Okay, first off, I find it rather NPOV to start talking about source availability in the first paragraph. It _may_ be relevant to mention it, but not much.
Furthermore, Internet Explorer was _not_ dominant when development of the Opera browser began. I'm not even sure wheter Internet Explorer _Existed_ at the time the development started. IE had a minimal marketshare when Opera was released, and Netscape was the Major competitor.
And, the relatively low marketshare. Well, heh, its kinda difficult to find out that a person is running Opera, if he doesdn't configure it to identify itself as it specifically. Opera defaults to identifying itself as Microsoft Internet Explorer for Windows. You can see the amount of people that _specifically_ has changed the settings, but you cannot see how many actually uses it.
- Opera's User-Agent string starts like MSIE's (if the option to identify as MSIE is on, which it is by default), but it includes "Opera" somewhere near the end. So competent studies are well able to distinguish the two. I have removed the misleading paragraph casting the market share numbers in doubt. --Robbe
1) Source availability is relevant to millions of users who either want to enjoy the benefits of open source passively or actively work on the code. For any software I find source availability as much relevant to list as, for example, system requirements. Don't use NPOV as a killer phrase -- your POV is no more or less neutral than mine, we just happen to disagree.
2) While you are correct that IE was not yet relevant in 1996, its market share dropped rather quickly in the months after Opera's first release, see: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/14.pdf - still, the paragraph could perhaps be reworded. - reworded now.
3) Good point, I wanted to add that but forgot about it. I will do so right now. -done- Question to some other Opera user: Can anyone confirm that Opera identifies as IE by default? In my installation, it identifies as Opera, but I'm not sure if I have changed it.
- Consider it confirmed. Opera 5.X and 6.0 identify themselves as MSIE 5.0 by default. I'm pretty sure earlier versions defaulted to MSIE or Mozilla. --STG
1) Then I expect that for every program one writes about, we'll start adding into the opening paragraph wheter sourcecode is available or not. Quite frankly, that would be _quite pointless_. Adding about that in the opening paragraph _stinks_ NPOV for me. I sure as hell want Open Source too, that is one of the reasons I'm using Galeon. But starting a lexicon article with it .. heh, its as stupid as the first paragraph about Norway . :-)
3) I cannot say about the windows version, but I can confirm it for the linux version. :) --arcade
1) Yes, adding the status of source code to any program info may be useful, but with non-cross-platform Windows programs the general assumption is that they are closed source, so it may be sufficient to simply list notable exceptions from this rule here (e.g. Mozilla, Open Office, AbiWord). However, the Linux software pool, for example, is becoming increasingly hybrid when it comes to source availability, so the importance of the distinction grows.
3) Yes, but I'd like to get some independent confirmation. If nobody adds anything until tomorrow I'll mail the Opera folks, perhaps they can also give info on how this behavior has changed over the releases. -- just noticed STG's confirmation, so it may be sufficient to add to the article.
1) To be quite honest, it sounds like a horrible idea. If the information should be added anywhere, it should be added at the end of the article, not at the beginning. Also, if it should be added for Opera, it should be added for: Microsoft Windows (all versions), OS/2, Solaris, IRC/mIRC, Microsoft Word, and so forth ad infinitum. We could also, as true bigots, add it to all pages about various software companis.
Honestly, its ridiculous. Its like the 'whaling' part of the beginning of the article about Norway. A sentence put in to initiate negative feelings towards whatever is in question, due to introducing a controversial subject at the beginning. Its as far from NPOV as its possible to get it.
When it comes to operating systems, I do agree that the source status should be added. mIRC is one of the examples covered by the rule of thumb I already described.
Personally I find it quite ridiculous, as stated many times. _Especially_ if mentioning in the opening paragraph, to make sure biased readers have a negative view on the product before reading more about it.
But of course, if you _want_ wikipedia to be thought of as 'biased', then sure. Only 5 out of the last 5 norwegians I've shown it to has dismissed wikipedia as biased due to the mentioning of Whaling in the opening paragraph. I'm pretty damn sure people who develop closed source applications will think the same. (OH, fyi, I don't write closed source applications, and I almost do not use Opera, only galeon ;) --arcade
I don't know why you keep bringing up Norway -- I really have nothing to do with that, I assure you! Nevertheless, regarding your implication of bias, I don't think that just because someone may be offended by a certain information, this information being listed implies that we have a bias in a certain direction. The entry is purely factual. I think you should re-read Neutral point of view, especially when I have rewritten it ;-)
My reason for bringing up Norway is that the article contains the same kind of bias in the first paragraph. Sorry if you thought I was thinking that YOU had anything to do with it. That is not the case.
