Talk:Linux Gazette

This article is heavily geared towards SSC's POV. I've refrained from editing this article because I am a member of LinuxGazette.net's Answer Gang, but it's worth noting that User:TaranRampersad, who added the POV material, is the current editor of LinuxGazette.com -- Jim Regan 00:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As the original "Answer Guy" I have to agree with Jim here. Beyond that I also have to question whether Linux Gazette actually deserves a Wikipedia article entry at all. I don't consider myself to be worthy of an article, either. My inclination would be to recuse myself because of my obvious bias. However, the article already violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. So I'm fixing it as best I can.JimD 01:57, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

As Taran Rampersad, I'm saying that before I jumped in the article was heavily slanted toward the non-SSC Point of View, which can be determined by the history. I've made additions based on fact, not opinion. If others can bring facts to bear, or wish to question the facts presented, then that's fair game. I'm not here to change this Wikipedia entry by myself, but I will not stand by and let SSC get rained upon in public opinion again.

Bring facts. With facts, there's less POV and more article. I removed the link to my personal website, and in exchange affirm that I am the current editor of Linux Gazette.--TaranRampersad 01:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I beg to differ. Both of your edits were heavily laden with POV: I've left a message on your talk page outlining those in your last edit. Nobody's trying to rain on SSC here, what we're trying to do is accurately reflect both sides of an argument. Before your edits, the article stated:
 * "In October 2003, the Linux Gazette split into two competing groups; SSC decided to use a CMS, making the Linux Gazette site similar to that of Linux Journal, the company's main magazine. Thischange was resisted by The Answer Gang--which includes the Gazette's editors and many of its regular authors--who have decided to continue the Linux Gazette in its original form. SSC has attempted to assert trade mark claims over the publication, which have been resisted by the Answer Gang."

I really don't see how that's "heavily slanted toward the non-SSC Point of View": if it's heavily slanted in any direction, it's towards SSC's POV, as it did not mention the Answer Gang's stated reasons for moving. Just to spare you from having to go to the competition's website:
 * "October 2003 (#95): Heather Stern sends off her portion of the issue (TAG, Tips, and Mailbag) for public release. Several days later, a sharp-eyed observer notices the "Gazette Matters" topic, describing SSC's plans and the staff's concerns, is mysteriously missing from the Mailbag article. Queries to SSC about the deletion go unanswered. Most mirrors carry the damaged edition (and later it turns out that other articles are being silently deleted from prior issues, likewise reflected out to the mirrors).
 * "As it is still unknown which CMS software is planned to be used for the release, the staff confer, with the eventual consensus that:


 * "1. SSC's CMS may end up being a fine Web discussion forum of some sort, but (being neither periodic, edited, nor a magazine) clearly won't be Linux Gazette.
 * "2. they find it disturbing that a hosting site (such as SSC) would suddenly turn completely uncommunicative towards the magazine staff and make unauthorised and unannounced edits to the published text."

(From A Brief History of Linux Gazette by Rick Moen.

(The deleted mailbag content may be viewed here. Compare with SSC's version) -- Jim Regan 00:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) Oh... I think I see now: "decided to continue the Linux Gazette in its original form." Is that what you consider to be "heavily slanted"? Sorry, but that is fact: Linux Gazette.net is much closer to the original form of Linux Gazette (in my opinion -- sorry, couldn't resist). -- Jim Regan 00:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look, I responded here to your questions: []

As for the rest, SSC hasn't really said much, and this is not the proper context for SSC to do so. However, everything in the article can be substantiated - otherwise I would not have added it. At the link above, you can see how to contact me. I'll be in flux over the next month, but I'll be around as much as I can.


 * I've read that, and responded. I'm not looking to argue about specifics, or to drag SSC's name through the mud. What I'm looking for is to keep this article NPOV'd. I've stated my bias, I know you're keeping an eye on the article and vice versa. Perhaps between us we can have an article that's balanced? I will admit that adding the word 'claim' has tilted the balance somewhat, but I'm waiting to see if you can rephrase those two sentences in a way that both of us feel us fair.


 * It's a pain, sure, but it's the Wikipedia way. -- Jim Regan 13:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Currently, (May 1st, 2006) linuxgazette.com redirects to the linuxjournal.com homepage. So it appears that linuxgazette.com is effectively dead. -- 209.206.234.62 20:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And more recently (2015-02-01) http://www.linuxgazette.net reads "The main content of this site is currently down for service" and looking at the page info tells me that it's been this way since (2014-05-29) while the most recent issue available on http://linuxgazette.net is from June 2011 (#186). So, has Linux Gazette died? In that case a bit more info about its demise would be nice to have on the page. TomasPospisek (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)