Talk:Ecco Pro/Archive 3

AutoArchiving
The archiving of this page is indeed not discussed, as noted by THI above. However, several editors have shown concerns that the size is a problem, and that old discussions should be archived. That was implemented by Kslotte, removed by YSWT (unexplained), Oneiros found the page to big, Cameron Scott reimplemented, YSWT (unexplained) set the limits to very long, which was reverted by TJRC (who expected it was an error) and now again set lower by THI. Lets discuss this.


 * A) The maxarchive size of 1000K (1M) is too big (note, this is the size of the archive, not of this page!), such pages become difficult to load, due to their size. Also I would suggest 100K (that will result in more archives, but they are still all accessible anyway).  B) 90d is 3 months.  If discussions have not been edited in such a long time, then they are not active anymore, and since archiving != deletion, they can as well be in an archive where they can still be consulted.  900d is 2 1/2 years, that would hardly do much, and the discussions on this page tend to be long, very long.  Can we settle for something shorter, I would suggest 90d, or maybe 180d.  Thoughts?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

90 days is fine. If nobody has touched a debate in that long it's dead. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

For 'daily' wikians 90 or 180 days may seem like an eternity, but for a subject like this where the bulk of content has been contributed by editors who edit only occasionally,  my own view is manual archiving is better approach. Suggestions for article made 4 years ago which haven't been implemented yet, are relevant still. My POV, 180 day is reasonable but for content issues and suggestions on talk page, is a fairly short period. Finally, see no reason for multiple quick loading historic archives. If anyone is interested in archive history, they can wait a second while larger single page archive loads. YSWT (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, 90 days is for regulars not much, but that is not the issue. If a discussion is not edited in 90 days, then that discussion is not 'live' anymore.  Sure, it may contain not-implemented things, but then it is a matter of keeping that discussion alie by simply posting at the bottom (or, if it did get archived, retrieve it, and put a fresh post in it .. then it will again take 90 days).  The 90 days is the last edit to the thread, not the first.  And while most irregulars are here only every so many days, 90 or 180 days of absence is not something that happens often.  But 900 or 9000 is .. absurd.  If people really don't care that they don't visit this page in 2 years, then well .. then that point is not of much interest to them either.  Moreover,   Regarding the page size, waiting longer is not the problem (see Upload_log_archive/May_2004_(1) for fun, large pages hit limits on some browsers (not to speak for editors who are not behind a high speed network) it is not a case of waiting, formerly they even hit limits in Wikipedia (but I think that pages of 1M don't give problems based on plain page-size anymore).  But before the second 100k is full, then we are really quite a bit of time further.  1000k is IMHO too big (see also the example, that page takes time on my fast internet connection (the page is about 1.1M), can we settle for something between 100k and 250k .. before we hit 628 archives, we will be quite some time further, and then there are other ways to help in finding old discussions (implementing a simple search, which is also more convenient than to have to browse through a page of 1M).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could not help but noticing that here you say something completely different, YSWT. I have taken note of the remarks there.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting, so it's simply disruptive behaviour to ensure his POV is clearly shown on the talkpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * POV issues aside, I agree with Cameron that 90 days is plenty of time for sections to be up, but 180 is also fine with me. -- Nuujinn (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replied at User_talk:YSWT. --Kslotte (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, personal attack against editors. Once again from Beetstra and Cameron Scott.  Previously assumed good faith with Scott.   Pattern appearing.  Nothing disruptive here except from small handful of wikipedians with no knowledge of topic to contribute, yet insist in forcing their POV while attacking the 'behaviour' of the editors expert on this article's subject.  Join the consensus on 180 days.  Cameron Scott,  either provide support for your assault of another editor here,  or apologize.   I don't care how often you edit wikipedia articles.  If you feel you can be rude to other editors, and use the talk page for personal assaults, you are wrong.  THI (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what exactly are you seeing that you would characterize as an attack? I honestly do not see anything that is overtly such. -- Nuujinn (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents-- where does Cameron get off accusing me of "disruptive behavior". I think it is libelous. I also think Beetstra's implications about me 'saying something else elsewhere' are as well.  Nuujin,  Cameron's "disruptive behavior" comment is not directed at any article content,  it is directed at me personally.  Cameron's comment is also dishonest.  My concern is that the talk page shows the POV of the majority of the contributors-- most of which are occasional editors whos comments spam months or years.  Suggests made by other editors are lost in the auto-archive scheme.  Noticably the last two sentences deal with the issue at hand, what should be retained, and my thoughts on why.  By contrast Cameron's 'disruptive behavior' comment is not directed at any content issue,  it is an attack of another editor.YSWT (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, YSWT, I could not tell that Cameron's comment of "disruptive behavior" is directed at you, it could be, but the comment confused me when Cameron made it, but I can be dense. One thing I would suggest that you reconsider your use of the word "libelous", as it might be confused with a legal threat, and I'm sure that's not your intent. More importantly, I think we should all strive to assume good faith and remain cool headed in discussions.
 * Regarding the archiving issue, I'm not sure what the problem is with occasional editors. Certainly archiving comments after 180 days of inactivity doesn't really favor any particular POV, since the archives are readily available, and can be referenced in a new section for discussion. So far it seems that most editors favor auto archiving, and there doesn't seem to be much objection to 90 or 180 days. Should we settle on 180 days for the time being and see how things go? -- Nuujinn (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the change I reverted (referred to at the top) changed from 90 days to 9000 days, not 900 days, i.e., to a little bit under 25 years. A 25-year period is pretty absurd; if you're going to have that, you may as well not auto-archive at all. You can see why it was reasonable for me to assume that that was an edit made in error.

I would be happy with anything from 90 to 365 days. TJRC (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, 9000 days seems extraordinary, and your assumption is quite understandable. -- Nuujinn (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I see I was not too clear there, indeed, TJRC, you reverted from 9000d to 90d. 90d is the common setting, 9000d is clearly absurd.  I still think that 90d is really more than enough, but 180d is fine.  Also, 100k is fine, 1000k is way too much.
 * Next point, but maybe Cameron Scott should clarify that if I am wrong: I think that Cameron Scott's comment was referring to the comment that YSWT made on their talkpage (here; linked above as a link to the thread on a permanent revid of their talkpage), in which they basically explains the same thing as the issue here, though in other words, and giving more and other reasons why they thinks this page should not be archived.  THI, could you please clarify why my referring to that extended on-wiki explanation is a personal attack from my side?  I would also want you to consider your statement 'except from small handful of wikipedians with no knowledge of topic to contribute', could you substantiate that, who are you referring to?  YSWT, I am here with Nuujinn, you might want to take care with the word 'libelous', and for that matter, could you explain me why referring to a statement you actually made on-wiki (I said 'here you say something completely different'; and not, as you quoted it, 'saying something else elsewhere') is actually libelous, do I miss something, are you saying that you did not say that, or did I misinterpret the wording, and the two statements are actually the same?  To me it seems that you give different reasons/explanations (to the same effect) in the two different places.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that we all avoid the word libelous, since it has a rather precise legal meaning. Indeed, discussions of

