secondary sources, this article would be up for deletion. I'll reword the statement. We seem to agree mentioning tracking in gitlab is no longer original research. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article has already been nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion//e/ mobile operating system, and there was consensus to keep the article based on the availability of independent reliable sources. I absolutely do not agree with you on GitLab: your statement on the proportion of open/closed issues is both original research (interpretation of raw data) and undue weight (trivia outside the norms of software articles), and should be removed. We should be working to remove the content in the article that is not cited to independent reliable sources, and adding content that is. This article should be primarily based on these kinds of sources:
 * On the other hand, content sourced to group blogs with no reputations should be removed:
 * https://www.livemint.com/Technology/KMKuwDabJhVOIH4wDe0wUI/Eelos-crowdfunding-success-shows-how-important-data-privacy.html
 * Self-published sources have an exception for uncontroversial self-descriptions, in which they are treated as equivalents to primary sources, but they can not be used for descriptions of things other than themselves. —  Newslinger  talk   17:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please catch up on the gitlab statement; it has been changed. I agree FossForce and LiveMint are poor sources. However, I also think 1-5 are not much better. Infosec-handbook.eu is the only place I've found independent, professional looking, detailed coverage of /e/ that does not simply parrot or regurgitate the primary source info' for details on /e/.  Some notes on the list of references, and whether they are on the "reliable sources" list.  Linux Journal - No. Also, author Glyn Moody wrote book, Rebel Code: Linux And The Open Source Revolution, which has a chapter on Duval and Mandrake, and is highly praised in Duval's blog about page. This could indicate some lack of independence, collaboration, or favorable bias. In addition, the article has several links to hackernoon (non-reliable, primary source) and indidea (Duval's personal blog).  ZDNet - Yes. However, the article uses indidea (Duval's blog) and kickstarter links as the main source for details.  Tech Republic - No. Also references hackernoon and e's gitlab for details.  The Register - Yes, "reliable." However, also references hackernoon and e's gitlab for details.  Medium - Yes, but Non reliable.  Foss Force - No. Only 4 writers. Articles on /e/ are by Christine Hall, editor. So who edits the editor? Also references indidea (Duval blog) and e's kickstarter.  Live Mint - No. Also, Mostly uses kickstarter as source.  -- Yae4 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The new GitLab sentence, "As of April 2019, the issues were being tracked in /e/'s Gitlab", is better, but I don't think it's necessary. Articles on open-source projects generally just put a link to the repository in the infobox, and there's no need to mention this in the article body unless the fact that the project is on GitLab is remarkable in some way. Reliable sources do not have to be independent, and an author or journalist does not become non-independent when they cover a subject, even if they do so favorably. Glyn Moody is a notable author and Rebel Code is a notable book that was published by Basic Books, a reputable publisher. I don't see any valid reason to exclude the Linux Journal piece. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines govern articles on Wikipedia, and not the articles we cite. For example, original research is prohibited in Wikipedia articles, but the secondary sources we cite are expected to use original research as the basis for their content. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an article that provides a link to a subject, even if that linked web page would not be a suitable source for Wikipedia. Links don't "contaminate" sources in this way. —  Newslinger   talk   19:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It was actually 2 sentences together, not 1, and Gitlab wasn't the point; the point was Duval said independent experts (InfoSec Handbook) found the OS was not yet Google free, AND they are tracking the issues in Gitlab. Speaking of Gitlab links, if only one external link is good enough for Draft:MicroG, then shouldn't one be good enough for eOS? -- Yae4 (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We generally don't include self-published conversations between two parties unless they are covered by reliable secondary sources, or both of the parties are notable (InfoSec Handbook is not). InfoSec Handbook is not a subject-matter expert, as it has no recognition from reliable secondary sources. I've implemented a  parameter in Infobox OS for the software repository, and moved the repository link from the External links section to the infobox. —  Newslinger   talk   14:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.livemint.com/Technology/KMKuwDabJhVOIH4wDe0wUI/Eelos-crowdfunding-success-shows-how-important-data-privacy.html
 * Self-published sources have an exception for uncontroversial self-descriptions, in which they are treated as equivalents to primary sources, but they can not be used for descriptions of things other than themselves. —  Newslinger  talk   17:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please catch up on the gitlab statement; it has been changed. I agree FossForce and LiveMint are poor sources. However, I also think 1-5 are not much better. Infosec-handbook.eu is the only place I've found independent, professional looking, detailed coverage of /e/ that does not simply parrot or regurgitate the primary source info' for details on /e/.  Some notes on the list of references, and whether they are on the "reliable sources" list.  Linux Journal - No. Also, author Glyn Moody wrote book, Rebel Code: Linux And The Open Source Revolution, which has a chapter on Duval and Mandrake, and is highly praised in Duval's blog about page. This could indicate some lack of independence, collaboration, or favorable bias. In addition, the article has several links to hackernoon (non-reliable, primary source) and indidea (Duval's personal blog).  ZDNet - Yes. However, the article uses indidea (Duval's blog) and kickstarter links as the main source for details.  Tech Republic - No. Also references hackernoon and e's gitlab for details.  The Register - Yes, "reliable." However, also references hackernoon and e's gitlab for details.  Medium - Yes, but Non reliable.  Foss Force - No. Only 4 writers. Articles on /e/ are by Christine Hall, editor. So who edits the editor? Also references indidea (Duval blog) and e's kickstarter.  Live Mint - No. Also, Mostly uses kickstarter as source.  -- Yae4 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The new GitLab sentence, "As of April 2019, the issues were being tracked in /e/'s Gitlab", is better, but I don't think it's necessary. Articles on open-source projects generally just put a link to the repository in the infobox, and there's no need to mention this in the article body unless the fact that the project is on GitLab is remarkable in some way. Reliable sources do not have to be independent, and an author or journalist does not become non-independent when they cover a subject, even if they do so favorably. Glyn Moody is a notable author and Rebel Code is a notable book that was published by Basic Books, a reputable publisher. I don't see any valid reason to exclude the Linux Journal piece. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines govern articles on Wikipedia, and not the articles we cite. For example, original research is prohibited in Wikipedia articles, but the secondary sources we cite are expected to use original research as the basis for their content. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an article that provides a link to a subject, even if that linked web page would not be a suitable source for Wikipedia. Links don't "contaminate" sources in this way. —  Newslinger   talk   19:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It was actually 2 sentences together, not 1, and Gitlab wasn't the point; the point was Duval said independent experts (InfoSec Handbook) found the OS was not yet Google free, AND they are tracking the issues in Gitlab. Speaking of Gitlab links, if only one external link is good enough for Draft:MicroG, then shouldn't one be good enough for eOS? -- Yae4 (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We generally don't include self-published conversations between two parties unless they are covered by reliable secondary sources, or both of the parties are notable (InfoSec Handbook is not). InfoSec Handbook is not a subject-matter expert, as it has no recognition from reliable secondary sources. I've implemented a  parameter in Infobox OS for the software repository, and moved the repository link from the External links section to the infobox. —  Newslinger   talk   14:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Caliwing deletion of FastCompany Source and statement, Claim of non-neutral edits