Its the same kind of bias, as in the Opera browser article. Neutral Point of View also means that you should not bring in 'factual' arguments that you _know_ will provoke strong feelings in many people, before they know everything. I could of course re-edit the USA entry to say "The USA have death penalty in many states" in the first paragraph. Or maybe; "The USA have the death penalty, and allow nazism/racism!".
I'm pretty sure USAians would react pretty badly if the article started out with that in the first paragraph. :)
The reason I would not mention the death penalty in the first paragraph about the US is its relatively low importance in the context of a general summary, not its emotionality. Certainly, later in the text (or in one linked from it), I would cite detailed accounts of human rights violations in the US, with data from Amnesty International and others, not with the intention to offend, but certainly with no regard to the offense it may cause.
In our context, we're talking about the availability of the browser in the first paragraph (which is something that may also be put in the last, but I like it better this way). It is freely downloadable, OK -- but this often implies that there's a catch, either the program is proprietary and has some sort of nags and banners, or it is open source and can be modified by anyone (yes, there are lots of other cases, but these are the most common ones). When talking about availability, I find it essential to remark which is the case.
So I think you're hanging yourself up on a detail here unnecessarily. Let's try to work on the other parts of the article instead.
I find the death penalty in the US, and their insane habit of going to war against everybody they disagree politically with Very important to mention in the first paragraph. However, I findi it NPOV, and thus doesn't go ahead and edit the article to reflect that view.
The availability of source code does _not_, i repeat_ NOT affect the ability to use a program, which is the _users_ primary concern. The primary concern for you (and me) is however the use in -addition- to a sourcecode availability.
But to mention the availability of sourcecode in the opening paragraph of an article about a browser, is like starting out every article about, say, famous medical doctors on wheter they were pro or against abortion.
Totally irrelevant for most people, Very important for a few.
I would even agree with you if Opera was strictly a Windows program (as I already said) -- however, I have already cited the reasons why you are wrong when it comes to cross-platform software. (In addition, Linux users are of course more interested in the source code because they are, on average, more able to understand and modify it, not least because free development tools are included with every distribution.) There are many more arguments I could make, but I'll leave it at that.
I can't with my best intentions see how on earth a program released cross-platform should have a note about the status of the sourcecode. As I understand you ANY program released for linux, that is big enough to be commented about in an encyclopedia, should have a note concerning the availability of sourcecode.
In other words, companies that release programs for Linux, albeit not opensource, should get a special note 'tacked' to their program concerning the availability of sourcecode in the beginning of every article written about it - as a 'warning'.
After discussing this wikipedia article with you, I've found that you shouldn't start wondering why on earth companies really doesn't want to release their proprietary software under linux. They would be branded by a marching army of bigots (like you) that wants to torch them for DARING to release software for THEIR operating system, that is NOT open source. At _least_ a WARNING needs to be stuck on top of anything mentioning it! It is a _dangerous_ idea!!
I hope that you catch my sarcasm and irony.
Since we do not agree, I've decided that _I'll_ modify the article without you agreeing. The part about the source availability will of course still be mentioned, but not in the beginning of the article, as a Big Red Warning Sign. -- arcade
- Now done. All the information is still there, but reordered, which in my opinion makes the article _much_ more NPOV. -- arcade----
I disagree, for good arguments which I have given, and have reverted the change, although I have put the notice at the end of the first paragraph. You're wrong on another count, BTW -- I use a lot of closed source software, including Opera, which I have registered.
Since all the information you want in the article _are_ in the article in my revision, although I think your revision is more non-NPOV that mine, I've changed it into a way I think is more NPOV again. I consider it 'demonisation' to start out with what many thinks of as a touchy subject, and has moved it to the end, as it _does_ merit mentioning, but not in the beginning of the article.
Please note, _all_ the information you want present is still there. What is the reason you want to _start out_ mentioning the licence of the soruce code? What is your agenda in that matter? -- arcade
There is no agenda. I have given my reasons already -- I start the article with the most relevant information on top: How much does it cost? Is there any spyware or adware included? Is the source code available? One might even argue that, by moving the source code notice to the end, you make it much more damning, like a "final note" -- making it damning, however, is not my intention. Also, as I said, whether some people are offended or not should not really matter.
Where do all the newlines come from?
Calling all interested Wikipedians: Please help decide NPOV issue here.
The usual practice is to not list prices in articles. Putting the price in tends to give the appearance of advertising. It should be mentioned, however, that the zero-cost version of Opera is adware, and that the advertising can be removed for a registration fee.
As far as the availability of the source code, I think it should be in any article that deals with software available for free (libre)/open source operating systems, as this information is often important to people using those OSes. Where it is in the article doesn't seem like a NPOV issue to me, though (unlike the Norway - whaling example). I would say that it should be put in the paragraph that states Opera is available on Linux. --STG