Wikipedia

Talk:Cydia/Archives/2012/December

< Talk:Cydia
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Dreamyshade in topic Addressing recent changes

Neutrality

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think that the article has a bias in favor of jail breaking and the use of Cydia programs and I just noticed that the most significant contributor to this article is a representative of the subject company itself, which I see it as conflict of intest. The inclusion of things to emphasize on legality of jailbreaking appears to be undue influence to make Cydia look good. Legality of jailbreaking is a different topic. This article is about a company which offers program to use on a jailbroken phone. Through my uninvolved set of eyes, as it stands now, the article does not appear free of bias. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I explicitly disclose my affiliation on my user page, and I stick to adding uncontroversial material with references and repairing vandalism and misleading information, so I believe I'm working within COI guidelines, but I welcome suggestions for improvement. It's more important to me to collaborate on making this a quality article than to promote Cydia here; I like improving articles about subjects I'm familiar with. Editing this article wouldn't be an efficient way for me to try to promote Cydia - it already has millions of users who promote it themselves, and many of them don't speak English. :)
It's useful to note that the subject of this article isn't a company - it's about a free, open-source program (with an optional commercial element) that a company develops. Most of the article is about the software, with context about the platform and context about the company, which makes sense to me.
If you look at the feedback for this article, it has comments asking for even more details about legality: "is it legal in the canada" and "I was looking for if Jailbreaking was legal or not, because I've been hearing "Oh it's legal" and "No, you can get fined."" This is a common question about Cydia, covered by many articles about Cydia, so a two-sentence summary of jailbreaking's legal status seems to be reasonable coverage. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Failed verifications and irrelevant contents

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It has been found that some statements have a citation, but inappropriately expanded to include something not covered by attached references masquerading it as a properly cited when a good chunk of the referenced chunk is reflection or original idea of the editor. Some prose have no direct relevance to the topic Cydia for example a journalist suggesting that care should be taken when jail breaking in general. Suggesting "journalists recommend" based on one example is another example of improper extension. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC meta-discussion

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Have you got the balls rolling on this yet? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't yet; I'm currently working on collecting references for some items I've said could be referenced, since I figure it's polite to include specifics before bringing other people into this. I'll switch to doing the RFC first though, and add references after that. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I posted notifications on the talk pages of the newest ten members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc./iOS task force. If that doesn't help, we could notify more of them, or I'm up for suggestions about additional relevant sets of people to notify - maybe members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Software or Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free Software. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
To individually mass-canvass ten members only within a certain project where you're likely to find fanboy memberbase is probably canvassing to advance likely position of jailbreak proponents. I think you're interfering with natural process of RfC process. Why do you find iOS task force as more appropriate place for NPOV discussion as opposed to organization or products taskforce which deals with pages about products and companies like this? The RfC exists for a reason and that is to seek comments from random editors who elected to be on notification list rather than have a COI editor chose the jury himself. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe those notifications were appropriate because Cydia is an iOS topic; iOS taskforce members are likely to be interested in this subject. As the top of this talk page says, "This article is supported by iOS task force." According to the self-summaries on the iOS task force page, the members are a mix of jailbreakers and non-jailbreakers, and I chose the last ten members in order to get a fair sample. It's probable that some members are enthusiastic Apple fans who are not in favor of EULA violations like jailbreaking. I like the idea of inviting additional people from other WikiProjects though to get a better mix of participants, so I suggested a non-specific WikiProject as a next step.
I believe I'm following the guidelines of Wikipedia:Canvassing - "polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title", limited posting, nonpartisan audience, open transparency. I believe I'm also following the guidelines of Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC - "you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations." I noticed that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Apple Inc. said "This page is for discussion of the project only." so I notified a fair selection of individual members. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
See my comments below for my objections to jumping the gun and not letting RfC due its thing. From evaluating the method of your delivery, I believe that you deviate from it. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe that an expressed interest in helping with iOS articles is a significant enough connection for an RFC on an iOS topic, and that people interested in iOS articles have diverse POVs, but I don't think I'll be able to convince you on this. Would it help if we sent notifications to the ten newest members of a WikiProject of your choosing? That seems fair to me. The random feedback invitations haven't produced any responses so far, so I feel that we need to reach out to more people who might be interested. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The fact, you, an employee of Cydia, directly connected with the subject who's a COI editor chose the audience adds massive unbalance to this discussion. The RfC was meant to invite people to comment blindly and that boat had just been rocked hard. "so far".. its been what, 15 hours? What's the urgency? It is an unrealistic expectation that each and every RfC is addressed with urgency and that discussions to take places within hours of your request. RfC volunteers don't work with just your requests. If those ten people have strongly opinions, the damage is already done. It would be best if you removed all those canvassing, but it maybe too late. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Would it be a problem if an editor with no COI notified a fairly-chosen selection of iOS taskforce members? I believe I was acting neutrally; I am an experienced Wikipedia editor as well as working for Cydia. I am eager to make progress on consensus here, so you're right that I probably tried to invite additional comments a little soon; I admit that the lack of any responses (even minor or shallow responses) was worrying me, since I believe we'll need at least several other opinions to make progress. I decided to post on the COI noticeboard for help with determining whether my behavior has been appropriate: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Cydia. Hopefully this will also help us with other article issues. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Trim one of the pictures?

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Right now, having a large logo, one screen shot with a logo, and an additional screen shot for such a small article has an appearance of a company made exhibit meant to show off the software interface and appearance. I think it would be encyclopaedic if one of the pictures was removed. Soliciting input from non COI editors. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Noting the lack of non-COI response to this, perhaps we now need to post the RfC notice to other places in order to get more editors interested? For future discussion, information that may be useful for deciding on the number of images to include:
A survey of images in "good articles" on software product topics and the Cydia article (crude estimates for wordcounts, but I used the same method for all the articles):
This feedback post says "More pictures", and this feedback post says "It needs a pic of Jay Freeman".
The history of images in this article: User:MadnessInside added a logo on October 21, 2010. User:Wizkid4590 added an infobox screenshot on July 10, 2011, and User:CommonsDelinker removed the infobox screenshot on July 29, 2011 due to being a copyright violation. I added a screenshot on October 23, 2011. User:Macedoniarulez added an infobox screenshot on November 9, 2011, and I removed the infobox screenshot on November 22, 2011 due to being inaccurate. I added an infobox screenshot on May 2, 2012 to replace the missing one. User:B.saketh changed the infobox screenshot to a long image on November 14, 2012, and I made the new infobox screenshot smaller later on November 14, 2012.
Dreamyshade (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, the current picture should be counted as two, as it says it is a stitched picture as opposed to two separate pics. The suggestions are from random IPs so its hard to detect if they're COI astroturf or not. I noticed that you've put a great amounts of effort into this article and personally I believe you have vested interest in it beyond simple editing for fun. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I actually think a realistic screenshot would be better for the infobox, like the one I added in in May; the stitched screenshot looks awkward, and I haven't seen many other articles with stitched screenshots in infoboxes. I do not contribute from random IPs; I cannot speak for whether those anonymous people may have a COI on this article. I am fortunate to work on a product that I personally care about. If you are concerned that I am misrepresenting myself, I again believe the COI noticeboard would be more appropriate for that discussion than this article talk page, especially since your concern is about my edits on multiple articles. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Have you ever considered using {{request edit}}? I mean, while you're not explicitly prohibited from making edits to Cydia, it is highly discouraged. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I've stopped making edits to articles where I have a COI (note Greenpois0n for example); my edits hadn't been challenged before, but now they have been. :) I haven't used that on this talk page since it's under active discussion already, but I'll use it in the future if the article isn't being actively discussed. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Addressing recent changes