 * Please revert most of User:Yae4 edits and block him. He is clearly trying to hurt the project with non-neutral content. This can not be accepted Caliwing (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

aka Fairly representing all significant viewpoints (WP:DUE), including from the Fast Company article
I'm open to revising the statements from the apparently reliable source, to give due weight to its views. I'm not open to ignoring it. https://www.fastcompany.com/90385283/these-startups-aim-to-smash-apple-and-googles-smartphone-duopoly This source, Fast_Company, gives a fairly thorough coverage of e foundation and Purism/PureOS/Librem 5, and compares and contrasts the two. Partly because it includes similar info' as published by Free Software Foundation, the following was chosen for this article. "Until e Foundation can offer its own hardware designed from scratch, it will have to rely on third-party hardware drivers that it doesn’t control. Avoiding that liability is one of the main goals of Purism and its forthcoming smartphone, the Librem 5." Other comparisons not included in this article so far: "Its eOS aspires to be a Google-free version of Android that has a wide range of device support. It’s not a new idea:..." "Purism has been shipping laptops with a strong focus on security and privacy since 2015. It’s used the revenue from its laptops to fund development of its first smartphone. Like its previous devices, the phone runs Purism’s own version of Linux, giving it even more distance from the Google ecosystem than e Foundation’s Android-based system." "With eOS, e Foundation is taking a Google-like approach, by trying to get its software on as many smartphones as possible in order to reach ubiquity. Purism, by contrast, is pursuing Apple-like vertical integration by developing its own operating system, optimizing hardware to run on it, and even launching a group of services under the banner of Librem One." Suggestions for fair and neutral statements to include? -- Yae4 (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This Wikipedia article is about /e/, and not Purism. The majority of the content we use from the Fast Company piece should focus on /e/, because it is the subject of this article. You're welcome to cite the Fast Company piece in the Purism (company) article, and I see that it's not cited there yet. The sentence "Avoiding that liability is one of the main goals of Purism and its forthcoming smartphone, the Librem 5." is not relevant to the subject of /e/. However, we can use the paragraph from the piece that contrasts /e/'s "Google-like" approach to Purism's "Apple-like" approach. I've replaced the previous sentence with a summary of this comparison. —  Newslinger  talk   19:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's all about eOS Reception, and how to neutrally present the several comparisons given in the source. We could also compare and contrast hardware and services. The wiki-link should go to Purism the company, or PureOS the operating system, however, not to the arts movement. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox, Package Manager

 * The section to the right has a reference to Package Manager where it mentions '...optional Repositories like F-Droid, Amazon Appstore or Google Play Store) (if installed)' this comment is out of place here. None of these Apps are installed in the /e/ ROM so a 'if installed' seems to be mischievous and entire sentence from optional to installed' needs to removed.Mnair69 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. That part of the infobox has been like that since May, before my edits began. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No one is accusing you. The info box has wrong information which needs to be removed and is a request to the moderators. It mentions '...optional Repositories like F-Droid, Amazon Appstore or Google Play Store) (if installed)' this comment is out of place here. None of these Apps are installed in the /e/ ROM or can be installed on /e/ ROM's. An app like Google play store will not work on an OS like /e/ which has MicroG preinstalled. So a 'if installed' seems to be mischievous and entire sentence from optional to installed' needs to removed. -- Mnair69 (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest taking more care with words like "mischievous" and where you put comments. We could discuss details like f-droid, Yalp or Aurora being installable, or details of /e/'s store, but this article has bigger problems with advertising tone, primary sources, original research, and conflict of interest. How much "features" detail to include is already being discussed below. Maybe other editors will have suggestions soon. I've already been criticized for deleting too much. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've changed the package manager parameter to "APK-based". Suggesting which app stores to use is beyond the scope of the infobox. —  Newslinger  talk   19:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Features Section (was Recent edit by User:Yae4)
I do not believe that an uncited block of features belong on an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, since it makes it seem like an advertisement, and probably doesn't fulfill WP:NOTABILITY (if that is applicable to content). Oldosfan (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. For the record, all I did was re-format the material, with some small changes.
 * Yae4 (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice, should I remove it then? Oldosfan (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, it should probably be removed. I'm going to add some reliable secondary sources to the article. If there is enough information in those articles to form a "Features" section, we can rewrite it. —  Newslinger  talk   04:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done. if there's anything else that needs to be done just ask Oldosfan (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to disagree here. Listing the main core features to show the specificities of a project is appropriate for an Encyclopedia. It's just facts. Why should this be considered advertisement to list features? Caliwing (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can cite secondary reliable sources for those features, then they will be eligible for inclusion into the article. —  Newslinger  talk   18:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Liliputing.com versus InfoSec-Handbook.eu, as secondary sources
I added a liliputing reference without giving it too much thought, but now that infosec handbook has been challenged, and I noticed the liliputing article was based on an XDA Developers article, and none of the 3 is in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, I'd appreciate some help with comparing and contrasting why one is a good source but the other isn't, because I'm not seeing it. Here's my start. More? -- Yae4 (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Liliputing is not on WP:RSP because it has never been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard. Popular group blogs like Liliputing are a borderline case, since editors could classify it as either a self-published source or a marginally reliable publication. Feel free to start a noticeboard discussion to clarify the issue, if you want to determine whether Liliputing should be removed from other articles. —  Newslinger  talk   17:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you watchlist WP:RSN anyway, but FYI, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Liliputing.com_blog_as_a_reliable_source? -- Yae4 (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've responded there. —  Newslinger  talk   03:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:MicroG for improvement, if interested
There should be a microG page; /e/ uses it... Could you help make the draft, Draft:MicroG, better? -- Yae4 (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page for /e/ Operating System. Not sure why this particular section asking help for a page on MicroG has been added -- Mnair69 (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Cases User:Indidea and User:Caliwing (Was Case User:Yae4)
User:Yae4 is doing some repeated vandalism on this page. He has removed most of its content, and is acting repeatedly. His tone is not neutral, he is clearly trying to discretit the /e/ project. Caliwing (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed mosly with comment above. Actually I'm afraid that it is worse: User:Yae4 edits on the /e/OS page is not neutral and according to what he's trying to post, he's clearly trying to advertize some (competing?) projects like Purism on this page. I think this can NOT be accepted on Wikipedia. Indidea (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Re "vandalism": See here: User_talk:Caliwing. My user page states my relationship with the topics, does yours? -- Yae4 (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Newslinger Please can we have a moderator intervention to resolve this issue of frequent changes and deletion to the details on the page-- Mnair69 (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that User:Indidea and User:Caliwing are sockpuppets of the User:Mnair69, who may have financial interest in the /e/ project. They have been frequently involved in mono-topic editing which seems very suspicious. Someone should probably do a checkuser Oldosfan (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * also I'd like to add that both users edit history have been concentrated around the /e/ project so much that they seem like single purpose accounts Oldosfan (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No affiliation at all with the proejct, just a tester and observer, and big interest in Linux and open source. On the other hand, the repeated edits from Yae4 on this page clearly show the purpose of his edits. This guy obviously has a destruction mission or I missed something. Caliwing (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'd like to clarify that I'm not an administrator on Wikipedia. In content disputes, all involved editors (including administrators) have equal voices, and we are expected to reach a solution by consensus. Please note that sockpuppetry is not allowed on Wikipedia, and that everyone is limited to one account in most cases. Also, it is considered bad form to accuse other editors of sockpuppetry without adequate evidence ("casting aspersions"). If there is clear-cut evidence of sockpuppetry, anyone can open a sockpuppet investigation with the evidence and post the link here.

For anyone who missed the discussion here and on the reliable sources noticeboard during the past week, a community discussion has concluded that there were significant portions of this article that did not meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline. We're in the process of removing content based on self-published sources and replacing it with content based on secondary reliable sources to better meet Wikipedia's quality standards. This means that much of the original content from the December 2018 version of the article must be replaced or rewritten.

If you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia's core content policies, please take some time to read the following pages:
 * Verifiability
 * No original research
 * Neutral point of view

Please feel free to ask any questions you may have. —  Newslinger  talk   16:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explaination. Yes I have a question about primary and secondary sources because I think in some cases, some facts can clearly be checked from primary sources and you won't find content in secondary sources about it. Let me give an example in the /e/OS case: the list of supported devices, like it was added recently by a user, is on their gitlab. That's facts, can be checked. Is there any issue with using such a source? Another case: reference to source code. That's a primary source, just facts. Does it qualify as an acceptable source? Caliwing (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I've asked for help first on including /eOS technical info on Duval's bio page, and a look at recent edits. I don't know how ordinary editors could prove puppetry, but it also appears to me Caliwing and Indidea are unusually attached to Duval and his projects, and have similar behavior on Wikipedia, around the same times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ga%C3%ABl_Duval -- Yae4 (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not affiliated to this project, I'm just a software engineer, curious about open source, privacy and technology in general. However [User:Yae4|Yae4]]: 1) clearly has a bias against the project and his account history shows that he is dedicated mostly to editing the /e/ page 2) has editing practises that go against Wikipedia rules. In particular all his edits show he's removing useful and balanced content in favor or non-neutral content against the project.Caliwing (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

