Comments on: Mono Apologists on Wikipedia http://www.the-source.com/2010/07/mono-apologists-on-wikipedia/ Free and Open Source Software News and Opinion Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:44:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: William Immendorf http://www.the-source.com/2010/07/mono-apologists-on-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-1182 William Immendorf Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:01:53 +0000 http://www.the-source.com/?p=1005#comment-1182 And the apologists don't really want to give up. They claimed that you and Techrights preform no research (but I think that you do a good bit of it, don't you, Jason?), that both sites aren't trustworthy (which is most defintly false, since I think that both sites do research a lot, and Techrights is credible enough to earn a 951st ranking in Netcraft, which is actually quite a lot), and they claim that Techrights and The Source attack people (which is just more smears). Then they claimed that de Icaza's biased blog is credible, which it is most definitely not for a multitude of reasons (incredibly biased towards Mono, endorses Microsoft technologies, traitor to the FSF, and an Microsoft MVP). At this point, I've wanted the references put back in, and all references to de Icaza's blog removed. And the apologists don’t really want to give up. They claimed that you and Techrights preform no research (but I think that you do a good bit of it, don’t you, Jason?), that both sites aren’t trustworthy (which is most defintly false, since I think that both sites do research a lot, and Techrights is credible enough to earn a 951st ranking in Netcraft, which is actually quite a lot), and they claim that Techrights and The Source attack people (which is just more smears). Then they claimed that de Icaza’s biased blog is credible, which it is most definitely not for a multitude of reasons (incredibly biased towards Mono, endorses Microsoft technologies, traitor to the FSF, and an Microsoft MVP).

At this point, I’ve wanted the references put back in, and all references to de Icaza’s blog removed.

]]> By: William Immendorf http://www.the-source.com/2010/07/mono-apologists-on-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-1180 William Immendorf Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:39:23 +0000 http://www.the-source.com/?p=1005#comment-1180 Also, what's somewhat silly is that my statement (about the FSF smears all being FUD),one of the apoligists took my statement as a persional attack, while it was not (even through I was really frustated at the aplogists when I wrote the statement). Also, what’s somewhat silly is that my statement (about the FSF smears all being FUD),one of the apoligists took my statement as a persional attack, while it was not (even through I was really frustated at the aplogists when I wrote the statement).

]]> By: William Immendorf http://www.the-source.com/2010/07/mono-apologists-on-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-1177 William Immendorf Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:57:17 +0000 http://www.the-source.com/?p=1005#comment-1177 If you notice, I've pointed out that any and all smears against the FSF are just FUD, only I was irritated (at the aplogists) at the time that I posted the message. If you notice, I’ve pointed out that any and all smears against the FSF are just FUD, only I was irritated (at the aplogists) at the time that I posted the message.

]]> By: Jason http://www.the-source.com/2010/07/mono-apologists-on-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-1126 Jason Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:08:11 +0000 http://www.the-source.com/?p=1005#comment-1126 Personally, the only thing interesting to me is watching how hard Team Apologista turns themselves into knots to hide criticism. This whole Wikipedia thing is just one example of many. First, they insist on pretending like there is some association between The Source and another website. There is none, I have said so multiple times, yet the distortion persists. With a single exception, I have never seen a member of Team Apologista draw a distinction or correct this misinformation. In fact, I see this non-existent relationship promoted quite often by those who I know know better. In the case of the Moonlight article, they insist any criticism on this site is inadmissable because I am not an "expert" or The Source is not "reliable". Yet, in the Mono article, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mono_(software)#NPOV:_Free_Software_Foundation.27s_warnings" rel="nofollow">they are trying to remove FSF criticism</a> - note they don't dare bring in any question of the "expertise" or "reliability" of the FSF. They just find an whole new hoop to jump through. (This time it's "NPOV") I learned long ago that the vast majority of Mono Apologists are not interested in honest debate and love to "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts" rel="nofollow">move the goalposts</a>". They will say that something is wrong because of A. If you clear A, then something is wrong because of B. Clear B? There's C. And on it goes. Similarly, I see Team Apologista accepting flawed arguments and even outright lies simply because it supports their position. Both are hallmarks of people that are not only not interested in honest examination of a question, but that fear it. Personally, the only thing interesting to me is watching how hard Team Apologista turns themselves into knots to hide criticism. This whole Wikipedia thing is just one example of many.