Latest comment: 11 years ago113 comments3 people in discussion

I'm not quite sure how to address Cantaloupe2's recent edits, due to my COI, but I'll give discussing them a try. It's helpful to clear up poor sourcing, but in the process, Cantaloupe2 has deleted decent material and introduced factual problems. In general, I'm concerned about a pattern of removing flawed material instead of making a reasonable effort to improve it or replace it with better material, and a pattern of requiring more thorough sources for positive material than for negative material.

I'll just go through these recent edits one by one and point out problems. I hope this is helpful - my intent is to have a polite, constructive discussion. I've also spent time working on fixing COI edits by other people in other articles, so I understand the importance of going through this process. This is a very long comment, so if small details seem curt or argumentative, please assume good faith.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamyshade (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Description of Cydia

Removing "the main independent third-party" when referencing Cydia - I believe this is not "puffery" or a controversial statement. The edit summary expresses concern that the source is from 2010, but it was true then, and it's still true. iOS has no independent third-party distribution platforms on stock iOS, and if you Google jailbreaking and read articles about it, it's apparent that Cydia is the only independent software distribution platform of note on iOS. Installer.app was significant in the iOS 1.x days, and Rock was significant for a while but closed in 2010. Check out Category:IOS_jailbreaking - the only other installer in that category is Icy (application), which has no references showing notability. There are a few other installer projects similar to Icy that don't have many users or much notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamyshade (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are some sources for this claim:
  • February 2012 PCWorld article: "Saurik's alternative app store, called Cydia, is arguably the definitive repository of such apps or tweaks. Cydia is so ubiquitous in iOS jailbreaking circles that most jailbreak tools install it automatically."
  • January 2012 PCWorld article: "The Cydia app is the most popular method for jailbroken iOS devices to download apps and tweaks."
  • February 2012 Forbes article: "They also discovered that programs in Cydia, the most popular platform for unauthorized apps that run only on “jailbroken” iPhones, tend to leak private data far less frequently than Apple’s approved apps."
  • April 2011 Washington Post article: "The primary jailbreak apps store, Cydia...Cydia, the biggest unofficial iPhone app store."
Dreamyshade (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Additional sources:
  • "The example checks for the existence of the Cydia application, the most popular third-party application installer at the time of this writing, which is installed by most jailbreaking tools." p. 329 of Hacking and Securing iOS Applications (2012).
  • "At this writing, Cydia is the main tool for installing unapproved apps on iOS devices." p. 215 of iPhone Geekery (2012). I'm looking at a paper copy, but you can confirm this by searching inside the book on Amazon.
  • "For jailbreak applications installed through Cydia, which is the jailbreaker's equivalent to the Apple App Store, this is different." p. 307 of iOS Hacker's Handbook (2012). I'm looking at a paper copy, but you can confirm this by searching inside the book on Amazon.
Dreamyshade (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The February 2012 PCWorld article seems co-authored by Freeman; we shouldn't use that one. The other PCWorld article, Forbes and especially the Washington Post all look good to me, with the Post making an especially forceful case about Cydia's "dominance". It might be wise to avoid adjectives such as "independent" that aren't used by the sources and might be seen as loaded. Huon (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Looking at that phrase again, saying "independent" and "third-party" is redundant anyway, so saying "the main third-party" is probably better. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Description of jailbreaking requirement

Rewording "Using Cydia depends on having a jailbroken device." to "Cydia requires jailbroken device." - I'm a little confused here. The new phrasing is ungrammatical, I don't understand why it needed to be changed, and I don't understand why "jailbroken" has been bolded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamyshade (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Cell phone requires a service subscription vs Using cell phone depends on having a service subscription. It's a requisite and as far as I'm aware, mandatory requirements are usually expressed as "required" as opposed to "it depends on". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs)
OK, I agree that "requires" instead of "it depends on" is more direct. How about "Cydia requires a jailbroken device." or "Cydia can only be used on a jailbroken device."? I like the second one more since the first is a bit abstract, but both would be accurate. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
How is it abstract? I like the former. Latter looks like unnecessary wordiness to lower reading level to grade school level and making it wordier. When a COI company representative is involved in shaping the tone of article to willfully or unintentionally but influenced by external factor on how the message should portray the image of the company compromises the principle of impartial. Request a copy edit from neutral editor using edit request if the wording is not up to your satisfaction. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd prefer the second wording. Yes, it's a little longer, but not excessively so. Huon (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I think leaning toward simpler language, if it can retain the same meaning, is appropriate for software articles. This feedback post from September said "this article is quite difficult to read ,use easy words to express the views." I'm not sure how my COI is involved here; as far as I can tell, the tone and meaning of the two sentences are equivalent. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't find "required" to be a complex language. Do you all?Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the potential confusion is that "Cydia requires a jailbroken device" seems to be an incomplete thought - Cydia requires a jailbroken device in order to...something? I know that it means approximately "Cydia requires a jailbroken device (in order for Cydia to be installed on that device)" or "Cydia requires a jailbroken device (so that the operating system allows use of Cydia)", but it's a little terse for a non-knowledgeable reader who may not understand the context well enough to fill in the blank automatically. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Altering the software on Apple devices through jailbreaking is a prerequisite for installation and use of Cydia... how's that? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
This sentence has a complex and indirect structure, and if you want to specify a kind of device, it's best to say iOS instead of Apple (to avoid implying that Mac laptops can be jailbroken). User:Huon said he was OK with my suggestion; can you explain your concern with it? Dreamyshade (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Summary of Apple policy on jailbreaking