As suggested at the BLP noticeboard, discussion of conflict of interest has been raised for more participation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#/e/_(operating_system). -- Yae4 (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Caliwing, How do you explain your exclusive focus on Gael Duval's article in the English and French wikipedia? "Not affiliated" and "just a software engineer" but extremely interested in Gael Duval articles, and now /e/'s. Do you happen to know what kind of shoes Duval likes too? And now you have time to dig through gitlab for "sources" and are very familiar and promotional of e's services. You're not fooling anyone by calling Indidea "a user" - "like it was added recently by a user." At least you're not fooling me.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Caliwing


 * https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/Caliwing


 * https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cali+wing+toe+derby&t=h_&ia=web


 * -- Yae4 (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * FYI, In case others wish to comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Indidea -- Yae4 (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that you have some valid points, but this sounds really like finger-pointing and not assuming good faith. You should let him have another chance before pointing fingers at people.
 * Similarly User:Caliwing your responses to these accusations have been extremely illogical and badly-thought, with a distinct tendency to shit to ad hominems.
 * Also, it may be a good idea to remember WP:AGF is not a suicide pact
 * Both of you should calm down a bit! Would (oldosfan) 02:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Following up: Users Indidea and Caliwing have now both been blocked, after Sockpuppet investigation. It was noted "All three of these accounts stopped editing when Indidea was blocked, which I find suspicious." and "Indidea and Caliwing are very  Likely. Mnair69 is  Unrelated." Unrelated in terms of technical sockpuppetry; however, their common interest, and coordinated activities were noted. We all know Mnair is working with or for e foundation, which is run by Gael Duval (aka Indidea, aka Caliwing). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Caliwing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Indidea Title of this talk section has been modified accordingly. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

See also section
A few were recently added and deleted, in apparently random order. So, should they be in order of relevance or similarity to eOS, alphabetical, or other? Should it only be mobile operating systems or also include other organizations? Because the pull-downs at the page bottom include extensive lists, divided by types, my opinion is the See also section should only include Wiki pages connected by mention in this article text (and based on sources). eOS is not really in the same category as many now listed. I'd include other Android ROMs - CyanogenMod, CopperheadOS, LineageOS, and Replicant because they are all similarly Android-based or privacy oriented; and PureOS and Purism because of the FastCompany source comparison. The others at the top of the list now (FIrefox, Ubuntu Touch, KaiOS and Sailfish) are non-Android, without sourced comparisons. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * FirefoxOS, UbuntuTouch (and probably Sailfish) have similarities with /e/OS because they are ungoogled mobile OS. (which, on the other hand, is not the case of LineageOS that you are citing). As /e/OS is mostly about unGoogling, I think this really makes sense to have it (KaiOS may be more discutable). Regarding the order, my vote is for alphatical order.Caliwing (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

My interpretation is you are trying to make eOS look more "unGoogled" and less Android than reality. eOS is Android-based, fork of LineageOS (rebranded CyanogenMod) as discussed in secondary sources. Comparison with non-Android OS is original research, and gives an appearance eOS is less of an Android/LineageOS OS fork than reality. I'd be OK with clarifying which are Android-based and which are not, but I think we should limit the list. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've replaced all of the links in the "See also" section with links to Comparison of mobile operating systems and List of custom Android distributions. MOS:NOTSEEALSO states that the "See also" section shouldn't repeat links that are in the article body. Until very recently, we were also not supposed to include links that are found in the article's navigation boxes, but this restriction was removed for the benefit of Wikipedia readers who use mobile devices. It would be too much to list every single comparable mobile operating system, so a link to the comparison is probably more appropriate. —  Newslinger  talk   20:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

History repeats, name changes
Shouldn't this article mention the fact that legal issues drove the change from eelo to /e/, and this is a repeat of history - legal issues drove the change from Mandrake to Mandriva? It seems like a notable fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandriva_Linux#Name_changes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandriva#History -- Yae4 (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've restored a short mention the trademark dispute with Gaël Duval's blog post as the supporting primary source. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any secondary sources for this information, but it's important enough to be included. The Mandrake/Mandriva issue would be out of scope here due to the lack of sources, primary or secondary, linking this name change to the prior one. —  Newslinger  talk   10:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a secondary source making the connections, but we called it less reliable or something. https://fossforce.com/2017/12/eelo-gael-duvals-open-source-privacy-respecting-android-clone/ -- Yae4 (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Duval personal site primary source has been changed to secondary source, with some copyedit. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Non-neutral editors User:Yae4 User:Oldosfan on Wikipedia, at least for this page
I'm a /e/(eelo) user and looking at its page on Wikipedia, I was surprised to see that IMHO it doesn't reflect well the project, and is very outdated. In particular it misses a lot of features that are present in /e/ and make it very interesting and innovative for some users as a full Google replacement on the mobile (well, for me at least :) ). So I was wondering why was the article so "light" when I discovered the history of edits with many added contents that was then deleted etc. I discovered discussion page here. It is very interesting to read and I see that there are people here that have been fighting a lot with different points of view! As I am quite new to Wikipedia, I don't know if it's a usual situation, however, I started to spend more time to examine edits. What I discovered is that only a few users did a lot of edits. Also, as some of these editors are super-active on this discussion page, I had a look at their personal edit history.

What I found is just awesome! User:Yae4 in particular, whose case has already been discussed here earlier without anybody apparently caring, is obviously non-neutral. If you look at his personal edition track since late August 2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Yae4&dir=prev&target=Yae4) it all started with: "+1,818‎ /e/ (operating system) ‎ Add criticisms and controversy section" and later " /e/ (operating system) ‎ Criticism section with /e/'s published sources. "

Actually his edits are mostly "anti-/e/" or more subtle "/e/ FUD". He also tried to add some reference to some competing projects such as Purism/LibreM. Actually if you look at his edits from the start until September 9th, 90% of his contributions are anti-/e/ edit on the article and anti-/e/ actions on this discussion page. That's a deliberate and systematic behaviour.

Also, I discovered another editor here is interesting User:Oldosfan

Look at his edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Oldosfan&dir=prev&target=Oldosfan

While he has been less active that User:Yae4, quickly after he started to edit on Wikipedia, most of his activity seemed to focus on anti-/e/ edits and comments. One notable thing is also that there is a small public group of /e/-haters on Telegram at: t.me/ewwlo and guess what? User:Oldosfan is moderator of this group and the most active member!!!


 * Actually, after being promoted (recently, I was not an administrator during the original edit war) by void on the group I have declared a COI on my user page. If I forgot, apologies: I will add it.
 * What does not change however, is that I believe that /e/ has been manipulating Wikipedia through sockpuppet accounts. Would (oldosfan) 06:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to add that I find hypocritical how /e/ accuses my (and User:Yae4 original (pre-ewwlo) editing as being bad faith, whilst /e/ uses multiple COI and sockpuppet accounts to manipulate Wikipedia in a way that advertises /e/. Also, as someone who has used /e/ once (and hated it, but that's not important here), I can say that in my opinion /e/ does nothing new or constructive on top of LineageOS for microG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldosfan (talk • contribs) 07:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

s


 * Bouncing back hot potatoes can work as a defense, but here it lacks some subtility! 1984brave new world (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're sidestepping the question by not answering my first rebuttal: "(recently, I was not an administrator during the original edit war)" Would (oldosfan) 02:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yae4 is not visible in the members of this "ewwlo" group on Telegram but I would be surprised if he was not part of it using another nickname.

So, despite the apparent efforts of User:Newslinger to make this page balanced and factual, what we have now as a result is super-incomplete and outdated content, which is the result of a an edit war from a few guys, probably from competing projects, who are fighting the /e/ project and are manipulating Wikipedia. It is understandable that haters exist but how is it possible nobody stopped them here? Aren't there some procedure for this kind of case? 1984brave new world (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Once again, I can no longer participate in this discussion. I invite other editors to review what has happened here, and come to a conclusion on what should be done. Would (oldosfan) 06:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

New proof that User:Yae4 is non-neutral and probably has a conflict of interest, his microG draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:MicroG, where he doesn't mention /e/ as ROMs that include microG. 1984brave new world (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User:1984brave_new_world, I ignored your first one or two comments, but you are making repeated personal attacks, at more than one page. This is unacceptable at Wikipedia.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Consequences_of_personal_attacks


 * Another interesting thing about the history of editing of this page is the apparent violation of European Fair-trade law:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#European_fair-trading_law


 * User:Oldosfan, I'm not a lawyer, but I've read the COI policies. I don't find anything saying your situtation would be a conflict at this page. Having a strong dislike for something, and blogging about it, does not prevent someone from editing /e/ neutrally. It would be different if you were promotionally editing a wikipedia page about ewwlo.xyz, however.