any editor's conduct are really not helpful here--we should stick to content. -- Nuujinn (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Also any legal threats will result in an immediate block. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nuujinn, exactly my point. Making up accusations of "disruptive behavior" and accusing "acutally libelous" is neither topical, helpful to the article, nice, or TMV, reality based. It is just inappropriate personal attack on another editor.  Beetstra,  you may think you are 'with' Nuujinn,  but Nuujinn is asking, as am I that you and Cameron stop personally directed comments against other editors.  Your accusing another editor of being libelous is precisely what Nuujinn was suggesting was not so helpful or welcome here. THI (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * you are confused, YSWT makes the comment about possible libel and Nuujinn is commenting on that. I am simply making the point that any hint of legal action or threat will result in an immediate block as per policy. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Confused ? Cameron,  Beetstra wrote 'is actually libelous'.  But you focus only on individual editor in particular.  Interesting.  I thought your comment was directed generally, Beetstra included.  Apparently not.  Interesting. THI (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * THI, I am not accusing anything, and I have not accused anyone of libelous remarks, you, for one, are the one making unsubstantiated remarks "except from small handful of wikipedians with no knowledge of topic to contribute" (diff), where you assume that you actually know what software we are running on our computers knowledgeable about. For all you know, I may be a user of Ecco Pro for the last 10 years.  Assume good faith - always.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)(adapted,  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Rather than sorting through who said what when, I suggest we all agree to start fresh and confine our comments to the content of the article and how to make it better according to relevant guidelines and policies.
 * But back to the topic at hand, does anyone have any strong objection to setting the auto-archive to 180 days? Nuujinn (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No objection, though 90 days is already long enough. Also, 100k is more than big enough for archive size.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reason 100k archive better for this talk page than 250k ? THI (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well WP:TPG says 50k, so 100k is allowing you double the normal consensus - why do you want 4 times that, what's so special about this page that it should step outside community consensus by so much? 90 days and 100k is plenty. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This page is approx. 150k at the moment, quite long. Creating archives which are 40% bigger than that makes them (obviously) even longer.  100k is better to handle, loads faster (we're not all behind a fast internet), and is less likely to lead to problems, there is simply no reason to have them bigger.  After 4 years, we would not even reach the third archive, the next thread would just go into the next.  Also, the one run of 90d archive still did not diminish this page to a reasonable size (archiving there suggest keeping the talk page smaller than 50k, and less than 10 threads, only the latter was reached, the size that was left was 128k, less than 100k archived), so 180d is still going to leave this a huge page.  90d & 100k is quite optimal, what is regularly used, and more than good enough.  If a long thread still contains something important, it is fine to start a fresh thread with a bit of a summary, point back to the archive version, and move on.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Archive is an archive. As not active size should reflect purpose-- archive.  Larger archive keeps more discussion in context.  Size of page not relevant for timeframe.  If proposed sections of article are edited and discussed first on Talk Page, will be larger.  That is not a bad thing to my view.  There is a lot of 'attack' and negative energy invested into this talk page.  Seeing the full history was helpful to me when my initial comments here were met with virulent antagonism and threats.  Accuracy can be lost at cutting discussion view short.  Full disclosure seems best approach where 'dispute' involves personal issues.  Thought there was consensus on 180 days.  But then again, if there were consensus then there would be nothing to 'debate' about,  for those looking for 'debate', as opposed to collaboratively building an encyclopedia.THI (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Threads will not be broken, so the discussions show their context. The threads will (soon) be on two archive pages, I don't see how that is losing the context of them, while it improves the handleability.
 * THI, you wanted this to be discussed, as there are opposing views. So clearly we did not start with a consensus, and we are not there yet, I think.  Consensus would mean that we agree on archive size, which we don't do yet.  With the time we are closer, I think.  The remark 'looking for 'debate', as opposed to collaboratively building an encyclopedia' is not aimed at the issue at hand, but at the people discussing it .. I think we agreed on not doing that anymore.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that apparently we do not have consensus yet, but I feel we are close. I would suggest that at least for a while we not worry about the size of the page too much, and see how 180 days works--for what it's worth, I'm sensitive to page size since my editor slows on big pages, but this works for me pretty well right now. Also, I would point out that manual archiving is an option in addition to the auto archiving. For example, if we reach a decision on this particular issues, we could manually archive this section in say, 30 days, if no one has an objection at that time. Does that seem reasonable? -- Nuujinn (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The archive time should be adjusted according to talk page length. WP:TPG says a limit of 50k. Currently we have 170k with an archive time of 90 days. This means with should reduce the archive time a bit let say 60 days to get a bit closer to the 50k limit. If the size is still long we reduce it even further. Once the talk isn't active we can increase it back to 90 days or even further to 120 days or 180 days. Tmbox or a sticky thread can be used to summary consensus or recurring topics. --Kslotte (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the time limit is cached pending consensus. Common sense missing here.  Makes more sense just to open up sub pages.  Eg., for discussion on archiving, for compusol issues, etc.  That way active discussion can continue as relevant on relevant pages.  THI (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, if there are no objections, I suggest we move this thread to a subpage and there hold an informal RFC for the autoarchive interval--we ought to be able to come to consensus on this issue, if nothing else. Nuujinn (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I object. This is the talkpage, this is where the active discussions should be. If things get moved to subpages then it is easier to miss certain things, as threads do not seem to be discussed if one does not have the subpage watchlisted. And for some threads there is no clear distinction if it is regarding an compusol external link, or a reference (which may also be to compusol), or other issues. And then we might end up with 4 or 5 different subpages, while I would be surprised that even with archiving every 90d and a 100k archive size would end up with more than 2 sub-pages, where it is easier to follow the threads in time, then when they are spread over a handful of subpages.

Just keep the active threads here, and archive the threads which are silent. Simple backlinks in the header can link quickly to important, yet silent discussions. I do not see a reason why we should here, on the talkpage of an article on a debated, but certainly not controversial topic, need to implement sub pages for different threads, which is only implemented in extreme cases on the really controversial topics or the big noticeboards. This keeps it much more simple. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Am concerned that there ends up being really controversial topics. Synopsis of quick example: Long ago I personally inserted link to compusol site.  Other editors complained that external link to pay-to-access site is not appropriate.  Had not realized it was actually pay-to-access,  and eventually since everyone except me wanted it removed, it was removed.   Then, there was a 'spam insertion' attack with compusol links replacing valid references.  The compusol guy, apparently, used different accounts and IPs, "Charlie1945" is just one example, and engaged in some, apparently effective social engeenering.   Suddenly, 'by coincidence' whenever compusol links were being inserted,  there you (to whom compusol guy had turned to for 'help') and Johnic where, supporting them.


 * After much back and forth discussion and heated challenge, with input from other editors, consensus was developed.


 * Now again, compusol guy posts a social engineering 'here is my situation, please help me get my site listed in article' with another editor, and what-do-you-know, suddenly the compusol issue is hot again,  with the question already resolved after much discussion and finally consensus, being raised again-- should we take out the link to the distribution site of the licensed and actively developed freeware software which is the subject of this article.


 * With simple sub page for the compusol issue, next time the compusol guy again asks another editor to see about adding a link to his site in the article, there will be a full page to point to, explaining all. YSWT (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

But that can all be linked in the archives, YSWT. Maybe not directly on this page, but Talk:Ecco Pro/Archive 1 can still be linked from here, and you can show that we discussed exactly why the article was cleaned there, and why certain info is absolutely inappropriate. That is not a reason to keep this very page uneditable, and to not archive threads. If they would be deleted, that would be an issue.

YSWT, regarding the specific case .. WP:EL is NOT the same as WP:RS/WP:V (there is a significant difference in what how to treat the links to documentation outside Wikipedia there, read it carefully, and then have a look at what was exactly linked in the specific versions of the document, and how that fits with WP:V), and I do not see a reason why the commercial Compusol should be treated anyway different than the external links that you want to include. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of EccoPro’s description or overview.
Given, as an infrequent contributor, my time does not allow to keep up reading all what followed my contribution of a few days ago.

Just to clarify some of YSWT’s insertions, CompuSol is not a “single-person” entity. Our contribution to the EccoPro community started 12 years ago and is well-documented even on YSWT’s sites (see “http://forums.eccomagic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1168845948/1"). Contrary to YSWT’s statements we always acknowledged and referenced new developments, his contributions and we had always the courtesy to link to his or other relevant web pages (see “compusol.org/ecco”):


 * Some geeks have figured out how to manipulate Ecco’s program structure, and are able to
 * enhance the use of EccoPro with the help of some program extensions in areas never thought of
 * before. If you are interested in additional features of EccoPro and have the time to contribute by
 * debugging this new development please join our sister group “ecco_pro” at Yahoo.

We also created a training video referencing the new developments and YSWT’s web sites at “http://www.compusol.org/ecco/video/video_yt.html”.

But here is my issue with the main page. The infrequent Wikipedia visitor who is searching the web to get a grip on what EccoPro is and what EccoPro can provide to enhance his life is overwhelmed with technical details. The “product functionality” part is badly written and nebulous. It does not give any clear line of context nor does it reference the pictures displayed. The free encyclopedia Wikipedia should not be a technical reference for EccoPro users.