Rewording summary of Apple policy on jailbreaking - This edit is fine with me, since it's more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamyshade (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The "detecting previous jailbreaks on a restored device may be difficult or impossible" portion can be replaced with the statement in iOS jailbreaking that "restoring a device with iTunes removes the jailbreak" (we can copy the sources from that article as well). This is information that a bunch of sources covering Cydia include, such as this one: "When you restore your iPhone to its jail, you get rid of Cydia and all the jailbroken apps you've installed." p. 264 of iPhone Geekery (2012). I'm looking at a paper copy, but you can confirm this by searching inside the book on Amazon. Cydia's current source #16 (PCWorld article from 2010) also covers this: "Be sure to consult the Google Docs spreadsheet created by iPhone Dev Team member MuscleNerd, before you install anything through Cydia. If you stick to this list, you should be safe. And if you like to live dangerously, remember that you can always restore and be right back where you started if need be (and don't forget to make a note in the Google Doc about what happened!)." Dreamyshade (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The original phrase was a NPOV concern anyhow, which conveys the message "don't worry about it, it may void warranty but they can't find it". or use of phrasing like "restores your iPhone to its jail" is also POV, because it conveys a message of disapproval of Apple's security features. The source should simply state that restoring with iTunes reinstates security features and leave out any statement inferring to lack of audit trail. "maybe impossible or difficult" is a phrasing that just obfuscated way of saying "we don't know if there's audit trailing, but if they figure out, we're washing our hands". Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Since reliable sources mention that Cydia can be uninstalled without significant problems, I don't see anything wrong with mentioning it in this article. However, Cantaloupe2 is right that we shouldn't make the connection to Apple's policy on jailbreaking unless we have a source do that as well - otherwise it's original synthesis. Huon (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the original phrasing wasn't very good. I believe the phrasing in iOS jailbreaking ("restoring a device with iTunes removes the jailbreak") is neutral. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Since this may be unclear from this discussion, I'll note that I didn't add this challenged text: diff for the addition of "(although detecting previous jailbreaks on a restored device may be difficult or impossible)" by User:Tkbx on 6 March 2012. Dreamyshade (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

List of products in Cydia

"Stitching together references to package deals, then calling it "popular ones are item(ref), item2(ref)..." is original research." - If the problem here is the "popular" term, it'd be appropriate to remove that word and change the phrasing to "Packages in Cydia include...", which is supported by the references, instead of entirely removing the material and its references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamyshade (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think to name out products available through a vending service is unnecessary and advert, as if its to entice desirability for Cydia through appealing to popularity of named apps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs)
Lots of independent reliable sources include the names of specific packages distributed via Cydia, because Cydia would be non-notable if it distributed nothing interesting. Here are some examples:
I believe that the article should only specifically name the most notable packages, and should cover less-notable packages in more general terms. Winterboard, MyWi, SBsettings, Barrel, and DisplayOut have non-trivial coverage in independent sources. I'll look into which packages have the most significant coverage in independent sources; it's possible there are better choices for this. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with naming apps that have received independent coverage. For comparison, so does the App store (iOS) article, including apps that apparently aren't independently notable. Huon (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Adding a COI tag due to my editing of the article - I responded to this concern in the talk page discussion above, but Cantaloupe2 hasn't commented since. It'd be great to have a back-and-forth discussion on this so that we can resolve the issue.
I agree perhaps he's credible source for the plan itself. However, I think that routine product speculation and announcements should remain off. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Substrate for Mac was a notable product announcement; it was covered in multiple independent sources. See reference #6 in the article: "iPhone jailbreaker set to bring Cydia to Mac OS X", Ars Technica, 2010. Additional coverage: TUAW post in 2010, PCMag post in 2010, ITWorld post in 2010, Gizmodo post in 2010, PCWorld article in 2010, and this PCWorld interviewer asking about it in 2012. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Then we should add one of the more reliable sources instead of the blog. I'd say the problem here is not so much Freeman himself as the blog. Huon (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, there was coverage from multiple reasonably reliable sources for the announcement, but the follow-up information about what happened to the project only has relatively weak sources available. The 2012 PCWorld article may be the best alternative to the iDownloadBlog post, but it's the PCWorld interviewer asking Freeman about the project and then quoting his response - is that good enough for this claim? Dreamyshade (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Description of features

"tag self published part. Remove puff-piece essay without supporting WP:RS" - It's acceptable to use self-published sources for uncontroversial material when the author is a recognized expert on the subject, and Jay Freeman is a recognized expert on Cydia. The "puff-piece" section accurately described significant Cydia features that could be easily sourced with independent references instead of being deleted. I'd agree with rephrasing that section to be more precise though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamyshade (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion of iOS development "scene" et all; the prose was generally his personal reflective statement. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Here are sources that support this section:
  • "Jay Freeman (known online as saurik) ported APT, the extremely well-supported open source package manager from Debian Linux. The project is here: www.telesphoreo.org. Cydia is a GUI front end for the Telesphoreo port of APT created by saurik." p. 20 of iPhone Hacks (2009).
  • "Saurik selected the Debian Advanced Packaging Tool (APT)...Then, he wrote Cydia, a graphical front end that 'lets you install and uninstall programs the same way as the app.tapp installer does,' he said." 2008 LinuxInsider article
  • "Both Installer.app and Cydia share the concept of repositories, which are additional sources of programs. Apple's App Store can be considered one large repository -- there's only the App Store, and only Apple can decide whether a program goes on the list. In contrast, Installer and Cydia allow you to add any sources you want. Some companies that provide a number of iPhone applications maintain their own sources. More often, developers submit their applications to another popular repository." p. 21 of iPhone Hacks (2009).
  • "Although Cydia presents a unified front end alternative to the App Store, it actually draws its products in from a few different sources. The good news is that when you first jailbreak it is usually set up with the latest app repositories. If you want to add additional ones because you know a supplier or developer then launch Cydia and tap on 'Manage', then on 'Sources', then tap on 'Edit' and then 'Add'." in iPhone Tips, Tricks, Apps & Hacks (2011)
  • "In the jailbreak world of the iPhone, hosting services (called "repositories") offer free software packaging and distribution to developers. The developers are spared the enormous bandwidth demands and the fussy details involved in preparing the packages for distribution. In exchange, the repositories receive both page views and ad revenue." ArsTechnica article from 2008
  • "Incredible Mobile OS X project from Jay Freeman: a port of Debian’s APT with a complete, working BSD and GNU Unix userspace tool set. And a brand new GUI app to manage it, Cydia. And, unlike Installer, the whole thing is open source." Daring Fireball, February 2008 (Not a reliable source, but since it's a very prominent Apple blog, it supports that people care about the technical details.)
Dreamyshade (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Cantaloupe2 that the section as it stood was unduly positive. For example, "a few trusted default sources" - who says the sources are trusted? Trusted by whom? "[...] additional repositories can be easily added" - who says it's easy? And "as open as possible" - we literally cannot think up a more open system? Source please? Those are examples of not just uncontroversial facts but opinions. On the other hand, there seems to be a multitude of secondary sources that allow us to get rid of the primary source and keep mention of Cydia's being based on APT, and I see nothing wrong with using a self-published source for additional details on that. Huon (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's a draft for a more precisely-phrased paragraph that does not use self-published sources:
Cydia provides a graphical user interface to jailbroken iOS users using APT repositories (also called sources) to install software unavailable on the App Store.[2008 LinuxInsider article] Since Cydia is based on APT (ported to iOS as part of Freeman's Telesphoreo project),[p. 20 of iPhone Hacks (2009)] it is a repository aggregator that is not centralized like the App Store.[p. 21 of iPhone Hacks (2009)] Cydia comes with default sources that accept package submissions, and users can add additional sources run by other developers and distributors;[iPhone Tips, Tricks, Apps & Hacks (2011)] Cydia does not control or limit the sources that can be added to it.[p. 21 of iPhone Hacks (2009)] The default sources provide free hosting for packages, supported by ad revenue.[ArsTechnica article from 2008]
Dreamyshade (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
It may be useful to note that the removed material was added in May 2010 by User:N00n3imp0rtant, nearly a year before I started working for SaurikIT. Dreamyshade (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