 * User:Newslinger, if you're following this, am I mistaken? -- Yae4 (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:EXTERNALREL states, "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest." This situation looks like a gray area, and any editor can escalate it to the conflict of interest noticeboard for review. —  Newslinger  talk   22:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI, on the questions of being a member or admin of an ewwlo.xyz discussion group, or having negative opinions of e foundation and its Wikipedia practices, WP:POVEDITOR says, "A cause-driven editor may edit articles whether related to the cause or not. Caution is advised, but permission stands." It's not the same as COI. Clearly 1984brave_new_world believes it's OK to be a member and a spy in such groups, and participate at talk pages here. It's my opinion Oldosfan is OK to stay involved here, with caution. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be more inclined to agree if there were no "moderator" position involved, but that aspect makes me less certain of whether this is considered a conflict of interest. Uninvolved editors might be able to clarify this in the conflict of interest noticeboard discussion. —  Newslinger  talk   19:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, Asked, here. --Yae4 (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@User:1984brave_new_world, Re: "One notable thing is also that there is a small public group of /e/-haters on Telegram at: t.me/ewwlo"... To clarify, are you suggesting this meets Wikipedia notability requirements and should be added to this article?

After you "started to spend more time to examine edits," don't you have any concerns or comments on the sockpuppet editing by Caliwing and Indidea?

Is it purely unrelated coincidence you and Caliwing both edited in early September, did nothing for most of September-October, and became active again around now? I hesitate to cast aspersions, but your writings look similar to me, and the timing is...coincidental. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Without a reliable secondary source, the Telegram group doesn't meet the standards for inclusion. Any editor can start a sockpuppet investigation with due cause. —  Newslinger  talk   23:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If I understand well, Yea4 thinks that I am the same as the other user "Caliwing"!? Where are we here? 1984brave new world (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Reception
The Reception section seems a bit hostile. Of the five sources quoted, four are negative and one neutral. The negative ones are just opinion, not fact-based.

I've never used /e/ and don't know any of the people involved, but it seems obvious to me that (1) there is a need for a cellphone that doesn't send its users' private data to Google or Apple, and (2) there are some very wealthy players (billion-dollar corporations) who don't want /e/ to succeed. Longitude2 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, feel free to make changes to the article yourself, or propose alternative text for the "Reception" section here. Let me know if you have any questions about editing. —  Newslinger  talk   16:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph
The opening sentence of this article's lead section clearly states /e/ is a free and open source project. Just like every other such project, including Wikipedia, anyone is able and encouraged to contribute to the development and improvement in all manner of ways so as to achieve the project's aims. It is therefore unnecessary in the lead section to give an example of any one specific area of development. The relative emphasis on the /e/ project's privacy aims is best achieved here by quoting the project's mission, referencing its website in line with WP:PRIMARYCARE. This edit is also more in line with Wikipedia's Manual of Style on the Opening Paragraph, which confirms the first paragraph shoud not be too specific.

By emphasising one specific aspect of the project's development aims in such depth of detail and prominence of placement, the previous part seemed not to conform with Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight.Cymrodor (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This recent edit by an IP editor in France, and this very similar edit by, both remove language based on secondary sources, and replace it with language from primary source. This is moving away from NPOV, towards advertisement, which is not appropriate. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I've reinstated my edit. The comment above from Yea4 does not address any of the points I gave to explain my edit. Yea4's argument about primary source is a false one as the statement Yea4 is insistent on giving undue weight to by placing it prominently in the lead paragraph is itself a statement made by the person behind /e/, Gael Duval, taken from a blog post of his, here . That statement was made back in 2018 when the /e/ operating system was in early days of development. This adds weight to the argument that placing it prominently in the lead paragraph is not in line with due and undue weight as the relevance of the point made in the statement has diminished and continues to reduce over time.Cymrodor (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , I'm changing it back again. particularly worked a lot on NPOV and balance for the whole article, and using secondary sources. You've brought nothing new, just primary sourcing, and you're completely deleting a sourced phrase. My response to your guide/style/policy links is,  knows the policies much better than I, and WP:NOTNEWS. I'm not sure precisely where the line between eOS user, fan, etc., and conflict of interest falls, but your (and the IP editor's) recent edits have appearance of WP:COI, to me. Would you have one to declare? -- Yae4 (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The only difference between the two versions is the last sentence of the opening paragraph.

From Special:Permalink/952002983:

From Special:Permalink/951848778:

I understand the undue weight concerns, and I agree that it makes sense to move the "challenges the public..." part into the "History" section of the article. It's okay to mention /e/'s goals, but it would be best to paraphrase a secondary source, rather than repeat a mission statement from a primary source. Is there a secondary source that contains the relevant information? —  Newslinger  talk   05:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

List of default apps
I reverted the addition of a list of default apps, but the reasons I put in the edit summary was not kept in the edit history: It added a list of non-notable original research based only on a primary source, with several red links. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Additions
Hi y'all, I found out about the /e/ project recently and wanted to rework the Wikipedia page to cover some of the more important features of the project. Hopefully having another contributor will help with some of the bias issues this page has encountered so far. Let me know if you have any feedback, and I'm sure I'll see you 'round. Ph03n1x77 (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding these changes mostly by User:Ph03n1x77:


 * Thanks for trying to expand the article and bring some new sources; however, we are supposed to neutrally summarize what reliable secondary sources say, and not add statements without citing sources, or rely too much on primary sources. So, I have the following comments on changes that expand on or do not neutrally summarize what sources actually say. Rewording summaries of previously existing sources should be supported by discussion and consensus.


 * "bundled" is a marketing term, and it is not used by Moody in the Linux Journal source. Note "associated web services" is the headline wording of the IndianExpress source.


 * Addition of "non-profit" highlights a factoid that is not mentioned in the cited sources.


 * Adding "2018" in lead: Cited sources do not state when the foundation was formed exactly, and history details go better in the History section.


 * "challenges" versus "has challenged": The challenge remains open presently, unless you have a source making it notable that the challenge has ended.


 * "Software" to "Firmware" for section title: TheRegister source uses the word "software" in heading; "firmware" does not appear. Similarly for bgr source.


 * Added "In order to allow users to run default Android apps,": This is synthesis of some kind. It does not come from the sources.


 * Added sentence regarding future renaming: Is not supported by a reliable source or even a primary or self-published source.


 * Added statistics, etc., "Currently, as of January 2021, /e/ supports..." Is not supported by the cited Arstechnica source. The source says "The device support for /e/ is also limited..." and summarizes: "That hot mess of device support". This fits better in Reception.


 * Added new Features section: The MakeUseOf source mostly copied info' from e's website without any critical comments, like an advertisement (with many embedded advertisements). In my opinion, it looks like a blog post. While the "about" says they fact-check, I found no evidence of an editorial board or review process. It has not been discussed at Reliable Sources Noticeboard, although it is used in numerous articles. Therefore, I suggest finding other, more independent and reliable sources to support statements here. Also, "notability" of details and statistics are doubtful, and looks like advertising.


 * Expanded Software section: Sourcing of several statements is not clear or is missing. FastCompany source was already summarized in the Reception Section. MobileSyrup source does not even mention e. TheRegister source looks like it fits better in the Reception Section.


 * Added New Hardware section: The primary/blog source only mentions Fairphone 3. This "teaming" has been added to the History section.


 * --Yae4 (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yae4, thanks for the feedback. I hope we're able to find a consensus for the page as I'm sure you agree it can be improved, and that's all I was trying to do.


 * Firstly, it looks like you reverted all of my changes, with the exception of rewording and adding the Fairphone partnership under history. In your post you explained a couple of issues with my edits, but does that justify removing all of them, even the ones you didn't specify an issue with?


 * For example, I'm more than happy to keep the heading Software when discussing /e/'s OS, and rename the paragraph that discusses their app store to "Additional Software" or something else. However, the content under that heading, about the installer, app store, and launcher was well supported by sources. Why did you delete it?


