Talk:Nextcloud

"History" section npov/advert
The "History of" section really should cause this article to include a tag for {npov} or {advert}. It reads like a mix of marketing material and a hastily written reddit rant, and obviously missing citations for some very bold claims (as adverts tend to do). Here's the revision that added that change: [|revision diff]. Hopefully either the author or someone knowledgeable about the history of the project can clean this up -- that's not me, but this one section really hurts the credibility of the article as currently written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickScott (talk • contribs)

Maintenance and rating of JavaScript articles
Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...

Collaboration...
If you are interested in collaborating on JavaScript articles or would like to see where you could help, stop by WikiProject JavaScript and feel free to add your name to the participants list. Both editors and programmers are welcome.

Where to list JavaScript articles
We've found over 300 JavaScript-related articles so far. If you come across any others, please add them to that list.

User scripts
The WikiProject is also taking on the organization of the Wikipedia community's user script support pages. If you are interested in helping to organize information on the user scripts (or are curious about what we are up to), let us know!

If you have need for a user script that does not yet exist, or you have a cool idea for a user script or gadget, you can post it at User scripts/Requests. And if you are a JavaScript programmer, that's a great place to find tasks if you are bored.

How to report JavaScript articles in need of attention
If you come across a JavaScript article desperately in need of editor attention, and it's beyond your ability to handle, you can add it to our list of JavaScript-related articles that need attention.

Rating JavaScript articles
At the top of the talk page of most every JavaScript-related article is a WikiProject JavaScript template where you can record the quality class and importance of the article. Doing so will help the community track the stage of completion and watch the highest priority articles more closely.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

vs. ownCloud
There is a nice summary and comparison at https://civihosting.com/blog/nextcloud-vs-owncloud/ --grin ✎ 12:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I added a reference to that page - HSRobinson (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Self-contradicting sentence.
While Nextcloud was originally a fork of the ownCloud project, there are now many differences. implies that forks are not normally intended to have difference, or only a few. This is not consistent with common usage (see eg, Fork_(software_development)). If it is indeed a fork in the common sense of the word, Nextcloud is a fork of the ownCloud project and there are now many differences would work better. If not, what is it? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced content
Copied from User talk:Pppery/Archive 16:

Hi Pppery,

I noticed you undo changes made by me along with some old text existed before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nextcloud&diff=prev&oldid=1125422186

Could you please explain what is wrong with chapters regarding Nextcloud AIO and Nextcloud VM? For me it sounds inconsistent to mention Nextcloud Box introduced 2016 (which is discontinued now) but not refer to current existing implementations? https://nextcloud.com/devices/

For FOSS software referring to the Github repository sounds useful for me as well.

As I consider Nextcloud is very important software suite I'm willing to improve this article further - let me know which areas you feel could be improved? Wwe226 (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is the lack of secondary sources. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for the answer. Both mentioned chapters could are tightly related to the main project I was under impression URL pointing to the Github repository with docs, source code and bug tracker should be enough. Similar articles e.g. Microsoft 365 list parts of the software like outlook.com without any citation as well. Wwe226 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The key distinugishing feature there is that the things being listed have their own articles, which include relevant secondary sources. Remember that the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide an encyclopedic discussion of the software, not a manual for it as some of your edits come close to doing. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I definitely didn't intend a manual - enough exist on the internet - my intention was to describe different architectures supported by system. Maybe wording is not ideal but I assume such list is very useful to describe the software to a reader. Maybe you can refer me to a good example? Wwe226 (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why should Wikipedia care about discussing those features if secondary sources don't? I feel that the content I didn't remove provides a good enough description of the software. Maybe you can refer me to a good example - see Good articles/Engineering and technology and Featured articles for some of Wikipedia's highest-quality articles on software as assessed by the community. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I spend time reviewing multiple "good articles" and lot of them have even worse ratio of secondary resources. e.g. Windows Server 2012 41 of 74 citations are from Microsoft as vendor, Windows_Speech_Recognition 39 of 64 citations are from Microsoft as vendor (maybe more as lot of are "archived"). The Nextcloud article has far more external references. The fact there is no citation doesn't mean there is no external source - it just means it was not provided. Now the article is very short compared to the huge functionality and importance of the software being may be the last free collaboration software competing with hyperscalers like Google and Microsoft and it makes it really hard to provide good value if somebody silently removes important fact just due to feeling it's not important.. Wwe226 (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Pppery

it's not the first time you remove edits related to the page Nextcloud without good reason like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nextcloud&diff=1172398803&oldid=1172398591