List of tools and other content issues

"trim endorsement for specific programs used, which weren't referenced anyways nor explanation offered why that one was named for article" - If you look at the redsn0w and JailbreakMe articles, or google them, you can easily see that they're two of the most notable jailbreaking tools. It's a quick summary of popular jailbreaking tools, easy to reference with a little bit of work. That edit also added a "globalize" tag, which is OK with me. I think it'd made sense to include a very brief summary of the international legal status of jailbreaking, along with the existing short overview of the US legal status. It does make sense for the US part to be longer though, since both Apple and SaurikIT are US-based companies. I'm a little confused by the embedded comment - "this section needs quick explanation of what jailbreaking is, a reference, then not ramble on so much about politics, which can be done in the jailbreaking section." - that section has only two sentences about jailbreaking's legal status and nothing about politics. As I explained on the talk page above, a brief summary of the legality of jailbreaking is appropriate for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamyshade (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the reasoning. You don't see a whole a lot of rambling over Japanese policies/laws over articles on Toyota vehicles. Jailbreaking legality concerns legality in the place of use, which for iPhone, it is global, therefore to go on about US court rulings in excess is US-centric in my opinion. All of the US court findings, etc though is getting into legal-political areaCantaloupe2 (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
As I explained above, readers of this article are obviously looking for information on the legality of Cydia. It wouldn't make sense to cover legality in an article on a subject that is clearly legal, but it's relevant in an article where the subject is not clearly legal. It's slightly more important to cover US laws than other laws because the creator of Cydia and his company are in the US, so Cydia is subject to those laws - if it were clearly illegal in the US, that would be important information for understanding this product. I agree with including a brief summary of its international legal status though. I believe that adding two sentences about the rest of the world would be fair. Again, "go on about US court rulings in excess" seems a heavy judgment on two sentences. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's a source for lists of specific jailbreaking tools: Hacking and Securing iOS Applications, O'Reilly, 2012: "The most consistent and well-maintained tools as of the time of this writing include tools developed by the iPhone-Dev team, primarily PwnageTool and redsn0w. Many others also exist, such as sn0wbreeze, greenpois0n, and blackra1n. What tool to use can sometimes depend on the type of device and what version of iOS is installed." Dreamyshade (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Another source: This computer science journal article from 2011 says "Some examples of popular jailbreaking tools are the iPhone Dev Team’s redsn0w, PwnageTool, Greenpois0n by the Chronic Dev Team and Sn0wbreeze by ih8sn0w." Dreamyshade (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
We should be careful to avoid original synthesis. For example, are sources making the connection between Cydia and the Copyright Office's decisions, or is that us? Huon (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the currently-cited coverage of legal issues is specifically about Cydia and iOS jailbreaking: the 2009 Wired article discusses Cydia, the 2010 Wired article discusses Cydia and quotes Freeman, and the 2012 Ars Technica article discusses iPhone and iPad jailbreaking. This additional source specifically mentions Cydia when discussing the 2012 exemption process 2012 Mashable post (not a great source, but could be a supporting source). Freeman also directly participates in the DMCA exemption process by submitting comments (see #14 here), and this 2012 Wired article about a DMCA hearing session quotes him and notes that he was in the audience. This 2012 EFF article (not a neutral source, but a notable participant in the DMCA exemption process) also discusses Cydia in relationship to the 2012 exemption process. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Just a note: the foundation for the removed "Jailbreaking is normally done" sentence was added by User:Garlikguy2 on 19 January 2011, not by me. And I discussed this below at #Addressing Dreamyshade's questions, but it may be useful here too: I didn't originally add the 2012 jailbreaking information - see this 20 November 2012 diff by User:Jacobkang1. That addition was unreferenced and misplaced, so I moved it next to the other legal information, copyedited it for precision, and added a reliable reference (it's a messy-looking diff but a simple change). WP:COIU says adding reliable sources is acceptable. Dreamyshade (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