 * Next, I think you might be confused about Wikipedia's policy on sources. Wikipedia does have a policy against original research. However, it does not have a ban on using primary sources, even if an article uses lots of them. Reviewing this explanatory page, we see that 1) "Secondary" does not mean "good" 2) "Primary" does not mean "bad" and 3) Primary sources should be used carefully


 * There is support in the secondary articles that I cited for some of the things that I added, such as the ability to run default android apps. Particularly, the ZDnet article states "What this means is that you can run some Android apps, which normally only work on a fully Google-enabled Android phone on an /e/ phone."


 * However, that is more clearly stated on the e.foundation website, along with the non-profit nature of the e foundation, the partnership with Gigaset, etc (as a side note, this review mentions the e foundation as a non-profit). If you'd like I can go through and add a citation to each of the statements that I added, while recognizing that many of them are stated most clearly or only stated on the official website.


 * Let's resolve those issues, and we can move on to the rest of the concerns that you brought up.


 * Let me know what you think! Thanks


 * Ph03n1x77 (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Immediately above are detailed reasons for each change. Looking at a "difference" in the History shows more than just one was kept. In particular a summary of the Nov. 2020 TheRegister source was also added, to Reception. Yes, you need to provide a good citation for every statement you wish to add. The clearer you can make it, the better for verification. Re: Additions and sourcing, the guidance above in the "Features Section..." from User:Newslinger, now an admin, 1.25 years ago, remains applicable. This article is on "e operating system." Not on  Duval, and not on the foundation as an organization. And not an advertisement. e foundation itself may be a non-profit; however, they also say there are or may be for-profit associated companies. Thus, a mention in a source that e foundation is "non profit" may need to be balanced by a mention that associated "for profit" companies also may exist. Balance of coverage by reliable secondary sources comes into play as well. It's my opinion that adding "non-profit" in the lead goes too far. --Yae4 (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you're correct, I apologize, I see that you did also add TheRegister to Reception.


 * Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree with you on your other points. Although I did offer to cite all of my citations, I don't think that should be necessary. Referring to Wikipedia's policies, a citation is only required on "[statements] that are likely to be challenged". Although you may feel differently, I don't consider a majority of the features I described as material that is "likely to be challenged". In other words, I think it's obvious that it is a statement of facts. But that's just me.


 * In general, I think it's unfortunate that you didn't find another way to incorporate my comments instead of reverting them. Wikipedia's policies suggest avoiding reverts whenever possible, especially because it can be hurtful to the contributor whose contributions were reverted. At the risk of sounding childish, it does feel like my contribution was rejected. Looking at the talk page, I can see there was a similar issue with a newer user, User:1984brave_new_world. It also looks like the discussion with them was never resolved, which is unfortunate. I do see that you commented on their page that there was a COI investigation going on, which they were involved in. Is it standard practice to make those comments?


 * To your comment about Newsligner's guidance, it looks like Newsligner stated that should quality secondary sourced be found, features could be reinstated. Did you understand something different? I feel I've satisfied those requirements.


 * Since it seems like we're struggling to find a consensus, are you ok with asking for a third opinion?


 * Ph03n1x77 (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for suggesting new additions to the article. As the history of this talk page shows, /e/ is a somewhat controversial topic on Wikipedia. When an editor reverts a change (per the bold, revert, discuss cycle), the reversion is considered a "challenge", and the content needs to be verified to reliable sources before it can be reintroduced into the article. Reversion happens often, so please don't take it personally.
 * Since it's easier to examine smaller edits instead of larger edits, could you please create a separate subsection in this discussion explaining each change you would like to make, so we can evaluate it individually? —  Newslinger  talk   05:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)</P


 * FYI, other opinions on reliability of MakeUseOf have been requested at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, here. -- Yae4 (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary clarification
For others who may not understand Ph03n1x77's statement, "Unfortunately, when I attempted to source the criticism, the .xyz site was not allowed" in 17:06 19 January 2021 edit summary: I believe this vaguely refers to ewwlo.xyz. FYI, the live domain has changed to other stuff (i.e. click-bait, advertising), but the original site is mirrored at https://ewwlo.void.partidopirata.com.ar/ and archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20200731155921/https://ewwlo.xyz/. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * thanks for joining the discussion! Hopefully together we can find some consensus on how to improve the page. I can certainly make some headings for my proposed changes. If it's alright with you maybe we won't start with all of them at once, I do try to pace my Wikipedia contributions :) But let's start with a few that I was hoping would be least controversial. And thanks for evaluating MakeUseOf, please let me know what they decide over on the noticeboard, I'll be interested to hear. Ph03n1x77 (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Non-profit" or for-profit status
As stated on their website, near their manifesto (https://e.foundation/about-e/) The E Foundation is a non-profit. It's also mentioned in this review.

I'd like to add that to the heading, or at least somewhere in the body. In fact, for now, I think it would be worth having information on the Foundation on this page, since they probably don't meet the notoriety requirements to have their own page, but there might be enough sources to create a subheading on them here. Ph03n1x77 (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As stated in their FAQ (a primary or self-published source):

Is e Foundation a non-profit or a corporation? e Foundation is a non-profit organization created to host, develop, support and promote pro privacy tech solutions. Some partner companies handle the commercial side of the project and help finance e Foundation.
 * So, this statement is a bit wishy-washy, but it says there are two sides to the operation, non-profit, and for-profit. The delineation betwen "commercial side" and "non-profit" side is not clear. I say leave it out, because it's not clear, not notable, peripheral to the operating system, and looks like marketing language designed to appeal to a particular target audience.


 * I too would like to focus on one thing at a time. So I'm stopping here until this first item is resolved. I'll comment on following subsections later. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Sure, we can start with this. secondary sources cite the e foundation as nonprofit, and their website clarifies that it is an official status as a French corporation with associated registration information.


 * So, while I see where you're coming from and I too would like to know which parts of the operation are for-profit or nonprofit, I don't think we as editors have the right to withhold clearly verifiable and pertinent information.


 * I am in agreement with adding the unclear status of the business in the body of the article. What do you think about that? Ph03n1x77 (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think sources only mention the foundation in passing. The subject of this article is the forked operating system. The History section already mentions the "non-profit project 'in the public interest'", and that is sufficient. -- Yae4 (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmm, what do you think? Ph03n1x77 (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article currently states "In 2017, Mandrake Linux creator Gaël Duval proposed the concept of an operating system without privacy-invasive software as a "non-profit project 'in the public interest'". The wording frames the words "non-profit project" as a claim by Duval, rather than as a statement of fact. With citations to PCMag and Deutsche Welle, the article should explicitly state that the /e/ operating system is maintained by a non-profit foundation. —  Newslinger  talk   00:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The DW source is dated Feb. 14, 2020, only a little newer than previously referenced sources: PCmag source, already referenced, is dated Oct. 21, 2019. FastCompany source, already referenced, is dated Aug. 9, 2019. The DW source gives different details, but is similar to the FastCompany source in covering PureOS and /e/, with some more material from Digital Content Next (producer of Vanderbilt study used by /e/).One thing I'll credit the MakeUseOf source: in the images they copied from /e/ (data from Vanderbilt/Digital Context Next), they labeled them "Courtesy of e Foundation / eSolutions SAS".
 * *Are you saying previously 1/2 sources mentioned "non-profit," now 2/3 do, so this DW source changes the balance to using Wikipedia voice?
 * *Based on primary sources - FAQ quoted above, and Legal Disclaimers etc, and the MakeUseOf source such as it is: eSolutions SAS is Duval's for-profit "partner company" on the "commercial side" selling devices and cloud services for profit. The "foundation" is located down the street from "eels" restaurant on Rue de Hauteville; the for-profit company is apparently out of a lawyer office on Avenue de Segur. Knowing this, do you support ignoring or including the existence of the for-profit side?
 * I'm changing this subsection title to be more clear on the issue. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding: Also CleusConsulting is involved and claims some early copyrights. And how did I forget ECORP S.A.S... (Seriously. Not a Mr._Robot joke). -- Yae4 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 Sources with links to e foundation that now re-direct to other Duval e sites
I'm not sure how to describe this, but here are some notes, with a pattern of, well, please help me describe it. ArsTechnica Apr 2020 has a lot of "interesting" info. Re phones for sale, by whom: where saying you can buy a pre-loaded version, they link to "/e/'s website" (at e.foundation), but it now re-directs to ESolutions SAS website. Same thing again for "refurbished Samsung phones pre-loaded". How would we describe this tactic?