software in general open-source software especially has to work against huge bias regarding mentions and independent sources. often the only reliable information is the vendor/project itself. If you feel more citations are required please add some warning like "missing references" but stop removing content people add. If you immediately remove everything without external source you kill every small chance to extend the article beyond some basics. Wwe226 (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue here is exactly the same as discussed the previous time - I wasn't convinced by your arguments above, and I still am not - it may well be that software in general open-source software especially has to work against huge bias regarding mentions and independent sources, and my response to that is "So what?" - Wikipedia is not a tool to right the great wrongs the rest of the world is facing. Finally, even ignoring the lack of references, the content you added is inappropriate per WP:NOTDIR, which says that product directories of that sort are inappropriate. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My expectation from Wikipedia from users point of is to find almost all relevant information when I look at the topic. In terms of software this "relevant" topics are the way to install it. Back on this specific article - it's completely pointless to list a device which is not available since years (only because it has citations) but not list current integrations.
 * I see your point as guard preventing inaccurate information - you could ask for citations and external sources - simply removing important and relevant content is bad habit. Especially you don't do this in other cases like countless articles related to Microsoft software - most of them base on different Microsoft's websites and don't link to "independent" sources. This is a proof of the bias I'm talking about - only because Microsoft is big related articles are accepted without "academic" quality while independent open-source application has to fight against silly rules created for completely different case. Wwe226 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I assure you I'm not motivated by bias here. I've removed content as unsourced from hundreds of articles, across a wide range of subjects (including both open- and closed-source software), and even nominated Bigtop (Microsoft product) for deletion. I've made only 19,000 edits to articles, and there are millions of articles on Wikipedia, so of course lots of content exists that I would consider inappropriate and remove if I were to stumble across it. I think it's clear neither of us are going to convince the other one of us in this discussion, so I'm listing this for a 3rd opinion * Pppery * it has begun... 19:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your work for Wikipedia, people like you are the reason why it became successful. My interest is related to Nextcloud - and good Wikipedia article is one part of its success. I see our different intentions and I really appreciate your understanding. Wwe226 (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone,
 * Probably not really providing a good WP:30 here, but I agree with @Pppery's edits 1 and 2. Wikipedia should not be a directory or a database of programs related to Nextcloud, and I agree that the wording of the edits was far from neutral, including the inline external links. Finding secondary sources can be hard, but I don't think that any of the information Pppery removed should be re-added with primary sources (like the GitHub repo, already mentioned in infobox). However, maybe the fact about the Federal Information Technology Centre could be added somewhere in the article per the independent coverage, although 300,000 people in the ministries and other federal institutions will use the Nextcloud software. seems unnecessary to me.
 * Also, regarding the last comment by @Wwe226, information on Wikipedia shouldn't be changed or added for the reasoning of the article being "a part of a company's success"
 * Keeping the third opinion request open for more experienced users to review it. Have a nice day! NotAGenious (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My edits and my motivation has nothing to do with the "Nextcloud GmbH" and I have no relation to the company. I'm volunteering in the free user help forum. when I'm talking about success I mean this project (as open source in general) must be promoted much more rather building random obstacles. I'm interested in the application which is open source and for this reason kind of independent from the company, but I have to admit the company is main driver behind the project and both are closely related.
 * Regarding to the article itself - for me the edits seem completely random as @Pppery decided to keep old useless "Nextcloud Box", along with "NextcloudPi" - the only reasoning is "it has external sources", without checking if other devices and installation methods might be more relevant.
 * Maybe I don't fully understand the Wikipedia spirit but what I expect from a Wikipedia article is to provide "important" facts.. I try to add this fact without success. I understand it's hard to find generic approach what is important in the generic knowledge source.. software has other metrics than hardware, than clothing or maybe ships or airplains. If you take a look at the already mentioned Windows Server 2012 which is referred as "good" article you will find directory listings and majority of sources are coming from the vendor. for me it's really frustrating to see you don' follow the rules on evil software while killing useful additions at good open source projects. Wwe226 (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to remove Nextcloud Box and NextcloudPi then go ahead - I won't revert you. The rest of this argument is simply not convincing, but for the record the "you"s you are accusing of {{tq|[not] follow[ing] the rules on evil software]} and killing useful additions at good open source projects are different people - I have never edited Windows Server 2012 and do not plan to for reasons having nothing to do with it not being open source. What I expect of Wikipedia from my seven years and tens of thousands of edits of experience is to provide facts that secondary sources, as opposed to individual editors, have deemed important. This discussion is turning into a rehash of the same arguments over and over without any ground being gained, validating my prediction above that I think it's clear neither of us are going to convince the other one of us in this discussion. * Pppery * it has begun...  19:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * From the 2 diffs I inspected, and knowing some of Pppery's other contribs to the project, I don't beliebe that his edits were affected by bias.
 * ...without checking if other devices and installation methods might be more relevant - although you probably don't mean it, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide on how to install something
 * ...what I expect from a Wikipedia article is to provide "important" facts.. not really; again, without secondary sources it shouldn't be included, even if it's "important information for one wanting to use the software".
 * Additionally, open-source software isn't treated any different on what comes to finding reliable sources. NotAGenious (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * unfortunately it looks this is not the right place to contribute. thank you both you teach me this lesson before I wasted to much time here. Wwe226 (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for your contributions! NotAGenious (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for your contributions! NotAGenious (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)