iClarified

"prose with promotional tone w/o WP:RS backing trimmed" - That sentence could be easily fixed by removing the promotional wording (probably just remove "in addition to..." and change "improved" to something more neutral) and finding a reference, instead of removing the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamyshade (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a reference for that sentence: iClarified article from September 2009. Not a heavyweight source, but it supports the date, and the rest of the claim is confirmed by other sources already in the article. This book confirms that iClarified has a good reputation in the jailbreaking community. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
It may be useful to note that the foundation for the removed statement was added in July 2010 by User:Kuranuk. Dreamyshade (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The book's authors vouched for the source, but its lacking recognition by multiple reliable sources and books are not dynamic like personal websites, so it would appear that its merely the book authors' personal opinons. iClarified do not even specify who wrote the article, where they source their information and WHOIS records show that its registered to an individual whom I was unable to verify credibly published recognition or expertise. So, per WP:SPS, I believe "iClarified.com" falls under glorified personal webpage. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Here are two more books that recommend iClarified: "That's why, before you attempt any jailbreaking, updating, or restoring, you should check with sites such as iphone-dev.org (http://blog.iphone-dev.org/) and iclarified.com (http://www.iclarified.com/tutorials/iphone/) for the latest advice and step-by-step instructions." and "Two sites that aided in the successful results demonstrated here are www.ihackintosh.com/category/iphone/ and www.iclarified.com/. This search seems to indicate that a journal article cites it (I don't have access to the journal to check). WP:RS says "A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim", and the iClarified source only has to support the date; another source can support the rest. The article could say "In September 2009, Freeman announced a Cydia feature designed to allow users to have the option to downgrade or upgrade their devices to versions of iOS not currently allowed by Apple." cited to both iClarified and Lifehacker or PCWorld. Dreamyshade (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The book's authors who are presumably fairly light weight expressed their opinions of iClarified.com and ihackintosh.com as good references. The question here is that if such statements of what appears to be "mutual backscratching" is a valid consideration as validating these two sites as good references for encyclopedia. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
iPhone Hacks and Take Control of iPhone OS 3 were published by divisions of O'Reilly Media, a well-respected technical book publisher, and Seven Deadliest USB Attacks was published by an imprint of Elsevier, which is also a well-respected publisher. Wikipedia editors often accept statements from published books as useful, especially if the statements are not disputed by other sources. I don't think this evidence is strong enough to include text in the article recommending iClarified, I think it just shows that iClarified can be OK to cite for non-controversial technical information about jailbreaking. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the connection you're trying to create is that authors of the books published through a division of O'Reilly opioned that those personal sites are good, and you're challenging that iClarified.com registered to an individual and written as a reflection should be admitted as reference rather than dismissed as self-published personal website. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Just for reference for anyone else watching this discussion, here's the archived Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion about this topic - it had no responses other than Cantaloupe2 and me. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

RedmondPie

Noting that RedmondPie is a dubious source - I agree, I'd like to find a better source for that. I recently revised the SHSH blob article to have better sourcing, so we may be able to use some of those sources, perhaps Stefan Esser's presentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamyshade (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I confirmed that we can use this presentation by Stefan Esser as a source for this information instead of RedmondPie (or along with it). See the slide "iOS 5 - Restore Process Changes" that says "most important is the addition of an ApNonce in the ApTicket request". Stefan Esser is a recognized expert in this subject, including contributing to iOS Hacker's Handbook ("a PHP security expert and leading researcher of iOS security topics"). Dreamyshade (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's another source to support this: "Prior to iOS 5, it was possible to capture the session, and extract the SHSH blob to save it locally (using TinyUmbrella), or by Cydia. Since then, however, Apple has improved the protocol, by adding a random nonce generated by the device." p. 214 of "Mac OS X and iOS Internals: To the Apple's Core" (2012). Dreamyshade (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV and COI SPS tags

Adding NPOV and self-published warning tags with the note "The article uses too much of the developer's own words as reference, which is a COI SPS source." - As I explained above, it's acceptable to use self-published sources for uncontroversial material when the author is a recognized expert on the subject, and Jay Freeman is a recognized expert on Cydia. We can also find other sources for most of the material in here with a bit of extra work, since luckily Cydia does not lack for articles written about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamyshade (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously people who designed things would be an expert on things he designed, although it is the closest connection that's possible and there's significant NPOV/COI issues with that. According to WP:SPS though Freeman would not be considered appropriate source for iOS or discussion of "apple restrictions" if such were to be made. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I maintain that it's not problematically non-NPOV or COI if we're citing a developer for uncontroversial technical information about the product he developed, especially when the developer is considered an expert by independent sources and has no reputation for exaggeration on his website. Independent reliable sources are better of course, but I don't know if it's enough of a problem for a tag. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The use of his own material and shaping the contents around his wording makes systemic shift of contents toward becoming his spokesperson article which is a NPOV issue. It is not his essay work space essentially turning this page into repository of his expressions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I believe we can find independent sources to support the material currently referenced to self-published sources. I'm working on this. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Verification failures

"verification failed. *is installed* implies every time, source does not say that. Removed endorsement for specific tools. That sentence wasn't cited anyways." - Along with a grammatical problem ("maybe" instead of "may be"), we have a phrasing problem here. It's true that "Cydia is installed during the process of jailbreaking an iOS device." isn't perfectly accurate, since you can always uncheck the box in redsn0w to choose to not install Cydia, but it's confusing to say "Cydia may be installed during the process of jailbreaking an iOS device.", since that implies there may be some other way to install Cydia that doesn't involve jailbreaking. You can only install Cydia on a jailbroken phone. This is important to clarify because a lot of people interested in Cydia ask questions like "how do I install it on my non-jailbroken phone" - so Wikipedia needs to give them clear, accurate information on this. And again, "endorsement for specific tools" is an odd way to describe an uncontroversial list of popular jailbreaking tools (which are all available for free - there's no commercial motivation to recommend specific tools over others). Instead of removing the last bit for being unreferenced, it'd be easy to find references for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamyshade (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can find references that can vouch for these tools as being "the most popular tools" WORLDWIDE(anywhere where iOS devices are in use) please bring it up here. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
There's no requirement that every jailbreaking tool mentioned has to be popular worldwide - the question is whether they're generally significant enough to be appropriate for this article. But if you skim the interwiki links for these articles (iOS jailbreaking, JailbreakMe, redsn0w, Cydia, etc.), or Google them, you can see that all of these things are popular worldwide. The developers of the formerly-listed jailbreaking tools include people from several countries - Absinthe and redsn0w include significant contributions from French and German people, an Italian person made ZiPhone, etc. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
A source I listed above can also be useful for this section: Hacking and Securing iOS Applications, O'Reilly, 2012: "The most consistent and well-maintained tools as of the time of this writing include tools developed by the iPhone-Dev team, primarily PwnageTool and redsn0w. Many others also exist, such as sn0wbreeze, greenpois0n, and blackra1n. What tool to use can sometimes depend on the type of device and what version of iOS is installed." Dreamyshade (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Another source, also listed above: This computer science journal article from 2011 says "Some examples of popular jailbreaking tools are the iPhone Dev Team’s redsn0w, PwnageTool, Greenpois0n by the Chronic Dev Team and Sn0wbreeze by ih8sn0w." Dreamyshade (talk)
Since it was not cited at all(the portions that failed verification), its differences in opinion whether to allow something editors original thoughts or to leave it for references to be found. You and I should know that editors can't just put anecdotal opinions, then expect to have it stay. WP:V adopts the principle of cite it or drop, when something is challenged and here, it was challenged. Since the claim was cited, its very likely other editors who didn't audit the reference for verification didn't realize it was uncited and escaped scrutiny. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if that was confusing - I'm not saying that we should leave uncited opinions uncited. Instead, I'm saying that we should work to see if reasonable-sounding uncited material can be cited before deleting it. Even WP:V says "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references." Dreamyshade (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Here are sources that support this sentence:
  • "For example, in its normal state, iOS allows you to only install apps from the App Store, which are all approved by Apple...To get outside this walled garden, you need to 'jailbreak' your iPhone." "You'll also apply themes to make your iPhone look different, make Wi-Fi-only apps run over 3G connections when necessary, and play console and arcade games under emulation on your iPhone." p. 209 of iPhone Geekery (2012). I'm looking at a paper copy, but you can confirm this by searching inside the book on Amazon.
  • "So what exactly is jailbreaking? Well, as it stands, Apple sets the rules on software development and enforces them by making the App Store the only place you can get software for your iPhone. The iPhone is an excellent device, but sometimes you may want it to go just that little bit further to suit your specific wants and needs. Jailbreaking is the process of freeing your iPhone and allowing access to a variety of extra functionality that you couldn't otherwise get." "However, the main reason many people jailbreak is simply to download new apps. These often allow you to customise the look of your iPhone, giving you different icon and Home screen styles to use as you so desire. Without jailbreaking, the general look and feel of all iPhones is pretty much the same, with a minimal amount of customisation available, so it's often people who want their phone to look a little different who jailbreak." in iPhone Tips, Tricks, Apps & Hacks (2011)
  • This 2009 Infoworld article says "To date, the only way to satisfy yearnings for UI improvements such as copy-and-paste and to access locked-down iPhone features like video recording and streaming, Internet tethering, GPS, and content searching has been to "jailbreak" your iPhone, a process that liberates the device from Apple's tightly controlled App Store, allowing you to install powerful software from a variety of third parties. "
Dreamyshade (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of caution