Here at CompuSol we use EccoPro since 1995 in a networked environment. We know well how EccoPro works under the hood. Following several member requests we were able to adjust the old 16-bit installer for today’s operating systems and the latest Palm synching issues. Here is my version of a true description open for consideration(see “compusol.org/ecco/video/”).

Please feel free to edit the below:

EccoPro uses outlining as the basic metaphor for Information Management. The software incorporates universal outlining into each of its productivity modules. An outline allows users to see the most information quickly by collapsing and expanding the outline from macro to micro context. Combined with the database metaphor it is possible to bring diverse information together. It is this combination of outlining and database metaphors that is well suited for finding and understanding everyday information.

Outlining puts information in context. It indicates how information relates to other information and it puts this information in an order of importance. Inherently, outlines are an easier way to facilitate the thinking process than other means. Because outlining is very visual; relationships between ideas become very evident. What makes EccoPro different is its combining of all of the best benefits of a structured database oriented Information Manager with outlining. Personal Information Managers have always been able to manage small amounts of information, but if you want to manage large amounts of information it becomes more difficult.

To be truly valuable, a user is able to store, categorize and cross-reference all of his information, not just the material that conveniently fits into a database form. That means it must be easily moved into the Information Manager from other applications. And once the information has been moved, it must be easy to organize and relate it to other data, sometimes in more than one context. EccoPro will also help users think about problems, analyze them from different perspectives and reach better decisions. Mobility, or lack of it, is another problem Information Management has faced. While users may keep a wealth of information on their systems, it is of no benefit when they are not working at their computers. Paper printouts of Calendars, To-do lists and Phone Books don't work because they provide only a slice of the total information contained in an Information Manager. Software that is truly the center of a user's daily activities must be mobile. The industry is in the midst of a stampede to mobile computers in all shapes and sizes. Form factors from small Netbooks and Smartphones to Notebooks are gaining capabilities and declining in price. With the proliferation of such affordable mobile platforms, users will be increasingly reticent to accept a handful of paper printouts when they can have their whole information base at their fingertips.

Just as categorizing and organizing information makes it more valuable to an individual, sharing information among groups of people is critical in today's increasingly collaborative work environment. Email as it is in use today promotes understanding and enhances productivity. A well-integrated Information Manager is the perfect complement to Email. Exchanging information in the form of Email over a network is valuable enough, but the ability to incorporate that information into an information management system where it can be organized, categorized and cross-referenced is a powerful and addictive concept. Workgroup Information Managers must accomplish other critical tasks, including group scheduling and calendar management. But merely confirming the meeting is not enough. People need to prepare for the meeting and that means having an agenda in advance and the other relevant supporting information necessary to make the meeting productive. Therefore, the Information Manager must be flexible enough to accomplish more than merely scheduling the meeting. The meeting agenda should become a living document, forming the basis for follow-up, and tracking individuals' responsibilities. Thus, the Information Manager becomes the hub of daily activity. It not only is a place to find information, but is a management tool that facilitates decision making and enhances productivity.

This sets the stage for EccoPro, software that is able not only to track and compile information, but surround it with the context necessary for it to have real value. Information viewed in the framework of related information becomes extremely powerful. It is this ability to create meaningful relationships among items of information that forms the basis of a decision-making tool. In addition to traditional features such as Calendar, Phone Book, To-do list, Project Management, etc., EccoPro includes Dynamic Notes, OLE client support, context-based information and the ability to view information from various perspectives. Information may be entered anywhere - the Phone book, Calendar or Outline - and viewed in the way that is most meaningful.

The flexibility to adjust to the needs of different professions and individuals, the ability to customize the layout for the most efficient use and the powerful capability to view information in the context of related information is what separates EccoPro from other Information Management applications.


 * Studying the lengthy often hostile discussions on the “talk pages”, it is clear to me the inability
 * to reach an agreement regarding the links. My recommendation would be to use just a simple description,
 * less technical mumbo jumbo and to insert not any or all links.

Fdohmann (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Offtext, just to correct one fact, and make one small comment. Do now own 'other sites' as asserted. I contribute to many ecco related projects and 'sites' (notably using my same name) because I have been requesed to do so, enjoy the subject, and believe the contribution is meaningful.   The videos were something that I thought would be helpful,  it has been pointed out to me by someone involved with making the videos,  that these are actually eccopro videos from the 90's with the copyright removed and a compusol promotion inserted.   At any rate.. YSWT (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The video I refer to is not from the 90's. Please see "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIfDcCFLzRg". It was produced by and at CompuSol in March of this year! Fdohmann (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's great. To my view,  enriches article to provide links to resources such as alternative media (video, etc.) which explain about the subject.  YSWT (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ontext, this is exactly the kind of promotion which have been working to restrain in article for past several years. What ecco does is unique from a functional perspective.  This article is the place to provide the information about the subject,  not to promote it.  There is a huge difference.   Just as it is wrong to cut out the factual information about the product which makes it unique,  it is wrong to promote the software.  What it is    is cool.  that is what this article should be about--- What is Ecco.    That is very different than,  how great is ecco, etc.   That's my POV.YSWT (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The text is completely unsuitable, reads like an ad/personal ramble and will never be used, there is maybe a line of useful content in there. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with you Cameron. This is just a sample. ﻿Per my recommendation the proposed description can be and should be edited to remove any appearance of promoting EccoPro. There might be some lines which can be used. But it explains what EccoPro is better than the present overview or the “product functionality” section. Fdohmann (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe text suggested is more in relation to what ecco can be used to do. If you can find reliable references,  that would, to my POV,  be very relevant and helpful to the article.  YSWT (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This text is very suitable .. for the homepage of Ecco Pro, or for the a description on whereever. However, it is unsuitable for use in Wikipedia.  We are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not a product specification, a manual, an essay (which this is ..) or a Ecco Pro promotion text.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Did I read somewhere that somebody purchased the PC Magazine on-line archives? Here are two more articles from the CompuSol archives regarding ECCO: "http://www.compusol.org/ecco/pcmagbest93.pdf" and "http://www.compusol.org/ecco/ecco93.pdf". The later was written by Gregg Keizer and published September 14, 1993. I edited his article in a form hopefully suitable for Wikipedia. If not, I would need help from you all: Fdohmann (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

ECCO Professional, a decidedly different personal information manager (PIM) for Microsoft Windows, takes an unusual approach to organizing contacts, phone calls, appointments, meetings and projects.

The program does not use a form-based database and a Day-Timer-style calendar, as most PIM’s do, instead it is built around outlines and adds powerful cross-referencing tools that make it look almost spreadsheet-like. The result is a PIM similar of two earlier attempts at the same kind of thing: Lotus Agenda and Symantec’s GrandView.

The outline-like interface is crucial to ECCO's power. Each name, each phone call, and each meeting is an item in an outline. Because they're discrete objects, not simply fields in a database, someone can organize them at will by clicking and dragging, just as within a word processor’s outliner. And since Ecco organizes these items into folders, the user can create cross-referencing connections between people and notes or meetings and projects just as easily. Drag a task’s outline into multiple folders, perhaps those labeled with specific contacts and the information appears in each person’s individual folder. Change the information in any folder, and it changes everywhere.

The outline structure is bolstered by the addition of columns, which makes ECCO look somewhat like a spreadsheet. In the phone book, for instance, the user can easily create a column named “Call-Back”, that when clicked enters a check mark. Since the column is itself a folder, it will show all call-back obligations just by dragging the folder into an outline window. Even more flexible is ECCO’s ability to build ad hoc outline views based on combinations of folders. Dragging the “Done” folder to an open outline and all completed tasks will appear. Drag and drop the “Cost Estimate” folder onto a column, and all completed projects are accompanied by a dollar figure.

The program provides templates specific to such areas as legal, research, project management, and time management. Other aids include optional short-form menus that hide the program’s advanced features, extensive on-line help, and ECCO’s comprehensive documentation.

ECCO’s calendar and phone book are immediately accessible. The phone book may show a form at the bottom of the screen, but it’s actually an outline too. There is no way to add fields to the default form other than to create a custom form, but the user can add new columns to each name item to show such things as the last contact date or the result of the last phone call. The phone book dials numbers through a modem and times and logs calls. It also supports searches based on first name, last name, company name, item text, or any of its standard columns.

