Talk:Cydia/Archives/2013/February

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Summary: Cantaloupe2 and I disagree on multiple aspects of improving this article, particularly about sourcing, so we'd like additional comments. I have a self-disclosed affiliation with this subject. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from involved editors:

It has been brought up to my attention that Dreamyshade mass messaged identical messages to ten users of his choosing, which was chosen as 'newest members on iOS task force'. I feel that this violates two parts of WP:CANVAS policy.

"Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand."

Ten identical messages copy-pasta'd to ten users whom have no significant connection other than perceived possible interest.

"Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking."

It would appear iOS enthusiasts who may have great interest and perceived proponents of tampering with iPhones by the use of COI editor's employers product. All ten were chosen from the RfC originator chosen single pool of audience, members of iOS task force, messaged individually

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

See #RfC meta-discussion for our back-and-forth conversation on the canvassing concern. Regarding the RfC itself, here is my attempt to expand the RfC summary with questions I have:

• How much coverage of the legality of jailbreaking is appropriate for this article?
• How do we decide on the appropriate usage of words like "most", "some", "popular", and "widely-used"?
• When is it appropriate to use sources self-published by the developer of a piece of software, when it is appropriate to cite things he's said as quoted in independent publications, and how much sourcing to him is appropriate?
• What level of technical detail and technical language is appropriate for an article about a piece of software?
• What level of coverage of a company is appropriate for an article about its main product?
• What level of coverage of products distributed via a thing is appropriate for an article about that thing?
• What are the appropriate steps when an editor notices poorly-sourced material in an article like this? What are the appropriate next steps when a COI editor provides additional sources for the previously poorly-sourced material?

These are very vague questions, and I figure that the answers are "it depends on the specific case". I'm hoping to hear external opinions on the specific cases listed above. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

disreputable contents

This source simply says that some amateur looking website that does not appear to have a reputation as an established media outlet claims that its reviewer experience said something. here. Should it even be admitted as a reference? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved editors:

I haven't really checked the substantive issues, but I'm rather surprised by the accusations of canvassing. Dreamyshade's message was absolutely neutral, she did not pick and choose which editors to invite based on their views, and members of the single task force that covers this article arguably fall within the parameters of "appropriate notification" per WP:CANVASS. While I'd have left a message at the task force's talk page instead of inviting the editors individually, a personal appeal may have greater chances of elicitig a response. Huon (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• After a (very) cursory look through the article and talk page sections, I don't see anything outstanding that hasn't already been identified. I will try to take a closer look sometime soon. By the way, I was one of the ten editors that received a talk page notice – thanks for the information. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 06:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also not yet completed a thorough reading of the concerns, but will do so soon. In general the article as it exists right now is a bit promotional oriented in a few sections - but nothing yet strikes me as totally out of place. I did want to weigh in that I agree the message I received regarding this page was NOT an example of canvassing. Nor do I agree that folks in that group of ten are more likely to support jailbreaking. I have developed mobile apps - and can certainly appreciate the arguments against jailbreaking. However, once upon a time I did jailbreak my device - so I can appreciate both sides of that specific argument. I do not agree that my thoughts on jailbreaking has much of an impact on this particular matter. --Varnent (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Addressing Dreamyshade's questions