"the said reference only names Cydia as a line item. One journalist != "journalists recommend". he made a general advise to exercise caution. I think the reference article is not relevant." - I agree that the sentence should say "A journalist" instead of "journalists". The article is specifically about installing software on a jailbroken or rooted device, and since the article is talking about that, and Cydia installs software on jailbroken devices, it's not a bad reference. But overall, the sentence isn't necessary for that part of the article - it'd probably make more sense in the "Jailbreak platform" section. It doesn't make sense to me to entirely delete it though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamyshade (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally disagree. CYDIA is a third party program intended for addition of unauthorized apps. The use of aforementioned setup requires tampering with iOS software. His caution regarding device tampering was more so about avoiding "NYT said to do it and mah phone broke". Given the nature of context, his warning shouldn't be given much weight as coming from journalist doesn't mean much. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if we can speculate about the reasons why the author said that. Here's another source that similarly compares the safety of installing software on jailbroken devices to the safety of installing software on desktop operating systems: "It's important to note that by jailbreaking your phone and then running Installer or Cydia, you're leaving the walled garden of the Apple App Store, and entering a large and potentially -- but not usually -- cruel world. However, people download and install applications all the time for Windows, Mac OS X, and Unix platforms, and intelligent users generally know how to detect bad software. So if an application -- or app source -- seems fishy, ask around before you install it on your phone." p. 23 of iPhone Hacks (2009). Dreamyshade (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Technical detail

"way too technical, and only endorsed by developer's own page" - Cydia is a piece of software, so it's appropriate to include a high-level overview of technical details. It's actually important to a lay person's understanding of Cydia that Cydia is based on a package managment system, and every user of Cydia is familiar with the repository system - this is exposed at a high level in the app (there's a "Sources" tab). This is uncontroversial material, so I believe it doesn't need references other than the developer's website. We could find some references for it though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamyshade (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Then, it is expected that the article be stripped of all jargons, and design it for someone who knows nothing about tampering with iPhones to facilitate the use of unauthorized software programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs)
It's appropriate for technical articles to include both relevant jargon terms and accessible explanations of those terms. See #Misc, #"Cydia Applications"?, and #serious misrepresentation of Cydia and Telesphoreo :( above for lengthy discussions about this exact technical material, and see my links above (starting with "Jay Freeman (known online as saurik) ported APT") for independent sources supporting this statement. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding "advert" tag with summary "I sense the tone as written from the POV of the company or fans" - Can you be more specific about this? I can't figure out what's wrong with the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamyshade (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Cydia Store description