The calendar shows appointments and meetings in a list-like format, marking allocated time with colored bars. The user can peruse commitments in day, week, or month views, drag name items from the phone book to create a call or contact ticklers, set both simple and complicated alarms, and mark to-do items as done. Since it’s just another outline, the calendar can be customized too; adding a name column designating who’s handling what task takes just a few clicks of the mouse.

ECCO provides some handy gadgets. Its “Shooter”, a one-step-copy-and-past tool, sends a selected item’s text to other active Windows applications and documents and imports text directly into a variety of ECCO outline views. The toolbar is eminently customizable, and through group scheduling someone can share outline views with others on the network. It is possible to embed documents into an outline for fast retrieval, as well as launch applications directly from ECCO. Searches are fast, and a comprehensive filtering system with Boolean operators will display information in an outline.

Fdohmann (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Fdohmann, with all due respect we cannot use material from the compusol web site as sources, and this material is way too detailed for our purposes. I did purchase the pc mag archives, working my way through them now. It's kind of a pita, I'm a mac user running win7 in a sun virtualbox and the pc mag software is pretty crudy. -- Nuujinn (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, the above text edited today of the PC Magazine "First Look" "ecco93.pdf" is not part of the CompuSol site. I uploaded the PDF only for your reference. There is no link to PC Magazine's "First Look" of 1993 on any of our sites. Cut down on some details and free the article of any value judgement like "ECCO provides some handy gadgets" (I forgot to edit that one ...) and remove the first paragraph, the last two, any prices and any "personal address" Gregg Keizer is using in his article. I have the printed version and the online version of any PC Magazine from 1984 to 2003 stored. Safe your time in the win7 virtualbox, the "First Look" version of 1993 introducing ECCO is the only one worth to be edited as reference. Fdohmann (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I wasn't clear, even when the article is legit, I think it's bad form to use it if we get it from a web site not associated with the source magazine, since we can't verify that it is legit. Nuujinn (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Fdohmann: Again, the text you have just written is great for a website dedicated to Ecco Pro, but it is totally unsuitable for an encyclopedic article. Text like yours should be on the product's official website, and this article should give a brief overview, with a link to the official website. One problem is that this product has no official website in any normal sense of that term, and Wikipedia cannot be used as a substitute for the lack of an official website. Note that a brief overview in an encyclopedia should answer questions like: what is it? who uses it? what platforms does it run on? what awards has it won? has it been used in any notable situations? Reliable sources would be needed to verify assertions. To save everyone time and discomfort, would people please acknowledge that this article will never be able to lavishly detail the product's features, and language like "crucial to ECCO's power" and "bolstered by" (and a lot more) will never be suitable here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq, can we adopt these as goals for the article ?  To bring information about ecco pro to the reader:
 * What is Ecco Pro.
 * Who uses it.
 * What platforms does it run on ?
 * What awards has it won ?
 * What notable situations has it been used in ?

which suggest,


 * What notable persons use it ?

and,


 * Using facts which are verifiable.

(Some goal is behind the language you didn't approve of, can you articulate that goal ?) THI (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, believe has been established by reliable references that ecco pro is actively developed and user's group is office site of development and distribution. Thus software does have official website, as established by reliable references. Is unusual that official website is user group. Similarly, per reliable references, documentation provided by the user group,  per user group page, location of official documentation the 'eccowiki'. Unusual. Factually accurate. Supported by reliable references. Ingredients for interesting and informative article-- if those end up being among the goals that agreed on by consensus.THI (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * THI, with respect, the user group may assert that they are the "official" web site, compusol might also assert that, but only the holder of the copyright could bestow that title, and we could only reference that if we had a reliable source that supported that assertion. Does such exist? The user group is clearly not a reliable source.
 * Also, from what what I've read, the source code has not been opened, and although the software is freely distributed, it's still under copyright. Strictly speaking, I believe that Ecco itself is not being developed--what is being developed are extensions that modify the program. -- Nuujinn (talk)


 * Good point. official web site not proper terminology.  Distribution site for documentation and software more accurate.  3rd party source establishing user group distributes and documents software,  establishes reliability of site for technical information.  That tech. reference establishes development is to ecco itself,  patches binary with update of program code.  Ecco has a DDE API which allows extending functionality by external code.  The new development is, per user group documentation, modification of/ update of actual ecco program.  If someone with more knowledge could bring forward further references on this, suggest would improve article. THI (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, again, be very careful with the blogs, Woodyard is significantly better than some personal blogspot blog, but it is still a blog. Please see our verifiability guideline for info on how to use sources: "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." (that sentence is preceded by "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable.", noting that these blogs are self-published sources).  Woodyard is such a case which should be used with caution.  And note, Woodyard does not say that the user group is the official site, it can only be concluded that it is an important site regarding Ecco Pro.  Also, I have not included it saying that it was the official site, my words were more in line with that.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. And says that is site of the software development and documentation. THI (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Scott Rosenberg's mentioning is less than that .. it just says that someone is updating the program there .. I would not even go as far as saying that it is a site of software development and documentation. It's a site where someone developed something to keep the software running.  It does not even exclude if there are others doing the same.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Common Goal
Is there consensus on the specific goals desired to be achieved for this article ? THI (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends which consensus you mean. The consensus should be something along the lines: 'writing an article according to Wikipedia's core policies, the other policies, and guidelines', I think.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. One specific goal, is an article which complies with wikipedia's guidelines. Helpful. Now, beyond that,  what are the goals for this article. What do we desire to achieve here ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by THI (talk • contribs) 14:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That the content is based on reliable sources and anything else is stubbed and removed. If a reliable source is not talking about it, why the hell are we? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cameron, policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.


 * Do you feel the goal for this article should be more strict, requiring citation of all material, even if not a quotation or something not likely to be challenged ?  (If you do, that POV is legitimate and part of what we should be discussing in determining our (all of us) common goals for this article.)  THI (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's likely to be challenged by me (and I'm sure other editors). The onus on sourcing is on those who wish to include information not people removing it. As a first step, we should go through the article, line by line and remove anything that is not based upon reliable sources. We can then build upon on that material with additional sources. If sources don't exist, then there is nothing to expand. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Idem here. I would suggest that we start with an article in which EVERYTHING is properly sourced, and from there see if some expansion is possible.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And further to my previous points, it's cart before horses to say "well the article should include X,Y and Z" because after all of this time, we have maybe 4, 5(?) reliable sources to build an article on. Reliable sources are the foundation of a wikipedia article and without them, there is nothing to 'build'. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * At this point, let's focus on reaching agreement on common goals. Cameron would like a goal to be a strict requirement that all facts be referenced.  Beetstra is open to the possibility of some expansion beyond the properly sourced as an end result, and suggests using only sourced text to start as a working procedure.  To avoid conflict and editing wars, etc.  let's find consensus on what we are trying to do here.  Hope you'll both agree that if we do that first, may resolve most of the conflict, and create a positive, unified, and shared editing environment for all involved.  Cameron, are you both willing to discuss this goal (and the others which other editors may desire) and reach consensus with all editors as to goals for this article ? THI (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, helpful if we first set ultimate goals we can all agree upon for article, and from there develop consensus on specific procedures for editing, such as starting with referenced only and building from there, etc. THI (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My 'goal' that all material must be properly sourced is core policy and is not up for discussion or negotiation. I have no idea what you mean by "possibility of some expansion beyond the properly sourced as an end result". Get this straight, it's properly sourced or it's subject to erasure at any moment, that's an unmovable, not open to discussion, reality of a wikipedia article. This article cannot operate outside of the normal policies and procedures of wikipedia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I still think this discussion is back to front, as you want to discuss content before we sort what reliable sources exists. It's would be easier for us to find what reliable sources there are (if there are any more that exist beyond what we are currently using in the article) and see if we can sort more of the unsourced content that exists (or remove it if it's not possible) and use the sources to expand if it's possible. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, it seems to me the proper tack is to strip the article down and add only material that can be well sourced. THI, I can't speak for Dirk but I do not see him making any call for exceeding the parameters defined in policy. Nuujinn (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * in discussing this point-- Policy clearly allows for non referenced text in articles. Policy also strongly promotes marking non referenced text for citation as opposed to deletion.  On an article about software, the suggest approach is puzzling.  Would make more sense to seek references for the material.  That is constructive.  18:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by THI (talk • contribs)
 * THI, I, amongst others, have asked for independent, reliable sources for a long, long time. And (core) policy suggests to remove anything that requires but lacks a source.  Yes, if you think that the references are there, then one could leave it.  But as I said, we have been asking for independent, reliable sources for a long, long time, and they have not been supplied .. why fact tag stuff which could not be referenced for months now?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

THI, don't confuse things. Goal 1, and that is where Cameron Scott, Nuujinn and I agree fully upon as I read it: get everything sourced properly (i.e., FULL compliance with the relevant policies), and delete everything that is not properly sourced. Lets do that first, shall we.

