Talk:/e/ (operating system)

Edit request for Data Leakage incident section

In the Data Leakage incident section, the correct number of impacted users is 379. Source:https://web.archive.org/web/20220803021339/https://community.e.foundation/t/e-foundation-ecloud-security-notice-june-15-2022/42420 Mnair69 (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

While reviewing the article, I noticed that the "Data leakage incident" and "3G phone sales" subsections only cite primary sources. As WP:PSTS states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Since there does not appear to be any reliable secondary sourcing for these two subsections, I am inclined to remove them altogether.

Considering that there are dozens of announcement posts at https://community.e.foundation/c/e-foundation-community/announcements/6 and tens of thousands of forum posts at https://community.e.foundation, the fact that the current version of the article cites a select few of them to portray the article subject negatively indicates that primary sources have been used in a non-neutral manner. Picking and choosing primary sources can easily result in neutrality issues like the one here, which is why secondary sources are preferred in Wikipedia articles.

Absent objections, I will be removing the "Data leakage incident" and "3G phone sales" subsections from the article. — Newslinger talk 09:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Welcome back again!
• Object to deletion because the 5 criteria of WP:ABOUTSELF are met, unless you are claiming the summaries are non-neutral, which could be fixed with copyedits. A distinguishing aspect of these "controversies" are formal responses by E staffers, not just routine announcements. Another aspect of the "Data leakage incident" is the cited non-forum primary source, post-investigation announcement by E staff. There may be similar for "3G phone sales" but I have not looked for it. I thought it was interesting, relevant info for many English readers, so added it.
• Deletion goes beyond the scope of the COI edit request.
• Aside: At wikipedia, self-serving, promotional info' seems to find its way into "secondary" sources more than less self-serving info'. ZDNet cited here (months before 2020) is on WP:RSN. In 2020 it was bought by Red_Ventures, a marketing company. Follow the dots. AFAIK, ZDNET reliability has not been discussed since then.
• I will be interested to see how this comes out, because using non-self-serving primary sources WP:ABOUTSELF similar to this is an unresolved issue at GrapheneOS as well, where fans stronly object to including the info'. -- Yae4 (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Adding: Don't know why the "completed" notation was deleted, but an edit Special:Diff/1106425364 has been done to incorporate this request. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the welcome. The issue here does not concern the verifiability policy (i.e. WP:ABOUTSELF), but rather the original research and neutral point of view policies. WP:PSTS states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Considering this, why are all of the citations in the "Data leakage incident" and "3G phone sales" subsections primary sources?

  This is a neutrality issue because the primary sources in this article are overwhelmingly used to introduce negative claims that have no support from reliable secondary sources. When there are over 100 announcements in the project forum, choosing just the ones that reflect the article subject less favorably, while ignoring all of the announcements that reflect the article subject more favorably, is cherrypicking. WP:PSTS emphasizes secondary sources because it is very easy to misuse primary sources, as this article is doing now. It is clear to many editors that adding content supported solely by primary sources to promote an article subject is not acceptable; doing the same to portray a lesser image of the article subject is equally unacceptable.

  Instead of selecting primary sources ourselves (e.g. picking a few announcements from the 100+ in a forum), Wikipedia articles mainly use secondary sources, which "rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them". A broad sample of reliable secondary sources includes the noteworthy aspects of the subject that are encyclopedic to include in the article, while excluding the aspects of the subjects that are not noteworthy enough to obtain secondary source coverage. This is why, without the support of reliable secondary sources, the "Data leakage incident" and "3G phone sales" subsections should be removed from the article.

  The use of primary sources is relegated to uncontroversial aspects of a subject. For example, an article on a piece of software can cite the software's license file to establish the kind of license that the software uses. Also, if a reliable secondary source that is already cited in the article links to a relevant primary source, it is usually uncontroversial to cite that primary source alongside the secondary source citation.