ZDNet/Vaughan-Nichols May 2020 says "many smartphones, such as apple iphone, are built by poorly paid temporary workers" but overlooks the facts that e is taking donations to one organization, while selling for profits at others. Using volunteer contributors on one side. Not being clear how well they pay the staff in India, if at all, or what the deal is with "cleanapk" operators. Again, ZDNet linked to "/e/'s website" (at e.foundation) for pre-loaded phone sales, but it now re-directs to Esolutions SAS website. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding some potential sources for e's corporate structure and related
Ecorp SAS website, legal footer. A couple Authors files in gitlab, including Ecorp. Registration info for Ecorp SAS, beginning July 2018, and naming principals, including Duval.  Esolutions SAS website, which is selling devices, legal notice. Registration info for Esolutions SAS, formed 2020, naming principals, including Duval. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Custom app store
Beginning to look at some of /e/'s features, their custom app store is probably the most important one, and one that Wikipedia readers will want to know about. In my previous discussions I cited ZDnet for that, I should have clarified that it was the 2019 article "What this means is that you can run some Android apps, which normally only work on a fully Google-enabled Android phone on an /e/ phone." The Register goes even further in depth into how that process works, through which technologies, and which apps they currently support "including current top hits like Among Us and Roblox. What you will not find is any paid-for apps..." In general, the Register also addresses the importance of a good app store.

While we're on the topic, I'd like to add that one unique feature of this app store are the privacy ratings. That is mentioned on The Register article, as well as this ZDnet review of the Fairphone 3

There has also been criticism about the closed-source nature of the store, which I'd like to mention. I found that supported in a passing comment from this PCMag review "They also need to be much clearer about where the apps in their app store are coming from, or just offer someone else's store." Ph03n1x77 (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issues with using content from these reviews. ZDNet and The Register  are considered generally reliable for technology. —  Newslinger   talk   00:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bliss Launcher
I'd like to add that The E Foundation created their own launcher, Bliss, which they made available through F-Droid as foss. It's mentioned most in-depth in this blog/review by Obscured Narration. What do y'all think about that source?

In addition, FDroid's website has a page for the Bliss Launcher, as do some reviews of the best alternative launchers, like this one from DataOverhaulers

The launcher is also mentioned in the disputed MakeUseOf article, and in this article by Infosec-Handbook. Infosec possibly deserves a special consideration, since their article was mentioned/linked in the Oct 2019 PCMag review "Infosec Handbook [link] found some deep-down places where /e/ may be leaking little bits of data to Google, but in /e/'s defense, the group took the criticism to heart and has been working on it in public bug threads anyone can read online." Ph03n1x77 (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ObscuredNarration (blog, as you said) and DataOverhaulers (sponsored blog) sources don't look reliable to me. F-Droid site search info is WP:OR; would you like to also say about 7% of 2200 issues in e's gitlab have involved the launcher (factual, but rhetorical question)? See earlier Talk discussion on InfoSec Handbook; I feel they are experts and reliable, but "consensus" was against that. Remember a "mention" does not make info' worthy of inclusion in an "encyclopedia." Again, see earlier discussion of Features Section.  -- Yae4 (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * These are all self-published sources (including blogs and group blogs), since they don't have the level of editorial control needed to be considered reliable on Wikipedia. I would exclude them from the article. —  Newslinger  talk   00:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Refurbished Samsung Phones
The Nov 2019 ZDnet article mentions "a Samsung Galaxy S9+ with pre-installed /e/ OS. This refurbished dual-SIM phone with 64GB of storage, along with other Samsung models, is available in Europe. According to /e/ founder, Gaël Duval, phones in Australia and New Zealand will be coming shortly, and arrangements for offering used /e/ powered phones in the US are ongoing."

Actually, Android Authority published an article specifically about those refurbished phones, which should probably be good enough for including that information.

So, let's start with those changes! Let me know what you think. Ph03n1x77 (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Reception already includes "refurbished Samsung phone" based on the Nov 2019 ZDnet article. On listing every phone ever sold or supported, see WP:NOTACATALOG 5-Sales Catalog, etc. Doing that is something advertisers like to include in Operating System articles, but it is not good, IMO. In addition to looking like a catalog and advertising, it becomes inaccurate. For example, the May 2019 android authority "post" you linked lists four phones, but only 2 of the 4 are now being sold. On reliability of AndroidAuthority: Their About lists the author as "Editor", and the author page lists their "Posts", which makes it look like a group blog. FWIW, their Nov. 2020 article on "the best refurbished phone stores" did not include e's, which, ignoring source reliability, calls into doubt its notability. In any case, much of that older AA post is already included in this article, but if you have a specific summary to propose, please put it here for discussion. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that we don't need to include every phone ever sold or supported, especially since the supported phone list would be quite exhaustive. However, I'd like to change 2 things.


 * I don't think the list of supported phones should go into history, or into reception. I think it'd be better under it's own heading. If we look at Lineage OS they have a separate heading. An alternative would be the way Android (OS) did it, with significant supported devices listed under a Platform Information subheading, under the Reception heading. I'm ok with either.


 * In particular, I don't think the reception page clarifies to an average reader that the reviewer was sent a phone that would normally be available for purchase. And I think that's important information, that the Samsung phones can be bought, even if we don't list the whole "catalog". Ph03n1x77 (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Here's what wrote when I compared with LineageOS: " The state of related articles does not necessarily reflect best practices, unless the article is a  good or featured article that has not been significantly altered since its review. Unfortunately, many of our software articles suffer from improper sourcing. The LineageOS article, with the "Preinstalled apps" and "Unique features" sections, has similarities to an old version of the /e/ (operating system) article before it was significantly changed. "  LineageOS is a C Class article, which is below Good, and not a good example. -- Yae4 (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's okay to mention the full device model name in the Reception section, as part of the article's description of the ZDNet review. A mention of the refurbished phone offerings is appropriate in the History section, although I would exclude the forward-looking statements about Australia, New Zealand, and the US until a reliable secondary source states that /e/ is actually selling phones in those markets. —  Newslinger  talk   00:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible confusion between /e/ and E
Filed under Today I Learned: these two software projects are not at all related. While this becomes apparent from a read through the article(s), especially the history section of this article, I think a hatnote might make it more readily obvious that /e/ isn't port/adaptation of yet another F/OSS desktop environment to a mobile form factor. Something like this, perhaps:

Am I alone in this, or do others think it would be a worthy clarification?

Dhraakellian (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * or, slightly more verbose:
 * Dhraakellian (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO there is no confusion, and no need for a link. There is no overlap even in Categories used in the two articles. The 2nd sentence of this article says /e/ is a fork of LineageOS. took care of any unlikely confusion with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//e/ redirect, and that seems like enough. -- Yae4 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Mind change: I now agree. Will Add "Distinguish" for not to be confused with. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mind change: I now agree. Will Add "Distinguish" for not to be confused with. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Oct. 2021 Study paper is self-published?
Most "popular" sources I've seen are giving summaries of this paper, but I could find no signs of it being published anywhere other than on Leith's university home page, and no signs of peer review. In addition, The Register has published an Addition because LineageOS spokesperson reported a major flaw in assumptions used in the paper. I note the previous similar unpublished report methodology was also challenged by Google. Isn't this report therefore self-published, demonstrated faulty, and therefore unreliable and unsuitable for reference at Wikipedia? -- Yae4 (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition, the self-published "Nervuri" report on concerns with privacy issues in E's apps store app, and with data also shared with F-Droid, are two open issues being tracked by E staff. These issues were reported (i.e. known) to E in May, before the study paper was self-published. So, overlooking this data transmitted to 3rd parties by E ROM was another flaw in the report methodology. With known flaws for LineageOS and for E OS, the results from the self-published study report should be deleted as unreliable. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Editor recruitment to improve /e/OS "reputation", since at least Feb. 2021
Documenting this off-wiki recruitment for a "specific project looking for contributors" here (archive org): They say they want more "honnest" (sic) contents, among other things. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