Note, with the expansion I do not mean inclusion based on some wiki, blogspot, yahoo forum, or whatever, I would there consider the sources where our policies and guidelines are giving statements as 'largely not accepted', 'those with a poor reputation for checking the facts', or 'but only with care' (and expect that we might go via WP:RS/N for those sources to see if they are good enough for the statements that are suggested). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, the article at the moment uses a mix of the two: proper sources (real independent WP:RS), and sources which are questionable (of which WP:V would suggest to be careful, to avoid them or similar wording). At least there are no sources which are plain no-no's .. But I would, as Cameron suggests, even remove the ones which are questionable for now, and those may be the ones we want to discuss after that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

At this point, all have asked is that we discuss and reach consensus on the goals for this article. With common goals we can all work together toward the same end. Cameron has stated he/she is not willing to discuss. Cameron believes their POV as to wikipedia guidelines are the correct view, and is not willing to discuss. THI (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think asking for discussion and arriving at common goals for the article is not asking to much from any editor. If there are editors who feel every statement in an article must be referenced as a matter of wikipedia policy, I disagree. If we can discuss this and everyone is open to persuasion, let's discuss. If not, let's see what issues are in conflict and resolve them by formal mediation.

The point is to resolve areas of conflict up front. Also, by having agreed upon common goals, reached by consensus,  we can all be playing on the same team. Which is what wikipidia is all about. THI (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Am not calling on anyone to accept anyone's view at this point, only that we make a clear list of desired objectives, and arrive at consensus. Where there is conflict we fail to resolve by discussion, let's resolve by mediation. That way, we will have a shared map of where we are going and what we are doing. We can all play on the same team. THI (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question. So, yes, you are right, not everything needs to be sourced, if there are statements in the text which can not be challenged.  At the moment, the whole section product functionality, i.e. the core of the software, is totally unreferenced, except for one sentence.  Do you really think that that is unchallengeable information? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Respond to this sub issue with hope return to primary issue of reaching agreed upon specific goals for article. Agree references should be added.  In user manual, in reliable 3rd party sites, in stack of my Easy ECCO subscription from the '90s there are hundreds of articles on ecco pro functionality.
 * Let's agree on our goals, and have common goals so that all here are working in exactly same direction. Then let's agree on reference reliability. For Ex., YSWT has written on ecco internal details such as memory limits.  Do we recognize (after discussion and consensus) his 'original research' published elsewhere as reliable ?    THI (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * THI, that is exactly one of the type of sources which is questionable. I think Nuujinn, Cameron Scott and I were clear, lets first try and use proper sources.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Beetstra, perhaps reaching agreed criteria of what is minimally acceptable (to us all), and what is preferred, will eliminate many conflicts in edits,  by having agreed upon standard to readily compare desired content. THI (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. We cannot agree locally (that is to say on this specific article) that original research is ok, it's not permitted, it's not allowed, it's forbidden, it's against core policy. It's not happening. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Why is this so difficult for you to grasp" is a personally directed discourtesy. that your intention ?


 * Cameron, perhaps confusing original research in developing facts for a wikipedia article, with original research someone does on their own and reports outside of wikipedia ? THI (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No confusion on my part.--Cameron Scott (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * THI, if someone does their own research and that research is published in a reliable source, use of the reliable source is fine. Wikis, fora, and other self-published material fall outside of that. So does a product manual--it's a primary source, and while we are permitted to use such in limited cases, I would suggest this is not such a case. It appears to me that we have enough material to make a fine encyclopedic article on this subject between the infoworld and pc world articles. My suggestion is let's get to work on that, and deal with other issues as they come up. THI, if you have some specific goal in mind, I urge you to simply state what that goal is. -- Nuujinn (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nuujinn. "between the infoworld and pc world articles." on software functionality, Curious for reasons to dismiss the periodicals dedicated to subject, and academic papers? THI (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't understand the question. I did not dismiss any periodicals dedicated to subject, nor academic papers, so long as they can be confirmed as reliable sources. My comment was that we have some reliable sources to work from already--working on the article rather than talking about how to work on the article is, IMO, a better way to spend our time. Nuujinn (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course. Only where long history of hot conflict, time investment to reach consensus on clear goals ALL seek to achieve is worth much. THI (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq has made large contribution to this discussion by listing several clear and concrete goals for this article. Others with further contribution ? (Goal of following guidelines, or, 'have every sentence referenced', etc. also legitimate and helpful goal proposals for establishing common goals). Once we have list of suggested goals, we can discuss any there is not consensus on. THI (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Question, you've been asking us for the goals for this article, and I think that you got some input here on that, may I ask you what your goals for this article are? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wasting my time going around in circles talking about vague non-points. It's pretty clear this is an attempt to talk long enough so that someone will say something that can be seized upon as support for adding original research and sources that are not RS to the article. Well I'm not playing that game. If anyone has any *specific* sources they want to discuss and *specific* edits they went to add, let's hear about them, otherwise I'm not going to waste my time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I will go ahead, and clean the article, fact tagging anything. I expect that anything fact-tagged can be removed at will when no suitable sources are produced. Lets see some sources. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Cameron Scott, are you assuming good faith ?? YSWT (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Beetstra, you are unwilling to work on this article by concensus ?? YSWT (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My goal suggestions to add: Article should be interesting, informative, and accurate. It should include the history of the subject and the unique inventions and conceptions involved in the product and its functionality. The article should include the story of how the product was purchased by larger companies, and then eventually abanonded, what features provided by the product led to a dedicated user base,  and how that led eventually to the release of the program as freeware and then the continued development of the program. The article should provide information as to the current context of the program, its user base, available add-ons. History of the product should include the original extensions, and how their functionality was later incorporated into the program. Also, WHO was involved in creating this software, and what happened to them,  also part of story. YSWT (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A) I am working by the consensus which has established our policies and guidelines.
 * B) Yes, that is my goal as well, the article should be interest, informative and accurate. That last can only be done by using independent, reliable sources.  And yes, all the rest is indeed part of the story, but .. if it can not be independently, reliably referenced, then .. well .. then how do we know it is true?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, WP policy relieves us of worry about what is true--our goal is what can be verified. YSWT, ECCO Pro is freeware, but I believe strictly speaking that it is not being developed. What is being developed are extensions that manipulate the last release version. Without access to the source code and permission from the copyright holder of the source code, development of the application itself is not possible. Your desire to paint a lush portrait of the software and activities surrounding it are evident, but you'll have to provide verifiable and reliable sources for whatever you wish to add. There is no need for consensus on that issue, it is a matter of policy. -- Nuujinn (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Try this:
 * "Outliners have a long history as tools on PCs. The best example known to the authors is NetManage ECCO Pro, which has not been updated by its publisher for over a decade but is still extensively used and even updated by means of object-code patches" from Professor Gregory's (Department of Finance and Operations, ESC Rennes School of Business) paper, "The Business of Personal Knowledge" presented at the Cambridge University 8th International Conference on Knowledge, Culture and Change in Organisations in '08.  THI (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good reference, might be useful. See link.  Still, this is not development of the code, it is patching the software .. or, as Nuujinn puts it, 'extensions that manipulate the last release version'.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * YSWT is known expert on subject. not substitute for references but most likely statements about subject are accurate.  Professor Gregory in academic paper presented at Cambridge says that Ecco Pro is being updated by object-code patches.  Most reliable source we have.THI (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are disputing that. But indeed, that is not a replacement for the references.  And we are also not disputing that the information is accurate, only that it is either not verifiable, or it is not notable enough (as no-one independent is writing about it).  Threshold is the verifiability, not the truth.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * comments: 1. purpose in this thread is to discuss and develop shared goals for articles. 2. What is or is not 'a matter of policy' subject to discussion.  3. By reaching consensus on what we are doing,  together,  should end need to resort to policy.  Eg., if we agree our goal is text based on reliable sources,  might end back and forth on issue. Might also end inter-editor hostility.  Here Beetsra and YSTW agree already on specific common goals for article.  Let's finish developing an objective list of goals we agree to share and move forward together in the same direction, helping each other reach goals we all agree upon.THI (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * THI, this is not a page for establishing shared goals, the shared goals of this encyclopedia are defined in its policies and guidelines. We can not just decide here on this page that we are going to do something different.  I'm not sure what you mean by your point 2. We don't need to develop consensus on what we are doing, we need to find consensus on what can be included and what not.  There will never be an end to the need to resort to policy, we first look at policy, and based on that, we find consensus.  We don't find consensus without looking at policy.  We don't have to agree that we want a text based on reliable sources - policy describes that everything that is challenged or is likely to be challenged is supported by reliable sources.  Anything without a reliable source can be removed.  Our common goal should be (well, is, I hope): write a text that is compliant with our core policies, the other policies and the guidelines of this website, and move forward in that same direction.
 * I still don't see what goals you have in mind. I think that a.o. Nuujinn, Cameron Scott, Johnuniq, and I have clearly stated what our common goal is.  What are your goals, THI?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My primary goal is to put an end to the 'us' against 'you' 'we win, you lose' current of antagonism so pervasive here.  By ALL agreeing to clear common goals for this article we put an end to all that.  Have seen helpful goal discussions.  Different subjects lend themselves to different goals, and different editors have different views on 'core policies'.  By reaching agreed, clear and objective common goals,  we start from a common center.THI (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * you saying whatever goals Nuujinn agrees to, you also agree to ? THI (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * THI, I don't think Dirk is saying that, although I cannot speak for him. I think that Cameron Scott, Johnuniq, Dirk and I are in basic agreement regarding our interpretation of WP policy. Myself, the only goal I'm interested in in the moment is to bring this article in alignment with the basic policies. If you would like to suggest other goals that are in line with policy, that's fine, and I think that's what Dirk is asking you to do, since we (or at least I) don't know what goals you have in mind. Nuujinn (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My purpose is not to impose my own views as to goals, but to facilitate EVERYONE'S reaching agreed upon objective goals for this article. Johnunic and YSWT have offered several clear and specific goals,  and a couple of 'reference' based goals have also been offered.  Everyone here agrees that the article should conform with wikipedia guidelines,  that is a strawman issue.  Can we arrive at consensus as to specific goals arising out of those policies,  such as referencing text, etc.  in addition to agreement on purposes we are working toward in article-- jointly.THI (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no 'us' against 'you', THI, I don't know where you get that. I think that we are all trying to write an article here that is conform our policies and guidelines, and unless someone here is not willing to write an article following our policies and guidelines, we all have the same goal, there is no-one against another.