  Talk pages are for article discussion, and there is no requirement to limit the discussion to the contents of an edit request. I haven't reviewed the GrapheneOS article recently, but if primary sources are also being misused there, the relevant content should also be re-examined and possibly removed. — Newslinger talk 07:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

For the moment, my response is limited to the data leakage incident; one thing at a time. Regarding thousands of posts, things should look different, and the importance of the incident should look higher, when you look at the "Security Announcements" category, where there is only a single announcement - regarding the data leakage incident. The incident is not "controversial". It happened. It is encyclopedic, especially for a "privacy" software. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Re: Announcements category cherry pick claim. False. Reviewing the last year of that category, the announcements are overwhelmingly, 10 to 3, on service outage events, which is a "negative" topic. The 3 advertising announcements are "unduly self-serving" and thus contrary to WP:ABOUTSELF criteria. Perhaps it could be worthwhile to add a statement to the article on the numbers or frequency of outages to more NPOV summarize these frequently occurring events, if you are suggesting this category is important and representative. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF, which would allow unlimited amounts of negative information based solely on primary sources to be added to the article while disallowing positive information sourced in the same way, is not consistent with the neutrality policy. The presence of scheduled maintenance announcements such as this one (which are not inherently negative) does not justify adding negative information on other unrelated topics based solely on primary sources. As WP:BESTSOURCES states, "In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis added). Because the "Controversies" section is mainly based on primary sources lifted from the community forum, which are not independent of the article subject, the parts of the section that constitute undue weight need to be removed.

Since there appears to be a deadlock in this content dispute, I am starting a request for comment below to address one of the issues in this section. — Newslinger talk 23:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mnair69 New editor here cleaning up the "request edit queue. It looks like this request was handled but not closed. Please submit a new, clean, request for any further changes. Cheers Duke Gilmore (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

The RfC at § RfC: 3G phone sales concluded that the "3G phone sales" subsection should be removed, which was done in Special:Diff/1125171602 in December 2022. As there is currently no opposition to the removal of the "Data leakage incident" subsection (due to the opposing editor being community banned in July 2023), I have removed the subsection in Special:Diff/1176803027. — Newslinger talk 02:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Add paragraph in references section

• What I think should be changed:

Adding the following paragraph under the previous paragraphs:

Ferdinand Thommes tested the Murena One with /e/OS in November 2022 and came to the conclusion that it "covers the usual purposes well". He also highlighted the aspect that the developers managed to achieve a uniform look for the preinstalled apps that come from different sources. Apart from a short-term Wi-Fi failure and an NFC problem on the pre-production device "software and hardware worked without problems". He considered it a serious alternative for "people who don't want to leave their data to Google, but don't have the desire, time or knowledge to purchase a smartphone to install and maintain an operating system on it that suits their needs." Thommes concludes that Duval "deserves respect" for his several years of work on an operating system that he "also entrusts to his children." He also mentions the Volla Phone as a possible alternative for German users.

• Why it should be changed:

The author was also previously given as a reference, but with a self-published (and therefore non-reliable) source. The new reference is on the one hand more current and on the other hand from a professional publication on linux topics. Only the reliability of the source caused the removal, not the reputation of the author.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Flovieh (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

References

• Completed, with modifications. See above comments for reasoning. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Removing Qualcomm data leak incident

/e/ OS was not responsible for it nor were they blamed in the article. So, I will remove it. Greatder (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding reference in reception section

• What I think should be changed: Adding the following sentence in the reception section:

In Juli 2023 Natasha Lomas reported in Techcrunch, that the Fairphone4 repairable smartphone will be available in the US for the first time in a deGoogled Murena e/OS variant and that it will be "interesting to see how much U.S. interest there is in an iPhone and (Google) Android alternative that packs sustainable and ethical smarts".

• Why it should be changed: The US launch marks a relevant step in the development of the project and the collaboration with Fairphone
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Flovieh (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Reply 28-JUL-2023

  Edit request declined  

• (See WP:CRYSTALBALL.)

Regards,  Spintendo  17:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

• What I think should be changed: Update number of supported phones in the history section.

Replacing the sentence "As of November 2019 /e/ supported 89 smartphone models." with "As of November 2023 /e/ supported 246 smartphone models."

• Why it should be changed:

Info is old and therefore wrong

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Flovieh (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Reply 30-NOV-2023

  Edit request implemented    Spintendo  04:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)