• How much coverage of the legality of jailbreaking is appropriate for this article?
  • Unless I'm wrong, Cydia isn't jailbreaking software, just software that can run on a Jailbroken phone? If so legalities of jailbreaking should be very limited here in this article, maybe at most a couple sentences or paragraph, the main discussion would be at iOS jailbreaking. — raekyt 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Right, Cydia just runs on jailbroken devices. See #List of tools and other content issues above for detailed discussion of this issue. Currently the article has two sentences about its US legal status, and Cantaloupe2 has challenged this both for being irrelevant and for being US-centric. My suggestion is to add two sentences about global legal status. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Why not just say it's a gray area and link too the legal section on iOS jailbreaking? — raekyt 19:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
        • One reason is that I've done some research on the legality of jailbreaking in several countries, and I don't think we could find a reliable source saying that "grey area" summarizes its legal status in the US or internationally; we'd have to figure out how to briefly summarize it without synthesis. (Nearly all of the sources I've found on this topic are articles published in newspapers in specific countries that cover the laws in their specific countries, or articles discussing international treaties that only apply to some countries.) Another is that I see sources on Cydia discuss the legality of the platform, and I see sources on the legality of the platform discuss Cydia (partly due to the Cydia developer participating in the DMCA exemption process); I think that if we have a section that summarizes the most notable things about jailbreaking, a bit of legal information seems significant enough to keep. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Let me know if I'm not allowed to comment here. I do not know the intricate policies about RfC. Cydia is a product of SaurikIT. SaurikIT reportedly charges 30% on purchases made through Cydia store which is where apps can be purchased on Cydia. The use of Cydia requires Apple devices whose security features have been disabled by a process known to those in the industry and enthusiasts as "jailbreak". Therefore, SaurikIT has vested business interest to lobby for legalization of such process and it also has vested interest in ensuring Apple product users feel safe about tampering with their expensive devices. Inclusion of comment pertaining to the difficulty or near impossibility of detecting jailbreaking can be construed as an attempt at confidence building that is conducive to SaurikIT's business interest. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
            • I'm a little confused by your lobbying concern; I believe the article should have a neutral description of the current legal status of jailbreaking, not a description that would advocate for anything. It may be useful to note that I didn't add the text about detecting jailbreaking - see this 6 March 2012 diff by User:Tkbx. I also 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) 09:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• How do we decide on the appropriate usage of words like "most", "some", "popular", and "widely-used"?
  • WP:Weasel Words is a start. — raekyt 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• When is it appropriate to use sources self-published by the developer of a piece of software, when it is appropriate to cite things he's said as quoted in independent publications, and how much sourcing to him is appropriate?
  • WP:PRIMARY is a start. — raekyt 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• What level of technical detail and technical language is appropriate for an article about a piece of software?
  • WP:TECHNICAL is a start. — raekyt 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• What level of coverage of a company is appropriate for an article about its main product?
  • WP:PRODUCT, Cydia probably meets the WP:GNG threshold for it's own article. — raekyt 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Taking this comment into consideration, I made these edits to remove back end business details, as it pertains more to the company than Cydia software itself as "Cydia Store" appears to be a service offered under the Cydia brand. I also I audited the prose against reference and removed any puffing expansion that was not directly substantiated by reference cited. Please comment regarding edits that occurred between these points.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
      • The Cydia Store is part of Cydia - 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 address those changes in a new section, since this section is a bit disorganized already. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• What level of coverage of products distributed via a thing is appropriate for an article about that thing?
  • For a platform that is ment to distribute software like Apple's App Store, I'd say a guideline would be how we treat other such platforms like App Store (iOS). Unless a product distributed on it is WIDELY covered in independent-third party sources that SPECIFICALLY mention Cydia then it shouldn't be on this page. — raekyt 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • A further question to tag onto this question. Should certain, but arbitrarily chosen jailbreak software have any mention? Jailbreak software are utilities that tamper with Apple devices to disable their security restrictions. Some, but not all such software install Cydia, as such to mention those whose developers have a close business relationship can be construed as collaborative marketing effort and I can see COI issues with that, especially the ones that offer or automatically install package. This sort of collaborative work is sometimes done by software vendors. For example, when you install Oracle's Java it offers to install Yahoo toolbar. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It may be useful to note that the lists of jailbreaking tools were not added by me - see this diff by an anonymous IP in February, this addition by another anonymous IP, and these edits by User:Garlikguy2 in January 2011: installation methods, more details, and more details. I've linked to reliable sources that provide citable lists of jailbreaking tools that we can use instead of those uncited lists (#List of tools and other content issues). I believe it makes sense to only mention jailbreaking tools that include the option to install Cydia; I agree that a few older ones don't, and it wouldn't be sensible to include them. The developer of Cydia is part of the jailbreak development teams, which seems to add to the relevance of describing jailbreaking tools in this article instead of reducing it. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• What are the appropriate steps when an editor notices poorly-sourced material in an article like this? What are the appropriate next steps when a COI editor provides additional sources for the previously poorly-sourced material?
  • First step is the RFC, if it's not able to solve this dispute then WP:COIN is probably the next step. — raekyt 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting! Cantaloupe2 and I are both familiar with these guidelines, but we disagree on how to apply them to specific cases in this article. The main discussion of specific disagreements is here, if you're interested: #Addressing recent changes. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we get an elaboration on your COI? — raekyt 18:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I work for SaurikIT, the tiny company that produces Cydia - I mostly do support, documentation, and moderation work. Editing Wikipedia is not part of my work, and I've been editing for fun for a long time. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you have a problem with including something in Cydia that would be unfavorable to the company, hurtful, damaging, etc.. if it was properly sourced and widely reported? — raekyt 18:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I believe that would be fair. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Does your employer SaurikIT know that you proactively edit wikipedia page on Cydia and relevant topics and do they proactively monitor them? Think about jury selection process in the US. They're asked if there are factors that affects the candidates from being impartial. A balance that is perfectly balanced now, but a bias of even one feather can make it unbalanced. Does working there provide you additional knowledge that affect the specific things you look for in research? Could your action you do on Wikipedia in regard to Cydia in any way or form have real world consequence at your work? For example, if you were to insert something disparaging about Freeman as a joke under your SN and he sees it, would it affect you more so than a completely uninvolved person?Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've already explained in detail on the COI noticeboard that my editing is not part of my work, and User:SlimVirgin has marked that discussion as resolved; if you would like to ask more questions, it seems appropriate to reopen the discussion there. WP:COI, WP:COI+, and WP:BPCOI don't say that COI editor background knowledge is a problem, and they don't discourage good-faith constructive participation on talk pages; WP:COI says "Requested edits are subject to the same editorial standards as any other." I've disclosed my bias; may I ask whether you consider yourself to have any bias regarding Cydia, jailbreaking, or COI editors? Dreamyshade (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