 * And as Nuujinn says, I have not said that whatever Nuujinn agrees to, I will also agree to. I agree with all edits that follow policy and guideline.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There clearly is an 'us' against 'you' theme here.  directly from the text and words used on this talk page. "WE" all against only "YOU" has been pushed, "you LOSE" has been expressly stated, etc.  These are editors words used on this page.  clearly history of personally directed antagonism.  committing to shared objective goals for the article, we ALL will have the same goals, and end 'against another' so pervasive in prior history here.
 * Beetstra, do you feel application of policy and guideline is determined by your interpretation, or arrived at in any particular article by consensus ? THI (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think it is determined by my interpretation. It is determined by our interpretation (this our includes you).  But as I said earlier, what specific goals do you have in mind, THI.  I don't think that without specifics, we are getting anywhere.  I would like this article arrive at a point where everything is referenced properly, and which does not read as a product manual or a software specification, and as I said, I think Nuujinn, Cameron Scott, Johnuniq have similar or the same goal; I however have no clue what your goal is.  The text that Nuujinn wrote, e.g., can IMHO be implemented without further change.  But I am not sure what you further mean.  I do not have specific goals further than that, I am not having goals of 'I want to include this specific', or 'I want to exclude that specific'.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I can't find any 'you LOSE' here, and I'd like to see specific examples of 'we' against 'you', too. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)B


 * Beetstra, both issues addressed on this page. Not seeing, or not wanting to see ? Your affirmative goals so far: *everything* referenced.  If you could turn your negative 'not read as a product manual' into some affirmative objective goal,  would be helpful.   Notably, your goals are 'design' goals (which are also important) not content goals.  Thus you don't care if article says nothing, so long is designed according to your goals.  Compare with Johnuniq, who offered specific, clear, (and to my mind, very direct and helpful) content goals for article.


 * Also wonder if your goal is reasonable. (But this for discussion). Seems 990 out of 1000 software articles on wikipedia have substantial amounts of unreferenced text.   Wonder if your 'every fact referenced' goal is a reasonable, healthy goal for software article,  or is a utopian technacratic goal which destroys the value of article. Food for thought. THI (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Get to work cleaning them up then, as you know WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I know, I can find the words lose and, I am sorry, there indeed seems to be confusion as to the common goal here, THI. But please don't try and put yourself in a victim role.  You have all the chances you need to come with good input, to give proper expansion, to come with proper references, etc. etc.  Really, I am not that bad a guy to work with here on wikipedia.  'not read as a product manual', OK, the goal is to write an article that gives a neutral, informative overview of the product.  And you can include as much detail as you like, THI, as long as it is properly referenced.  I can set goals, like, a description of the DDE API, but hey, there are no proper sources for it .. in fact, there is hardly anything out there.  I am sorry, there is not thát much to write about this here.
 * Reasonable, yes. As I have said before, and many editors have shown their trust in me when I wrote it, is that this is a plain shame.  And you know why that is, THI?  That is because those 990 out of 1000 articles are indeed badly sourced.  And there is nothing here that keeps you from improving that situation.  A) see what is unreferenced, b) see if you can find proper sources for it, c) if so, insert the sources, or d) if not, delete it, or rewrite it, until it is.  Maybe, if you would also get to that goal, we can actually change this into something else.  An unreferenced article is worthless.  Food for thought, THI?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "But please don't try and put yourself in a victim role." This comment is very odd.
 * "informative overview of the product. " helpful goal.
 * We can agree on goals, even if not see means to reach them all right now. Others may provide sources we don't see.
 * Unclear why you argue limited references for this software. At least two periodicals were devoted exclusively to the subject over period of years.  Thousands of articles exist.  Also, official product documentation exits.  This is software.  Seems your position is software manual is not proper reference, and 990 out of 1000 software articles are badly written and violate wikipedia policies.  Maybe you think you are right and 990 out of 1000 others are not.  Self confidence is healthy.  If we can't reach concensus on the manual being proper reference for product functionality,  we have agreed to mediate the question.
 * Your argument is straw man. Have asked editors to work on agreed set of common goals for articles.  THI (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