First, they insist on pretending like there is some association between The Source and another website. There is none, I have said so multiple times, yet the distortion persists. With a single exception, I have never seen a member of Team Apologista draw a distinction or correct this misinformation. In fact, I see this non-existent relationship promoted quite often by those who I know know better.

In the case of the Moonlight article, they insist any criticism on this site is inadmissable because I am not an “expert” or The Source is not “reliable”.

Yet, in the Mono article, they are trying to remove FSF criticism – note they don’t dare bring in any question of the “expertise” or “reliability” of the FSF. They just find an whole new hoop to jump through. (This time it’s “NPOV”)

I learned long ago that the vast majority of Mono Apologists are not interested in honest debate and love to “move the goalposts“. They will say that something is wrong because of A. If you clear A, then something is wrong because of B. Clear B? There’s C. And on it goes.

Similarly, I see Team Apologista accepting flawed arguments and even outright lies simply because it supports their position.

Both are hallmarks of people that are not only not interested in honest examination of a question, but that fear it.

]]> By: Roy Bixler http://www.the-source.com/2010/07/mono-apologists-on-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-1125 Roy Bixler Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:18:00 +0000 http://www.the-source.com/?p=1005#comment-1125 I'm not surprised that this ended up as an edit war. I understand Maghnus' criticism, but it does not say anything about other sites such as this one. It should be OK to add the reference to this site back. Also, everyone seems to agree that the reference to the statement that the Moonlight "covenant" is not suitable for Fedora is valid. Perhaps that reference could be expanded to include the reasoning behind the statement. I’m not surprised that this ended up as an edit war. I understand Maghnus’ criticism, but it does not say anything about other sites such as this one. It should be OK to add the reference to this site back. Also, everyone seems to agree that the reference to the statement that the Moonlight “covenant” is not suitable for Fedora is valid. Perhaps that reference could be expanded to include the reasoning behind the statement.

]]> By: Eric http://www.the-source.com/2010/07/mono-apologists-on-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-1123 Eric Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:56:15 +0000 http://www.the-source.com/?p=1005#comment-1123 It seems that the admin did not put your references to techrights/etc back and had this to say: <blockquote>I have reviewed several dozen "articles" from this Techrights/BoycottNovell site, and my conclusion is that it is <b>not credible</b>. My perception is that the author is a controversy junkie scavenging for hits, and links from Wikipedia only serve to feed his habit. If this site has been used as a reference for other Wikipedia articles, it should be removed. And no, I'm not a shill for anyone. Just someone who doesn't eat BS for breakfast. Maghnus (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)</blockquote> The emphasis is his own. It seems that the admin did not put your references to techrights/etc back and had this to say:

I have reviewed several dozen “articles” from this Techrights/BoycottNovell site, and my conclusion is that it is not credible. My perception is that the author is a controversy junkie scavenging for hits, and links from Wikipedia only serve to feed his habit. If this site has been used as a reference for other Wikipedia articles, it should be removed. And no, I’m not a shill for anyone. Just someone who doesn’t eat BS for breakfast. Maghnus (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The emphasis is his own.

]]> By: William Immendorf http://www.the-source.com/2010/07/mono-apologists-on-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-1071 William Immendorf Thu, 05 Aug 2010 21:51:33 +0000 http://www.the-source.com/?p=1005#comment-1071 This whole reverting and re-reverting has escalated into a edit war, and both me and the user with the Novell IP address have both recived warnings. At the very least, I told the admins to put the refrences to Techrights and The Source back, and tell the other user to deal with it. This whole reverting and re-reverting has escalated into a edit war, and both me and the user with the Novell IP address have both recived warnings. At the very least, I told the admins to put the refrences to Techrights and The Source back, and tell the other user to deal with it.

]]>