""could potentially sell hundreds of iPhone applications" is not "hundreds are available". claim about payment system in prose failed ver. therefore removed" - Unfortunately you've replaced a poorly-sourced but accurate statement with a well-sourced but inaccurate statement. Also, it seems a little inconsistent that a 2010 source wasn't acceptable in edit #1 above, but a 2009 source is acceptable here. Instead of damaging the article by repeating a 2009 prediction for the near future, we can easily look for sources showing that several hundred packages are currently for sale via the Cydia Store system. I think it'd make more sense actually to just fix it to say "many" - I don't know of any reliable sources listing the specific number of paid packages in Cydia, but it's uncontroversial that there are many. The existing source can still be used to verify that it's a payment system with a commission setup similar to the App Store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamyshade (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not damage when the prose is modified to accurately reflect whats stated in reference. It's not about what is known to editors as true, but conveying what is in the source. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe most editors would agree that accuracy and good sourcing are both important, and that an inaccurate article is a poor article. Newspapers, magazines, and books can (and do) have flaws in their reporting, so we can't just use what references say - we also have to use good sense and investigate further for anything referenced that sounds strange or gets disputed. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"poorly sourced but accurate" according to whom? How does a layperson validate your claim of accuracy/inaccuracy without reliance on hearsay? What you say is "uncontroversial", yet sources are inaccurate. That's hearsay. If sources disagree, then multiple sources should be included and differences discussed. I believe that's Wiki protocol. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that poor sourcing is not enough for a sentence, but I disagree about how to fix poorly-sourced sentences. A reasonable-sounding sentence saying "Cydia currently has x" that is cited to a near-future plan from 2009 is poor sourcing that I believe should be improved by seeing if we can find an appropriate citation (WP:V says "If instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."), while creating a sentence saying "Cydia may have x" in 2012 and citing it to a near-future plan from 2009 doesn't make sense - since it was a near-future plan from so long ago, it's likely to be outdated (inaccurate) now, so it makes sense to either describe it as an "as of 2009" statement or follow up to see what happened. Changing the text to say "In 2009, Freeman planned to add a payment system to Cydia" would have been fine with me (perhaps weird for an introductory paragraph, but that's a different problem). It's easy to find out what happened with that near-future plan, as shown by the Washington Post source I provided. I'm sorry that our series of comments got so argumentative - I probably should have initially focused on providing specific sources for the sentence instead of talking about policy. I also apologize for saying "damaging" - that was unnecesssarily inflammatory. Dreamyshade (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's a source confirming that several hundred packages are available for sale via the Cydia Store: April 2011 Washington Post article: "Cydia, the biggest unofficial iPhone app store, which offers about 700 paid designs and other modifications out of about 30,000 others that are free." It also confirms the commission detail: "Freeman says he takes 30 percent from developers that list programs on his store." Dreamyshade (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
So, we should probably phrase it somehow to say about 700 as of 2011 April. The 30 percent is about SaurikIT business. So, its probably irrelevant to software stub. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, it makes sense to say "about 700 as of 2011 April" - I like that idea. That source also says "30,000 others that are free", which may be useful to include as well. The 30 percent is relevant to the Cydia Store, and the article also covers other Cydia/SaurikIT business details, such as the domain name disputes. The commission is also mentioned in several articles about Cydia, so it seems that independent sources consider it important:
  • The same 2011 Washington Post article says "Freeman says he takes 30 percent from developers that list programs on his store. He spends most of that money on PayPal transaction fees and server costs."
  • This 2009 Wired article says "He admits, however, he isn’t making much money as the creator of Cydia: Like Apple, he takes 30 percent of each app sale to cover taxes."
  • This 2009 Infoworld article says "Cydia Store collects the same 30 percent commission from developers, but has few if any restrictions to the applications developers can sell."
Dreamyshade (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
This December 2010 PCWorld article and this December 2010 PC Magazine article also mention the 30,000 figure. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The domain dispute is regarding SaurikIT's expression of entitlement to the domain cydia.com to be used with the software's name. The 30% whatever is business operations. I'd say leave it out. If RfC consensus says otherwise, then we'll include it. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Looking at App Store (iOS), I noticed that it includes a sentence about its commission in the lead and another mention in the body. Google Play includes a sentence about its commission in the body, Amazon Appstore includes a note about its commission in the lead, and Windows Phone Store includes a note about the developer percentage. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
That page is about the App Store itself, not a software page, or Apple page. This page is about the software program. Also, I haven't been editing those pages, so appealing to other pages don't get anywhere. I explained this edit on talk page under your question "What level of coverage of a company is appropriate for an article about its main product?" and solicited comment there. Thank you, Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Both User:Huon and User:Raeky have suggested looking at App Store (iOS) to help guide discussion on what to do with this article. Cydia is both a piece of software and a digital distribution platform with a commercial marketplace; I believe it makes sense to address both components in this article. I'll comment below as well. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Then, to avoid any chance of subconscious as well as conscious bias in inclusion, I recommend asking in COI or DRN what to do and if chosen by consensus, let someone else decide what to include. This is a page that I happen to be working on right now, but you're the only one who seems to care greatly about it. - Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
In the ongoing COI discussion, User:SlimVirgin politely helped me realize that I unnecessarily removed a basically-accurate sentence while removing the inaccurate one. Your sentence "In order to use these software, user must download special software that alters their iPhones." has useful information to include in the introduction, but I would rephrase it to be more precise and clear. Here's my suggestion: "In order to use Cydia, a person must first apply specialized software that alters the operating system on the device." I believe it's important to change "download" to "apply" since simply downloading redsn0w to your computer won't do much until you press the "jailbreak" button, it's important to not say "user" since they aren't a user until they install Cydia, "specialized" is more accurate than "special", it alters the operating system on the device instead of the device itself, and this is true for all iOS devices that can be jailbroken, not just the iPhone. What do you think? Dreamyshade (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Modified at 01:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:YOU states first & second person pronouns are unacceptable, although it allows 3rd person as well as passive. I prefer passive. Should there be further disagreements, it is recommended that this item is added to list of matters to be addressed at RfC. I disagree with the use of the word "specialized", b/c its WP:PEACOCK. Why is this program a specialized as opposed to just a software or a utility software? In my opinion, letting a COI who could be a spokesperson for a product choose the wording could infuse intentional or unintentional tone bias. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
English grammar guides generally recommend avoiding passive voice in places where you can use active voice - "Because passive voice sentences necessarily add words and change the normal doer-action-receiver of action direction, they may make the reader work harder to understand the intended meaning." I imagine the WSJ said "special" because these software tools apply exploits instead of doing ordinary software operations, and I believe "specialized" is a more neutral term than "special" (it implies narrowness of function instead of uniqueness or value), but I am OK with leaving it out since the sentence is still useful. This would be the result: "In order to use Cydia, a person must first apply software that alters the operating system on the device." I believe the idea behind writing drafts on the talk page for discussion is so that other editors can inspect them for bias before putting them into the article. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Description of package developers

Adding "citation needed" tag to "Most of the packages available through Cydia are written by independent developers." - To me, this seems uncontroversial. But I agree that a source would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamyshade (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that editors can simply wing it to make the talk big without a credible reference on an article like this which seems to have high amount of COI edits. "The use of "most" is a controversial especially in a popularity contest. Is it worldwide? If it's the "most popular" in the US, saying so is just as appropriate as "its not really popular" based on data from India. Remember, en.wikipedia should cover matters pertaining to anywhere where English language is in use and US/Canada centricism seems to be a pattern. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, most of the packages available through Cydia worldwide are written by independent developers. But again, I agree that a source would be nice for this. To me, the problem with this sentence is that it's a bit vague - it's supposed to mean "developers who are not Cydia employees or contractors", but it could be interpreted to mean "developers who are not working for any larger corporation." We could fix this by saying something like "Freeman maintains one default repository with packages maintained, developed, or otherwise affiliated with him, and other repositories are independently-run with packages from other developers" - not the exact text we should use (since we should base it on a source), just an example. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
How much is "most"? Where is the data? If it can't be proven, drop fillers like most/usually/etc that distort perceptions of scale. If you were to use "some", then it is valid whether its 0.01% or 99.9% and would be the most appropriate term when the quantity can't be objectively validated. The latter correction too require valid reference. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"Most" isn't always controversial, and WP:PEACOCK doesn't specifically cover the use of imprecise number terms. Sometimes it's an accurate statement that reliable sources agree on, even if there are no statistics collected by an independent third-party source that demonstrate a specific percentage. "Some" isn't an accurate word for 0.01% or 99.9% - to me, "a few" implies 0.01%-10%, "some" implies 10%-60%, "a lot" implies 60%-80%, and "most" implies 80%-99.9%. It doesn't really make sense to assign specific number values here, since these words are naturally imprecise, but I think it's important that we can't just replace "most" with "some" in all cases. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
some definition. I dispute the use of most as it lends perception of prevalence than undisputedly supported. Reword it as "a portion" "a percentage" or something completely free of arbitrary quantifier then.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
How about this sentence: "Freeman develops some of the packages available via Cydia, and others are by independent developers." It avoids using the words you don't like, and I consider it accurate. Here's a source that indicates Freeman develops at least a couple Cydia products and that others are by other developers: This 2009 Infoworld article says "And it was to fill this void that Freeman opened Cydia Store with Cyntact, an app he developed to display profile pictures alongside iPhone contact listings. The second app for sale on Cydia Store, the Okori Group's Voicemail Forwarder, extended the iPhone's visual voice mail with a feature business users enjoy on other phones and covet for the iPhone: the ability to forward voice mail to e-mail. As for video recording, Freeman's Cycorder turns the iPhone into a camcorder." Dreamyshade (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Early Cydia history

