Talk:Raspberry Pi Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Raspberry_Pi

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Raspberry Pi. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Raspberry Pi at the Reference desk.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Introductions (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Introductions, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.IntroductionsWikipedia:WikiProject IntroductionsTemplate:WikiProject IntroductionsIntroductions United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Trevj (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors: [[Consumer Electronics Control#CEC|CEC]] The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

What is the source of the GFLOP values in the Simplified Model B Changelog table? I would suggest that this should be cited.

The thing that confuses me is that the RPi 4 has its own link but not the 5. SnappyRiffs (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's some discussion at Talk:Raspberry_Pi_4#Article_Notability. I tend to agree that we don't want to fill this article with details about each version. An open question is whether individual versions meet notability requirements for stand-alone articles. ~Kvng (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the "education" section, beginning "As of January 2012...", seems to be based on speculative reporting from 2012 about the possible future adoption of the Raspberry Pi by schools. Perhaps this could be updated, at least in style? For example, changing "As of January 2012, enquiries about the board in the United Kingdom have been received from schools..." to "By January 2012, enquiries about the board in the United Kingdom had been received from schools..." 140.228.83.128 (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RickyCourtney: Hello.

This is regarding this block of edits

For jeffgeerling.com/Jeff Geerling, his blog doesn't appear to have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. I'm not saying he is wrong or being deceptive, but this isn't, by itself, a reliable source. If he is a topic expert, (his own website's list of credentials doesn't convince me) his assessment in a WP:SPS could be cited as his assessment. So, "according to open-source developer Jeff Geerling..." I do not think this is going to be a useful approach. We would still need to explain to readers who this person is and why his assessment is necessary, and at that point, a 'citation needed' tag is going to be a lot cleaner.

As for The Slashgear source, where does it say anything about developing countries? This appears to be WP:OR/editorializing.

Thanks.

Grayfell (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue at Geerling does qualify as a WP:SME as he's been cited by other reliable sources including more than a dozen times in Ars Technica, more than a dozen times in Tom's Hardware and his blog was cited in a post by Raspberry Pi. Additionally, he's being used to source the claim that Raspberry Pi's can boot via USB and NVMe. It's not exactly a controversial claim. That said, I'm happy to swap it out for a citation to the Raspberry Pi official documentation or another RS. As for the Slashgear source, that appears to have been a mixup. I meant to cite another article, but things got messed up switching between source and visual editor. Happy to swap that out. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SME is about Wikipedia editors. I assume you are referring to WP:SPS, which says Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Being described by editors as a subject matter expert isn't really enough in this case, and doesn't really matter unless there are better sources. If there aren't better sources, this might not belong at all.

It is better to use reliable, independent sources. Necessary details can be supported by WP:PRIMARY sources, such as the Raspberry Pi's website, but the article will be much, much better for disinterested readers if it uses independent sources to decide which details are important and which are not.

Likewise, please also avoid WP:SYNTH. The cta.tech source didn't mention Raspberry Pi at all, making it inappropriate. Unless a reliable, independent source directly supports that an 'approach is particularly valued by business customers' the article shouldn't say that based on their own prospectus. This is also a WP:TONE problem. This kind of thing is a form of original research/editorializing, and isn't appropriate. Summarize what sources say, not what they imply. Grayfell (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the part of WP:SPS, which says: Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. I think Geerling has cleared that bar. However, it's a moot point, I've already replaced the sources with other reliable sources. I take your other points, however, I will point out that the prospectus, like any other financial document of a publicly traded company, is subject to a high-level of scrutiny in the form of independent audits, oversight by regulatory agencies, and financial and criminal penalties for reporting false information. That said, I like your rewrite better, it gets to the point. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying Geerling doesn't know what he's talking about or isn't trustworthy. I'm sure he knows his stuff very well. I'm saying that a blog is not enough to demonstrate encyclopedic significance. Such sources tend to make the article harder to parse for little benefit. To put it another way, he has, I'm sure, said many, many, many things about Raspberry Pi. It shouldn't be up to editors to decide which self-published details belong and which do not. If you need to dig in to official documents or blog posts to support a detail, that might a sign to step back and evaluate how much detail is too much detail. Specific details of a topic are not necessary or helpful to disinterested readers, and the way to filter useful for distracting should start with reliable, independent sources, not editors or blogs or official manuals.

Likewise, a prospectus may be reliable as a primary document in some contexts. A lot of Wikipedia:No original research is about how any interpretation of a primary source (especially a legal one) needs to come from a reliable, secondary source. This is why it's better to build from WP:IS and only use primary sources to clarify specific points of confusion. (As you've probably noticed, what qualifies as a point of confusion is a source of a lot of debate on Wikipedia talk pages). WP:BACKWARDS is an essay which also covers on some of these issues. Grayfell (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]