mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of OpenXPS and PDF Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_OpenXPS_and_PDF

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of OpenXPS and PDF

[edit]
Comparison of OpenXPS and PDF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Original research. While this article is well-sourced, those sources establish that specific facts in the article are true, but the comparison itself constitutes WP:SYNTH. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this comparison article is any different than:
Not only is this not true, as many of those other pages have 3rd party sources, which this article completely lacks, but you yourself have created many of these with a standard template stacked comparisons. These are created in a manner closely reminiscent to practices of a stacked panel which Microsoft use has been documented in Comes v. Microsoft.
The nominator himself confirms that this article is well sourced and there are 3rd party sources in this article as well. In fact it contains more references than many of the comparisons in the category mentioned above. Also, the statement that I "created many of these comparisons using a standard template" is a blatant lie. Ghettoblaster (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is your start of OpenXPS and PDF and Open XML and OpenDocument identical? and also, may i point out, unsourced WP:OR and POV? Scientus (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The simple reason is that I decided to contribute another comparison article to Wikipedia. I don't think that there is something wrong with using an existing article as a starting point when creating a new one. I bet that happens all the time on Wikipedia. In fact, I did the same thing when I created the standard navbox templates Template:Ecma International Standards, Template:Open Mobile Alliance standards, and Template:Open Group standards. I also did this when I created the operating system navbox templates Template:DEC operating systems, Template:IBM operating systems, and Template:Microsoft operating systems. Note that I added a great deal of 3rd party references to the articles your mentioned. They are all well-sourced and provide no POV at all. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned before the “stacked panel.” Panel discussions naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners — our usual opposition. For example, an “unbiased” panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the Backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus, we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every “naturally occurring” panel debate.

A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select die panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can’t expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only “independent ISVs” on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed -just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the “real world.” Sounds marvellously independent doesn’t it? In feet, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the “independent” panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you’ve got a major win on your hands.

Finding a moderator is key to setting up a stacked panel The best sources of pliable moderators are:

Analysts: Analysts sell out - that’s their business model But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.

Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don’t let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up. Since he’s well-known, but apparently independent, he’ll be accepted - one less thing for the constantly-overworked conference organizer to worry about, right?

— Internal Microsoft Document "Evangelism is War", Comes v. Microsoft


Please also note that "Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia." (See: Wikipedia:These are not original research) Ghettoblaster (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it should be somehow cleaned, plus more alternatives? Otherwise it looks suspiciously much like "my product vs. the industry standard" kind of comparison... --Sigmundur (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only source is purposefully biased stacked comparison from a Microsoft-only development firm and Microsoft it's self. Irregardless of WP:SYNTH, it only cites one sided sources.Scientus (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The article is very poor quality and I have listed some of the problems on the Talk page. I can't think of an audience that would gain any value from reading the page as it stands. The technologies are too complex to be compared in a simple table. You can't do a comparison consisting of a Yes/No table unless the choice of what things to compare is uncontroversial and that is not the case here. The choice of row labels is very arbitrary and can lead to highly misleading impressions. (For example saying "alpha in color specification: OpenXPS yes PDF no" would give any reasonable reader the impression that PDF does not support vector transparency). Even if I had the time and inclination I am not sure I could write a good comparison article without crossing the line into Original Research. I am doubtful about the notability of the subject as well - who needs to compare these things, for what purpose? I could maybe support a totally rewritten page but am skeptical. Mrhsj (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No synthesis at all. It isn't making an conclusion, such as, that one is better than the other. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Irregardless of WP:SYNTH, it only cites one sided sources. Scientus (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soapbox  : There is a clear need for website administrators or document publishers to understand the utility and limitations of the format they use for making their "information" available. I personally continue to get annoyed that information providing websites, either through intent or accident, use presentation formats that severely limit the usefulness of their end product. Anything that lets more people know tradeoffs- such as that pictures tend to detract from automated processing capabilities and pdf doesn't just automatically adapt from desktop to cell phones very well compared to formats that know about document structure- would be an important addition to Wiki. I personally get annoyed when I need to waste BW downloading fonts that may be embedded in a file when all I want is the numerical data for use with other people's data ( and reducing to text or a csv file is usually the best thing to do ). So, I would suggest if there are specific problems with this article to give them a lot of thought before removing or reducing it. The formats are notable, these do have factual attributes which can be listed ( in a text format LOL), and the tradeoffs compared for interested readers. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Even the nominator agress the article is "well sourced". I also agree with Ghettoblaster: per the nominator reasoning, then all comparisons have can/should be deleted. I think the solution would be to find more sources with direct comparisons and/or try to keep the comparison article neutral. I would also like to point out that a comparison is pretty much always biased, since the person/group will always try to compare features it considers important, while others might consider other features might important (simple case: in wikipedia comparisons give a lot of importance to the license and to the fact that a program is open source or "non-free". In contrast, most users probably dont' care much about that and probably care more if stuff is free/gratis and DRM-free) SF007 (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No i do not, the only source is from a Microsoft-only development firm with a clear conflict of interest, as well as Microsoft itsself. The entire article is based on this stacked comparison.Scientus (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about [1]? — Rankiri (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're obviously missing the fact that this company offers Java and Ajax solutions that can hardly be considered as Microsoft only. You also seem to be missing the fact that PDF solutions are obviously their core competence. Why should they favour a Microsoft developed format in their Whitepaper? Also note the other 3rd party references. Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.