But we can reach common goals, all of the long-term editors who are not single purpose accounts or have an personal interest in the software can agree what to do. Consensus doesn't require all of us to agree, it requires the majority of us to decide on a direction - and we have. An article built on reliable sources, no original research allowed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cameron, consensus not 'majority rule'.  THI (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes.". It seems to me, THI, that we are not getting to a consensus, so yes, majority rule should then be applied.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Slanted view. Refusal to welcome and give equal respect to all editors violates core principles of wikipedia.  not a deletion discussion.   you reveal breakdown with editing here.  Failure to give respect to other editors,  'going ahead and doing' what you,  in place of discussion.   Discussion must be content based, not editor based.  YSWT is entitled to be a wikipedia ecco pro specialist.  Charlie1945 is entitled to contribute only to this article and discuss his views of his compusol website.   Everyone is entitled to edit any wikipedia article.  You do not have to earn the right to edit or discuss one article by editing others.  Every editor must be treated with respect, wikipedia is not a 'class' based system.  If you feel you have special status and higher status than other editors,  and therefore can ignore their input and exclude them from consensus,  there is a problem. THI (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 'exclude them from consensus' - you still don't seem to understand what I'm saying - consensus does not and has never required that we get everyone to agree to something, if it did nothing at all would happen here! Consensus at wikipedia defined by what the majority of editors want to do (guided by policy). Nobody is trying to exclude anyone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Really ? Reference for that ? THI (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS: "Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes.". It is all there, THI.  Just give it a read.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Moreover, THI, WP:COI does strongly suggest editors with a conflict of interest to stay in discussion, and to more strictly adhere to our core policies and guidelines (which would hence be required from anyone with an interest in Ecco Pro (or strongly related software) or who are otherwise connected to it, I think indeed that that includes for Ecco Pro Charlie1945 and YSWT, who have a known conflict of interest with Ecco Pro). I do note, that that guideline does not forbid them to edit .. Also note, it is ironic that you tell us that our views violate core principles of Wikipedia, this whole problem started (and is still not resolved) since this article was just doing that, violating core principles of Wikipedia (e.g., WP:NOT is one of our five pillars; note: I am not going to point fingers at anyone here specific, I might even myself have included info which was not properly referenced, but some of the issues in the article were there way before the current set of editors is looking at them).  That is not to say that together we should not try and get in the end there where this article should be, a properly referenced,


 * Moving on, THI, do you have any problem with first trying to get it to that status (properly referenced), and that we then discuss further on how to go on? Do you have a problem with having a good, properly referenced core standing here, and that the rest may come later?  That means that we now may remove a lot of unreferenced, though correct, information, but we could e.g. record diffs of revisions just before major deletions were done, and later revisit the information that was removed.  We might even find, that in the end a lot of it will end up already there.  I do not find the discussion where we are talking about the hypothetical inclusion of material that is supported by questionable references very constructive.  I'd rather see that we e.g. discuss the example text of Nuujinn, which seems a great step forward, and which could be used as a base for expansion later.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Think will eliminate much conflict if agree on goals first, and with that in hand address one point at a time. Text seems factually accurate.  Would be odd if in user manual, or infoworld, or any of hundreds of EasyECCO articles, etc. is not source for each detail.


 * On different subject, if fact in question, makes sense tear down/rebuild. Here, functionality facts objectively accurate, issue only of reference.  Official manual/spec guide, etc. should cover.  Working on fact/issue at a time seems better approach to building without conflict.


