Talk:Conversations (software)

Article sources and tags
With this edit  added tags for too many associated sources, and unreliable sources, without identifying unreliable sources. I don't dispute there may be many primary sources, but please identify which sources you believe may be unreliable. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's a quick review:
 * Conversations project on GitHub        is a primary source (and obviously not independent) and while it may be usable in limited contexts, such as referencing a release date, the extent to which this article relies on this source is excessive.
 * Conversations profile on Play Store same as with the GitHub project.
 * F-Droid wiki is user-generated content.
 * XMPP wiki is user-generated content.
 * FSF wiki is user-generated content.
 * MarioGom (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Having "wiki" in the URL does not necessarily mean it "is user-generated content" without editorial oversight. The following discusses each of the three sources.
 * The F-Droid source redirects to a "home" page in F-Droid's gitlab. It has no "wiki" pages. This source was intended to support the date of earliest publishing in F-Droid, I believe. Thus it is similar to Github sources, except approvals for changes in F-Droid require independent review and approval. In any case, it is non-controversial info'.
 * The XMPP uses wiki software but is overseen by "Sysops". In the case of the referenced page, the history shows Sysops Kevin and Guus were most active in curating the page; Guus was the most recent editor. This demonstrates editorial oversight. Also, there are other independent sources for the statements supported by this source. If anything this source could be criticized for being "primary", but as stated, there are other sources suppporting the statements. The statements are also non-controversial.
 * The FSF directory has an editorial and review process, with approvals for listings. Note particularly the statement: "Regardless of the topic, administrators will verify and approve new software proposed by users, correct existing pages and provide technical assistance publicly in the channel."  Finally, this source is used for basic information, nothing controversial.
 * Therefore, the unreliable sources tag remains inappropriate. On the primary sources tag, I agree there are several primary sources (also original research), and it would be better to have secondary sources; however, the supported info' is non-controversial dates and technical details. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

official website
I think comversations.im is made by the author, which is official, gultsch.de is just a personal blog/homepage of the author. Shinohara Chihiro (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)