"correct improper editorialization" - The first part ("Cydia quickly became the most popular package manager after iPhone OS 2.0's release in July 2008") is easy to find references for. Changing a description of "the largest third-party app store" to the merger of the "two largest providers of third party apps" seems unnecessary, but I don't have a problem with it. The new phrasing of "Cydia had a $10 million" is ungrammatical, but I don't have an issue with the rest of that change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamyshade (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think its fine if you just go ahead and change grammar if you can do so without affecting the strength or tone of the prose. "the most popular package" and like has a appealing tone more so than neutral, so it is not neutral. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
How about saying "the most widely-used" instead of "the most popular"? Dreamyshade (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, if someone can provide sources known for providing quality statistical analysis, then date it(most popular as of mm/yy) Journalists commenting in article "those are most popular" is not necessarily a credible statement even if other statements int he said article is credible. I would prefer to drop peacockery per WP:PEACOCK unless the modifier like most/highly/popular etc are in fact validated fact, otherwise, its infusing unjustified flattery towards this particular vendor. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:PEACOCK doesn't specifically cover the use of imprecise number terms. Is there something else in Wikipedia guidelines that explains that normal reliable sources can't be used for assessments of popularity? I looked around a bit and couldn't find one, but if there is one, that would be very helpful here. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Then if that's the case, your preferred style of writing have no precedence over mine and it should be up to consensus to decide it. "most widely used" is a relative statement of quantity. If it can't be proven, it is giving undue credit to Cydia. I would prefer to figure out a way to use those quantity weasels. WP:PEACOCK does say something about flattery. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
How about replacing ", but Cydia quickly became the most popular package manager after iPhone OS 2.0's release in July 2008" with "; Installer.app was not immediately compatible with iOS 2.0, and Cydia took its place." ? In this case, the "popular" part is supported by one of the following sources, but it's not the most important part of this sentence, so we can just leave it out. The following sources support the new sentence:
Dreamyshade (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Domain disputes

Adding two paragraphs to the History section about domain disputes - I'm honestly confused by your use of sources here - if RedmondPie was a dubious source above, why not try to reach for a better source for new material? The RedmondPie source in fact seems to not understand the suit, and a question from a random blogger isn't very useful or relevant. I'm also concerned about the phrasing and contents here - "demanded" seems POV, and in general the summaries seem to choose to include the most unflattering details instead of being a neutral overview of the situation. I'm not sure whether Domain Name Wire is a reliable source, since I don't know much about it - does it have a reputation for fact-checking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamyshade (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a source specializing in domain disputes. WIPO is the global go-to place for all domain name disputes. The reference to actual dispute hosted on WIPO's site validates the fact of occurrence along. Also, the copy of litigation that was filed by Cydia with the court is a credible evidence that it did in fact occur. Demanded is not the wording used, so I can understand you may disagree with the term, so let me know what you think is more fair. As far as the claims they're making, I believe we should change it to "contend", because that's the wording used in official WIPO dispute. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, Domain Name Wire seems fine. Is it enough of a source to show that these events should be covered in detail in this article? It's not very significant coverage, since it basically summarizes the facts from these cases, without additional investigation. If it is, shouldn't Wikipedia also include a summary of SaurikIT's allegations against the domain owner, so that coverage is more balanced? In any case, "contend" sounds better to me. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
It is an information technology related company that has a significant presence on the internet and as such and a software platform which deals with intellectual property, so I think WIPO disputes and intellectual property related fights are irrelevant. On the other hand, if this was a lawsuit over the company having a dispute with the building owner and issues ending up in court and getting coverage on some real estate related news coverage, I would be inclined to say unrelated. Both flattering and unflattering relevant matters should be included in impartial tone to maintain balance. Listing a bunch of Freeman's accomplishments and project would fall into excess bias towards flattery. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that both flattering and unflattering events should be included in a history section. It's just important for each event to be covered fairly, and allegations are important parts of a legal cases. It also seems more consistent with your usual preferences to rely on secondary sources instead of documents from the cases. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
""demanded" seems POV" Re:Actually, after further review of the reference, I disagree. WPIPO complaint states that SaurikIT sent a legal demand prior to the proceeding. See a few paragraphs above the 7. Decision on WIPO source. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Just to follow up on this: since you've pointed out that the source actually says "demand", I think saying "demand" in the article is fine. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Previous sections

Whew, I think this is my longest talk page comment ever! Sorry for the length, but I think it was necessary. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't have the time to address all of those at once, so I'll respond little by little. I got around to auditing the claims against what was in reference. It has been discovered that some statements within prose were not addressed in corresponding reference. This is considered fabrication and creates excess burden that necessitates other editor to audit everything, so such practice is destructive. As I have been auditing, any cited claim, but failed verification were removed per WP:V. To infuse WP:OR by reading sources and expanding whats not in reference through speculation is foul play. is guessing game. The Redmond Pie was added, because the other one was left in place. Just like I commented, they should both remain, or both dropped. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that poor sourcing is an important problem, but I believe there are more constructive ways to repair it. (And "foul play" is assuming bad faith instead of good faith.) It also seems reasonable to cite RedmondPie - a tech website - for uncontroversial technical information, while avoiding citing it for controversial opinions about lawsuits. But if you still believe we should either keep both or drop both, I prefer the idea of dropping both. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cydia/Archives/2012/December&oldid=1191321798"