(Advanced) Privacy App - hidden or open source? (was: Incorrect fact)
Privacy App is published under GPL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckduckgoUser (talk • contribs) 20:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Cite a source, preferably secondary? -- Yae4 (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, on the one hand ironically the alleged source that the privacy app is propietary and on the other hand here is the source code: https://gitlab.e.foundation/e/os/advanced-privacy
 * DuckduckgoUser (talk) DuckduckgoUser (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not clear if that link is actually used in the ROM. This says they include pre-built apks in ROM. So who knows where real sources are? First spokesperson says "not available" then months later say "look over there". It would be better if we could find independent/secondary sources. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That may be, but if you don't have more detailed information, you can hardly say that the app is "propietary", since this is apparently unclear. DuckduckgoUser (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The statement was based on primary source - statements by e staffers in their forum. Maybe it should say some apps are developed in a closed-source, proprietary way, until they are eventually released? -- Yae4 (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * However, this is unclear. Also, at least according to the /e/ staffer, the source code is now public. If there is any ambiguity, it cannot be presented as a fact. DuckduckgoUser (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, Advanced Privacy has already been released. DuckduckgoUser (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The wording has been changed to reflect this discussion. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"Murena Phone" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Murena Phone and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Yae4 (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

"Murena One" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Murena One and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Yae4 (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC: 3G phone sales
Should the content in the "3G phone sales" section, reproduced below, be removed from the article? —  Newslinger  talk   23:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey (3G phone sales)

 * Yes, remove. The section cites a two-sentence post on the product forum that appears to have been written by the organization's spokesperson: "I checked with the support team and have been informed that the user has sent the phone back to the support team. Once received they will evaluate the condition and based on that the price will be refunded to the user." This particular post is a primary source. However, the section goes beyond the contents of that post to claim that "customers in the USA were sold Samsung phones that lost cellular network connectivity after about a year", which lacks reliable sourcing because forum posts are user-generated content (self-published sources). Furthermore, the entire section constitutes undue weight because the situation was not covered by any "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", per WP:BESTSOURCES. —  Newslinger  talk   23:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, remove The sections in the Controversies section of the /e/OS regarding the Data Leak as well as the 3G sales both come under this category and should be removed. Full disclosure, I am an employee of /e/OS and am responsible for posting most of the forum announcements. Both these issues, mentioned on the page, are referenced from the forum or from web archives. The security announcements are routine posts meant to inform the users about any service upgrade or maintenance related downtime. This is a standard practice for any software organization which has users accessing their software products or services. All software companies maintain GitLab or GitHub repositories of their issues. Any update upstream in the software will require the /e/OS or its services to be upgraded. Cherry-picking such issues from the forum posts, looks like an attempt to paint a negative image of /e/OS and against the neutrality expected from an article on the Wikipedia- Mnair69 (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, remove as per Newslinger -- forum posts are not a reliable source Seemplez 09:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, remove - summoned by bot. Since the decommissioning of the 3G networks was not an issue exclusive to /e/, info about their phones no longer working should go in 3G, but only if it got any media coverage to suggest it was a notable and important event. It didn't, so there's no question it doesn't belong here. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  23:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, copyedit to present more neutrally with additional sources. It has been a significant issue for USA and Canada customers. There is another Official (primary) source, in the e foundation Newsletter called "What are the best devices to use /e/OS in North America?", dated January 2022. It says "We often get questions around device support in the USA and in Canada." and "Furthermore, with carriers retiring 3G and 2G networks, you will be forced to find a model that supports 4G calls or VoLTE and that has been approved on their networks. If not, you won’t be able to register your phone line on your carrier network." It goes on to give advice for US and Canada.
 * Duval (e owner) posted in social media looking for expertise to backport VoLTE support in June 2021; Another Duval post May 2021 with section "Last but not the least...VoLTE": "...Voice calls will move overtime from legacy 2G and 3G networks to 4G LTE using voice over IP. Some mobile phone service providers have already transitioned to all voice calls over LTE. This means that we have to find a way for /e/OS to support VoLTE..."
 * Additional related forum posts (from quick search): In July 2019, closed in September '21., April '21, July '21, February 2022 -- Yae4 (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, remove, as per above. I am not sure why but for some reason in phone articles people seem to treat every single news article as worthy of inclusion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, remove. Lacking substantial media coverage, I can't find a reason it should stay. Originoa (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Require neutral point of view in Reception
I would like to draw attention to the reception section of this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//e/_(operating_system)#Reception

The content in the section are indicative of Cherrypicking with the intention of portraying /e/OS in a negative light. The purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia of information gets defeated with such one-sided editing. As an employee of the organization behind /e/OS, I am unable to make the changes myself, I feel this article would benefit greatly if some editors without Conflict of interest (declared or undeclared) can add content, keeping in mind a NPOV. — Mnair69 (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request for Reception
Since the quoted author Ferdinand Thommes has meanwhile also tested the Murena One smartphone and software, a new paragraph would further contribute to complete his overall verdict:

"The compromise that Duval makes with the Murena One and /e/OS V1 shows how difficult it is to realize a smartphone without Google's octopus arms. So far, I like the Murena One, which is supposed to be available for 349 Euros from the end of June, exceptionally well. [...] The marketing slogan de-Gooled is, in my opinion, a bit overstated because Google inevitably plays into it in some places. Nevertheless, the Murena One and the concept behind it provide more data protection and privacy than a conventional Android, and that at an acceptable price and with sufficient performance in everyday use."

And after further coverage popped up in the wake of the Murena One's launch, especially in German-speaking countries, I would also include a paragraph citing Matthias Kremp's test from Germany's biggest news magazine DER SPIEGEL as a source:

"The Murena One is not a smartphone for everyone. Rather, it is a pleasantly simple and convenient way to fulfill the dream of an Android smartphone without Google, without having to give up cherished apps. Despite its seemingly low price of just under 350 Euros, it is no bargain in view of the outdated hardware. [...] Those who are nevertheless enthusiastic about a smartphone with preinstalled Android without Google should rather spend a bit more and choose, for example, a Fairphone 4 with /e/OS, which is also available in Murena's online store." Flovieh (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I accept blame for adding Thommes' review summary with Special:Diff/1009429519. On review today, LinuxNews.de is a self-published blog WP:RSSELF, and therefore not a reliable source. I will delete the excerpt. The Speigel citation is behind a paywall so I cannot WP:VERIFY the suggested summary. -- 14:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Yae4 (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback! Since Thommes is indeed one of the most renowned Linux journalists in the German-speaking world, it may be sufficient to limit oneself to the reliable sources in which he publishes. In November 2022, he also wrote a detailed review of the Murena One in "Linux User". His conclusion was
 * "The range of basic apps on the Murena One covers the usual purposes well. The developers also managed to give the preloaded apps from different sources a uniform look. A smart assistant called Elivia is currently under development. NFC for contactless data transfer over short distances did not work on the pre-production device. However, Duval assured that this had been fixed for the series. The software and hardware worked without problems, apart from the WLAN failure that occurred for a short time.
 * The Murena One is designed for people who do not want to leave their data to Google, but do not have the desire, time or knowledge to purchase a smartphone to install and maintain an operating system that fits their needs. In any case, Gaël Duval deserves respect for working since 2017 for an operating system that he also entrusts to his children. For German users, the Volla Phone 22 offers a possible alternative to the Murena One."
 * (This ist the full conclusion, but I´d of course condense it to a summary)
 * As for DER SPIEGEL: You can access the full review under the following link; Generally spoken it would be a little "self-limiting" for Wikipedia to exclude sources behind a paywall since this is today a part of the monetizing strategy of the most renowned media outlets (in Germany, but also in other countries). What is the general way to go here according to Wikipedia guidelines? My understanding was, that reliability beats verifiability PAYWALL.
 * Apart from that, there are also other reviews sources freely accessible, but the one from DER SPIEGEL goes into particular detail when it comes to the /e/OS. Flovieh (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info; however, I have previously been warned for excessive quoting, so must say: Regarding Speigel near-full paragraphs quotes farther above and Linux User Community full conclusion "(This ist the full conclusion, but I´d of course condense it to a summary)", extensive quotes: I believe you are exceeding "fair use" verbatim copy/paste; please see WP:COPYVIO and seriously consider reducing your above excerpts to only the specific summary you suggest including in this article. Re: Verify and Reliable, parts of Core_content_policies, you have declared a paid relationship and WP:COI. Therefore, edits you suggest will need verification, by someone, for WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Please also see and follow WP:EDITREQ -- Yae4 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Ferdinand Thommes underwent several tests of /e/OS in the past years and came to the conclusion in "Linux User" in November 2022 that the Murena One with /e/OS "covers the usual purposes well". He also highlighted the aspect that the developers managed to achieve a uniform look for the preinstalled apps that come from different sources. Apart from minor inconsistencies, he stated that the hardware and software work without any problems and are therefore a serious alternative for "people who don't want to leave their data to Google, but don't have the desire, time or knowledge to purchase a smartphone to install and maintain an operating system on it that suits their needs." The same author was previously cited, however, the new reference is more up-to-date and appeared in a publication recognized as a reliable source. Flovieh (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What I think should be changed: Adding the following paragraph under the previous paragraphs:
 * Why it should be changed:
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):