 * Also, this page is still too long. Can we find way to respect EVERYONE's needs/views and archive or place some topics to subpages, to make easier for all?  Not a 'forced' solution, but TOGETHER, consensus on solution to page length.   THI (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * THI, with all due respect, in terms of goals, we've asked you a number of times to propose whatever goal you think we should have in regard to this article. You haven't done so, and until you do, there is little to say, since you're the one that wants us to set goals.
 * Also, a question--why do you not write in complete sentences? Your use of staccato phrases sometimes makes it hard for me to understand what you are saying. Nuujinn (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, THI, all those boil down to the same point: the majority here finds that we have a set of well defined goals and a plan to proceed, the majority does not find a number of those sources suitable to draw content from (they do not pass WP:V), the majority here finds that the current way of archiving proper and sufficient. We do not need everyone to agree, or to satisfy everyone's needs (it would be nice, but sometimes we can't; WP:CONSENSUS has anticipated such occasions .. really, it's there!  It would also make Wikipedia an impossible place to work if always everyone needs to agree .. you would only need one or two opponents that do not agree, and no-one can edit .. sometimes majority rules, sorry).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of Product Functionality Section, Draft
Ok, I've written a new version of the Product functionality section based on the material in the PC Magazine archives. It is up here as a subpage. My suggestions has to how to use this are on that page, but basically, I suggest we edit the second copy at the bottom, but comment on what we are doing here. It's rough on purpose, but I think the sourcing is good. Nuujinn (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a wonderful starting point. Thanks!!  I see you found the rest of the sources, I only saw a couple of the articles in PC magazine.  I don't have any immediate suggestions on how to improve this, IMHO, this can be used as such, and we can then wait for suggestion on what can be added (properly referenced, of course).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * great stuff, I agree this can be used as is (the second version) and should be dropped straight into the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. I think it adds a lot to the functionality section, providing perspective of pop cultural appraisal as to the software.  Missing the functionality that is actually important from a ISc. perspective, those things which are dealt with in speciality sources, such as the products reference manual, and specialist publications such as the mentioned above EasyECCO magazine.   Also note the information is dated,  and while providing incredible historical background does not provide information about current software.   Thus,  "wow" a major contribution to the article as an addition to existing functionality text. YSWT (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nuujinn, this is a major contribution to this article. Thanks.  If I invest my time to find references in the (1) Netmanage Ecco User Manual from '97, (2) the EasyEcco magazines, (3) The eccowiki documentation for the active development features,  and the eccomagic closed forums for interal memory specs,  is that going to be supported ? YSWT (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * neither forums or a wiki are a reliable source and cannot be used in anyway - I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned before to you? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Have noticed this issue in other discussion pages. Cameron, could you please provide specific reference for your argument.  "this has been mentioned before you" is not one of our guidelines here at wikipedia. THI (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * THI, you have been pointed to that guideline/policy over and over. Forums or a wiki are not a reliable source. hardly ever acceptable, and then still only for information in certain way.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * YSWT, I am sure that you checked if these pass our policies and guidelines. And you are free to include material that you can properly source (the relevant policies and guidelines have been mentioned to you before, I am not going to reiterate them) .. if you are in doubt, please feel free to ask e.g. here.  Remember, the onus of proving the worthiness of inclusion is upon the editor who wants to include the material.  All material that is unsourced, or unreliably sourced can be removed without discussion.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * While Cameron's input unsourced, provides direct response to issue, explaining his position all wikis/forums cannot be reliable references. Beetstra,  unwilling to discuss this up-front ? THI (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what is said, and we have discussed this over and over. Forums and wikis are not reliable sources.  No need to discuss it up front, lets first try to get this article referenced with proper reliable and independent sources, and thén we can see what we can add.  Strike that.  THI, if you have specific suggestions, then you can add those in the draft.  E.g. make a copy of the draft, and add the information to it.  If you think that you can write information in such a way, that the forum or the wiki is a reliable source for it, then feel free.  We can as well try and discuss it directly.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We seem to have diverse views on forum and wiki issue. If cannot resolve by discussion, understand you have agreed to formal mediation.  Some software developers use locked forums or wikis as official web pages.  In such cases, the forum or wiki must be treated as any other developer's webpage.  For software such pages provide many references, particularly for product functionality. THI (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they are not independent. We are not disputing that Ecco Pro is year 2000 compliant, we are saying that thát is nothing special, and that it therefore does not have a place in this article.  We are not disputing that the program cost XX USD in 1997, the problem is, it is not a notable fact (well, I have not seen any source for that information, but I assume it is true).  We have already said, that there are forums and wikis out there which are reliable sources, but as long as you do not give specific examples of what you want to include, we are not getting anywhere.  Could you please give a specific example?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) THI, yes, some software developers do use wikis, blogs, fora, etc. Arguably, we might wish to modify WP policy to allow such, but to do that you'd go to the RS noticeboard, or village pump, and make a case for the change. Currently, however, WP policy on reliable sources strongly discourages use of same, see Reliable_source_examples. Changing policy is not something we can do here, and nothing we decide here can stand against policy--simply put, we cannot choose to ignore policy. That being said, if you have some data you feel can be reliably sourced, post it, and we'll take a look. If you're serious about formal mediation, you might wish to review the relevant policies--I doubt they'd take the case. -- Nuujinn (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nuujinn, maybe you are confusing the examples page with the actual policy. Policy is "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."  Notice the detail, "open wikis", "personal websites".  Does not apply to closed wikis and commercial or organizational websites.  Comment that have seen several times same issue in page discussion on software.  Confusion over the format of the site, wiki/forum/etc., with the content source.  Who is providing the info controls reliability,  not the format.   With open wiki we don't know who provided info, no reliability.  Not case with closed wikis.   If you know of policy against closed wiki reliability,  please.  Also, invite more discussion and back and forth on this, to arrive at carefully thought through consensus. THI (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you taling about Eccowiki.com? That is *not* a closed wiki as we define it, a closed wiki would one like the ones that IBM manage which are restricted to members of their staff and the identities of all are known. Eccowiki is open in the same way that wikipedia is. The fact that IPs cannot edit it does not make it closed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)Note, the sentence is, "Policy is "self-published media are largely not acceptable.", it then gives as examples "—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—". It is still a self-published website, THI.  But if you have a specific wiki in mind, for specific information, please go to WP:RS/N and get a second, independent, opinion.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if accepted, it could be altered by parties with vested interests to literally source anything in the article - the very reason we only allow self-published materials to be used in very very limited situations. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * More note. THI, the actual policy is "For that reason self-published media&mdash;including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets&mdash;are largely not acceptable.".  You appear to be quoting an old version of policy (I already thought that it was indeed unclear and prone to misunderstanding, and was considering to discuss a change, but it is already done.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note have found ecco references looking over my stack of InfoWorld mags. Unsure if available on-line. THI (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now we are talking, that is not a problem. If you could forward us the issue numbers, page numbers, etc. etc. (i.e. full bibliographic information), then we can discuss these and see what can be used and what is in there.  Thanks, THI, that was really helpful.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Check this out. Nuujinn (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a quick look as well. Not much on the inner workings for as far as I could see.  A bit about interaction with other software ('we've tested the interaction of product X with product A, product B, Ecco Pro, product D, etc.), and some other little things (that netmanage abandoned the software is somewhere mentioned alongside).  Helpful, but for as far as I could see, nothing really new or additional.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should take a second look. Much more there.  One question raised: To what extent are we willing to reference to Netmanage's own statements about the product ? THI (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * THI, that depends on the specific cases. And my quick browse indeed showed quite a number, and I checked quite a handful of them.  I agree, I may have missed some.  I would suggest that you make a list, and see what can be used for what.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps useful material from Dr. Mario Norbis' (dept. of Management, Quinnipiac University) "Personal Knowledge Management" paper presented at the '08 Cambridge Conference on Knowledge, Culture and Change in Organisations:
 * Ecco is "proprietary software now free to download."
 * Ecco runs in Microsoft Windows
 * Ecco provides a "Hierarchic outline with assignment to multiple folders, one parent per folder. Information is presented in a dingle pane with a folder grid." and supports "Intranet, group calendar, organizer." allowing users to "Share info, schedules, documents, and to-dos across your company, group, or organization."
 * Both Ecco 1997 and Info Select 2007 permit the "definition of forms to impose some order on anarchy." "a data item can participate in more than one hierarchy. Thus for example an appointment for a meeting can appear in an overall agenda or calendar, but also be linked to the name of each participant in the meeting. Effectively, the same datum is classified in more than one way. To the extent that knowledge is a product of the recognition by intelligent agents of connections between information otherwise not explicitly linked," this kind of tool can be used as a mechanism for storing knowledge.
 * In Ecco, "a grid can be superimposed on the outline. The column headers of the grid are the names of folders, that is, named sets of data values."
 * Ecco combines "very powerful data structuring with relatively easy to use (and understand) basic PIM “functionality” in terms of diary, contact management and the like." THI (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't find this paper - do you mean
 * Gregory, M.R. & Norbis, M. (2008) 'The business of personal knowledge.' ? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hard copy in my files entitled "Personal Knowledge Management". In Conference synopsis entitled "The Business of Personal Knowledge".  Think is same paper. THI (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this a conference proceeding, or are these the slides of a presentation? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Formal paper presented at conference. THI (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there are any conference proceeding - I found a copy of the paper on the web. I don't think it's been submitted to any journals for PR. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Was presented at the conference. Respectfully, you know what this means, right ? THI (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No? what does it mean? Conference papers unless published are Self-published sources I think - however I'd have to check as it's been a while since I've used one... --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * THI, is this the paper that you mean? It seems to contain different text than what you are quoting above, or did I miss parts.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Link is to paper synopsis. Try download paper.  On review original paper has differences with web copy, but all text on ecco from above is in web paper.  THI (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The doc is linked from that page, and in my case, even displayed from scribd. I have looked through the doc, looking for the word 'ecco', and I did not find the things that you mention above.  Are you sure it is the same document we are looking at?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * At bottom of page link you list, is .doc. Download. Print out and read the old fashioned way. THI (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not at the bottom. And I see the full text.  I see I missed a part, most of the data you give is from a table.  May I note you the point at the bottom "The sources include Wikipedia - Personal information management 2008, Keeping Found Things Found 2008 and our own developing research" (as well as some of the references), and General Disclaimer?  None of the references seem to be specific on Ecco (Pro) either.  And then, there is still the point of it being a conference proceeding, not a peer-reviewed piece of information.  I am sorry if I could not find the text earlier (I was using the scribd-view).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe recheck? Wikipedia sources noted in paper, not related to the ecco references.  Those also explicitly about ecco pro.  Academic paper presented at conference is compliant with wikipedia academic reference reliability.  Note, some of the data listed from a detail table, not sure about 'most'.  Also Note: if sci world magazine article stated water was composed of H3O  and professor X in paper at Z conference published water was H2O, if editor with knowledge of subject should use H20 fact and reference.  Otherwise, trading blind rule based editing for rationally sourced facts. THI (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Academic paper presented at conference is compliant with wikipedia academic reference reliability. em... depends is the answer, I asked about this paper over at the reliable sources board and the view was that it might be or might not be. You might want to take it over there youself and see what people say. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I downloaded the .doc file, honestly, there's very little of use in it. THI, what do you want to add to the article that would use this as a reference? -- Nuujinn (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Bit askew this comparison, THI. It should be, "if no-one published that water is H2O, and someone said once at some conference that water is H2O, then it might indeed be H2O, but we are not really sure.  We should wait for reliable sources to be able to verify whether it is really true."  That is about the care that we have to take with this reference.  But this lecture does not add too much anyway, there really is not too much in there that is useful.  It only helps in establishing the notability a bit more (as in 'people talk about Ecco Pro'), but I don't think that is the problem, we all agree that it is notable.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Ecco is notable. In reference to "if sci world magazine article stated water was composed of H3O and professor X in paper at Z conference published water was H2O, if editor with knowledge of subject should use H20 fact and reference", I would also point out that were that the case, we would, according to policy, not be able to resolve the dispute using an expert editor's opinion, that would constitute WP:OR. Instead, we would turn to other reliable sources, and barring additional sources, we'd have to cite both claims. Ironically, pure water is indeed composed partially of H3O, in balance with HO. Nuujinn 13:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Back to original topic for this section
Does anyone object to replacing the functionality section currently in place with the draft I proposed? If you object, please say why, briefly, if possible. Thanks! -- Nuujinn (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope - get that sucker in! --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, lets start with that, I have not heard any objections to the content, only some vague suggestions as to the expansion of it (apparently there is much more to tell). But what is there is at least properly referenced and useful and a great starting point for further discussion.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I also recast the Scott Rosenburg reference to make it clear that it's his view. I'm thinking that that section needs general trimming as well. Nuujinn (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It does not make any sense for me and for our members to contribute further to the site. These discussions now over nearly a year are going nowhere. We recently contacted again the upper echelon of Micro Focus in the UK, the guys who purchased NetManage, there is no interest to further develop EccoPro nor is there any movement for even a "limited" copyright release of parts of the program. We are glad to be able to not only provide the last free Netmange version of 1997 but to also enable the over 7000 world-wide EccoPro users of Vista and Windows 7 (32-bit and 64-bit) to stick to their beloved program. We have a daily quote of 6 to 10 users signing up. Let me point you again to http://www.compusol.org/ecco/wikipedia.html and if you are interested to more history snippets of some of my works explore http://www.creativeservices.org.

Fdohmann (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Fdohmann, that post just boils down to it, does it not. Your language is so typical here, we don't care where it can be downloaded, how many people download it, how much it costs (or even, if it is for free).  Are you here to write something knowledgeable about Ecco Pro, based on reliable sources, telling Wikipedia readers what the program is and does, or are you here so that the page can link to your site, so you get more people in to download it.  Wikipedia is NOT for promoting software or whatever product.  We are writing an encyclopedia here.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)