These are further questions to help us understand factors that you may have that may (inadvertently or otherwise) affect your ability to make impartial edits, which is expanding on comments that were left at COI board. Whether or not your employer/direct boss etc maybe watching over your shoulder and the potential for real world repercussions whether real or perceived is a serious consideration for your ability to make impartial edit, as stated in COI discussion. The conclusion was that, though WP policies do not PROHIBIT you from making direct edits, it is highly discouraged. To answer your questions, I do not have any bias regarding this Cydia, iOS, Apple, jailbreaking, etc or COI edtors; though I have objections to agenda advancing COI edits. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I do my best to edit constructively, and I believe it makes sense for other editors to evaluate my edits carefully and fairly. I've only edited the article twice since our discussions began, and since one of those edits was challenged, I don't plan to do it again other than reverting vandalism. I am a little concerned that you're assuming an agenda instead of assuming good faith - for example, you've said "fabricated" several times in edit summaries, which implies that the material was "made up for the purpose of deception". When you brought up your concern about canvassing, other editors looked at my notices and decided they were not canvassing. I'm also a little puzzled by how you've frequently said "tampering" when discussing jailbreaking, which implies that jailbreaking is improper, foolish, or harmful, instead of using a neutral word (Apple uses the words "unauthorized modification", for example). I believe you are doing your best to protect Wikipedia from spam, I appreciate your attention to detail, and I hope you can try to assume good faith for me as well. I hope that a well-referenced, balanced, and neutral Cydia article will come out of this process eventually. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed after asking, and am now reading the COIN thread about this issue. I'm not so happy with this edit you made, I think it's clearly showing bias. The change from "demanded" to "requested" I think is a bit of a problem, by submitting a formal demand for the handing over of the domain, it's not a "request" but a demand. Why did you change the wording there? Also the WSJ article, you removed the wording saying you need to jailbreak your phone to use the software, which is still true right? I kind of doubt Cydia is in the App Store. I'd also like a better explanation than "this is old information" on why you removed that... — raekyt 18:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are our discussions of those edits so far:

• See #Domain disputes for discussion of requested vs. demanded. I said "'demanded' seems POV", Cantaloupe2 said "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", and I changed it to "requested". Then Cantaloupe2 said "Actually, after further review of the reference, I disagree. WPIPO complaint states that SaurikIT sent a legal demand prior to the proceeding" and changed the wording, and I did not challenge that (since it makes sense).
• See #Cydia Store description for discussion of the removed sentence. In that discussion, I said "In the ongoing COI discussion, User:SlimVirgin politely helped me realize that I unnecessarily removed a basically-accurate sentence while removing the inaccurate one." And here's what I said in the COI discussion: "That WSJ sentence is accurate. It's somewhat confusing/vague (you aren't a 'user' of Cydia until after you jailbreak your device), but it's fine. I had no COI reason to remove that part (it's actually helpful to Cydia if Wikipedia tells people how to install it!); it was basically collateral damage while removing the factual problem. I could have left that part there and fixed the grammar and clarity, but Cantaloupe2 and I have disagreed about the details of phrasing fixes before, so I felt it was best to remove the whole WSJ edit and discuss it on the talk page." #Cydia Store description includes my suggested rephrasing of the sentence, Cantaloupe2's disagreement, and my revised suggestion.

Dreamyshade (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.