 * Comments: Not surprised by the biased suggestion.
 * Did not find this or similar in the source: "Ferdinand Thommes underwent several tests of /e/OS in the past years"...(though probably true).
 * This is WP:OR or not said by the source: "Apart from minor inconsistencies, he stated that the hardware and software work without any problems..." What source does say: " During the test, there was a short-term problem with the Wi-Fi connection, which was only fixed after several reboots. The cause could not be identified. " and " NFC for contactless data transmission over short distances did not work on the pre-production device. However, Duval assured... The software and hardware worked without any problems, apart from the short-term WLAN failure. " (emphasis added)
 * Other comparisons suitable for this article: " In contrast to GrapheneOS ... or CalyxOS, e/OS/ is not hardened in any way. ...So if you need a particularly hardened smartphone ..., it is better to use the two alternatives mentioned." and literally the final sentence: " For German users, the Volla Phone 22 offers a possible alternative to the Murena One. "
 * Included Magic Earth is still not open source
 * Criticisms and controversies over MicroG
 * "Murena One is ... from China, which ... X2... manufacturer could not be determined ... solid-looking and well-held device from the lower mid-range contains a four-year-old Mediatek Helio P60 SoC...
 * ... -- Yae4 (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback! It really helps to get familiar with the specifics and to reflect my own point of view. It wasn´t the intention to have a bias in the suggestion, despite WP:COI. To avoid that impression, I left out details from the conclusion like "In any case, respect is due to Gaël Duval, who has been working since 2017 for an operating system that he also entrusts to his children in good conscience". I´ll rephrase it and send a new request! Flovieh (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit request for Data Leakage incident section
In the Data Leakage incident section, the correct number of impacted users is 379. Source:https://web.archive.org/web/20220803021339/https://community.e.foundation/t/e-foundation-ecloud-security-notice-june-15-2022/42420 Mnair69 (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * While reviewing the article, I noticed that the "Data leakage incident" and "3G phone sales" subsections only cite primary sources. As WP:PSTS states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Since there does not appear to be any reliable secondary sourcing for these two subsections, I am inclined to remove them altogether.Considering that there are dozens of announcement posts at https://community.e.foundation/c/e-foundation-community/announcements/6 and tens of thousands of forum posts at https://community.e.foundation, the fact that the current version of the article cites a select few of them to portray the article subject negatively indicates that primary sources have been used in a non-neutral manner. Picking and choosing primary sources can easily result in neutrality issues like the one here, which is why secondary sources are preferred in Wikipedia articles.Absent objections, I will be removing the "Data leakage incident" and "3G phone sales" subsections from the article. —  Newslinger  talk   09:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Welcome back again!
 * Object to deletion because the 5 criteria of WP:ABOUTSELF are met, unless you are claiming the summaries are non-neutral, which could be fixed with copyedits. A distinguishing aspect of these "controversies" are formal responses by E staffers, not just routine announcements. Another aspect of the "Data leakage incident" is the cited non-forum primary source, post-investigation announcement by E staff. There may be similar for "3G phone sales" but I have not looked for it. I thought it was interesting, relevant info for many English readers, so added it.
 * Deletion goes beyond the scope of the COI edit request.
 * Aside: At wikipedia, self-serving, promotional info' seems to find its way into "secondary" sources more than less self-serving info'. ZDNet cited here (months before 2020) is on WP:RSN. In 2020 it was bought by Red_Ventures, a marketing company. Follow the dots. AFAIK, ZDNET reliability has not been discussed since then.
 * I will be interested to see how this comes out, because using non-self-serving primary sources WP:ABOUTSELF similar to this is an unresolved issue at GrapheneOS as well, where fans stronly object to including the info'. -- Yae4 (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding: Don't know why the "completed" notation was deleted, but an edit Special:Diff/1106425364 has been done to incorporate this request. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the welcome. The issue here does not concern the verifiability policy (i.e. WP:ABOUTSELF), but rather the original research and neutral point of view policies. WP:PSTS states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Considering this, why are all of the citations in the "Data leakage incident" and "3G phone sales" subsections primary sources?
 * This is a neutrality issue because the primary sources in this article are overwhelmingly used to introduce negative claims that have no support from reliable secondary sources. When there are over 100 announcements in the project forum, choosing just the ones that reflect the article subject less favorably, while ignoring all of the announcements that reflect the article subject more favorably, is cherrypicking. WP:PSTS emphasizes secondary sources because it is very easy to misuse primary sources, as this article is doing now. It is clear to many editors that adding content supported solely by primary sources to promote an article subject is not acceptable; doing the same to portray a lesser image of the article subject is equally unacceptable.
 * Instead of selecting primary sources ourselves (e.g. picking a few announcements from the 100+ in a forum), Wikipedia articles mainly use secondary sources, which "rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them". A broad sample of reliable secondary sources includes the noteworthy aspects of the subject that are encyclopedic to include in the article, while excluding the aspects of the subjects that are not noteworthy enough to obtain secondary source coverage. This is why, without the support of reliable secondary sources, the "Data leakage incident" and "3G phone sales" subsections should be removed from the article.
 * The use of primary sources is relegated to uncontroversial aspects of a subject. For example, an article on a piece of software can cite the software's license file to establish the kind of license that the software uses. Also, if a reliable secondary source that is already cited in the article links to a relevant primary source, it is usually uncontroversial to cite that primary source alongside the secondary source citation.
 * Talk pages are for article discussion, and there is no requirement to limit the discussion to the contents of an edit request. I haven't reviewed the GrapheneOS article recently, but if primary sources are also being misused there, the relevant content should also be re-examined and possibly removed. —  Newslinger  talk   07:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * For the moment, my response is limited to the data leakage incident; one thing at a time. Regarding thousands of posts, things should look different, and the importance of the incident should look higher, when you look at the "Security Announcements" category, where there is only a single announcement - regarding the data leakage incident. The incident is not "controversial". It happened. It is encyclopedic, especially for a "privacy" software. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: Announcements category cherry pick claim. False. Reviewing the last year of that category, the announcements are overwhelmingly, 10 to 3, on service outage events, which is a "negative" topic. The 3 advertising announcements are "unduly self-serving" and thus contrary to WP:ABOUTSELF criteria. Perhaps it could be worthwhile to add a statement to the article on the numbers or frequency of outages to more NPOV summarize these frequently occurring events, if you are suggesting this category is important and representative. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF, which would allow unlimited amounts of negative information based solely on primary sources to be added to the article while disallowing positive information sourced in the same way, is not consistent with the neutrality policy. The presence of scheduled maintenance announcements such as this one (which are not inherently negative) does not justify adding negative information on other unrelated topics based solely on primary sources. As WP:BESTSOURCES states, "In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis added). Because the "Controversies" section is mainly based on primary sources lifted from the community forum, which are not independent of the article subject, the parts of the section that constitute undue weight need to be removed.Since there appears to be a deadlock in this content dispute, I am starting a request for comment below to address one of the issues in this section. —  Newslinger  talk   23:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Mnair69 New editor here cleaning up the "request edit queue. It looks like this request was handled but not closed.  Please submit a new, clean, request for any further changes.  Cheers  Duke Gilmore (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
The RfC at concluded that the "3G phone sales" subsection should be removed, which was done in Special:Diff/1125171602 in December 2022. As there is currently no opposition to the removal of the "Data leakage incident" subsection (due to the opposing editor being community banned in July 2023), I have removed the subsection in Special:Diff/1176803027. —  Newslinger  talk   02:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)