Talk:Free software
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Free software article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Why was my edit reverted?[change source]
Hello, I made a legit edit that was reverted with "reference links seems like spam". It is not spam, it's the page of the GNU project that defines free software and is used even on Wikipedia's corresponding page (feel free to check). I've also corrected a few things so I'd be glad if my edit could be restored. Thank you :) --Drummyfish (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. I didn't see your latest edit as an improvement. I also don't see how the link is relevant as a reference. Others may disagree with me, and they are welcome to comment here so we can resolve this. Thank you for starting a discussion, in line with the edit warring policy :) --IWI (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I think the revert doesn't make sense at all, since the GNU website was being used as a reference link. I would be interested in finding out more about the reasoning behind the revert. Chenzw Talk 23:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I should have said more but I hit enter too fast. The main point for the revert is that I did not think it was an improvement on the prose. The link was a secondary thing. I think it made it complex and has added strange parts such as "(we say "free as in freedom")". I did also think the link was spam, but that seems to be a mistake on my part on a second look. Some parts were also improved. --IWI (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- "Free as in freedom" as a phrase popularized (for want of a better word) by the book of the same title, which talks about the life of the head of the GNU project. Can you describe some of the complex additions here for future discussion? I don't think a blanket revert was an appropriate response to a fellow editor who was attempting to improve Wikipedia content. Chenzw Talk 23:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- The revert was not to suggest that any of the content would not be restored, just reverted while discussing.I don't think this phrase belongs in the middle of prose, especially on a simple wiki. I think the paragraph "The author must not prohibit even selling his program by others or using his program for dangerous things or using it by people he doesn't like. This is not because the author supports bad things, but because he thinks that limiting user's rights is dangerous for them." seems fairly complex to me. All of this can be fixed, and I was definitely hasty in the revert, but that's what the "discuss" part of the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle is for. --IWI (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not a regular contributor and I don't know the exact collaboration process, so excuse me if I am doing something wrong. Anyway, I think I've improved the article and we should work on this version to make it better. I e.g. removed the three very awkward paragraphs ("That does not mean that the author must say "I allow you to delete files from the computers of other people without telling them", but he must not say "I prohibit you from deleting files from the computers of other people without telling them""...). I replaced these clumsy and complex descriptions with shorter sentences that may be a bit complex too, but not more than the original, and are still composed of simple, understandable words and terms. If you know of a simpler way to put what I've written, I'll be glad if you use it (just please don't oversimplify to the point of distorting the idea). I also felt it was needed to add some clarifications (e.g. "or sell it too") to prevent confusion. "Free as in freedom" should also be mentioned in this article as it's one of the most common phrases used when talking free SW. Of course I admit my wording can be improved and I will be glad if you do, e.g. move "free as in freedom" somewhere else etc. I'm not a native English speaker so any corrections of language or style are welcome. --Drummyfish (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- The revert was not to suggest that any of the content would not be restored, just reverted while discussing.I don't think this phrase belongs in the middle of prose, especially on a simple wiki. I think the paragraph "The author must not prohibit even selling his program by others or using his program for dangerous things or using it by people he doesn't like. This is not because the author supports bad things, but because he thinks that limiting user's rights is dangerous for them." seems fairly complex to me. All of this can be fixed, and I was definitely hasty in the revert, but that's what the "discuss" part of the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle is for. --IWI (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- "Free as in freedom" as a phrase popularized (for want of a better word) by the book of the same title, which talks about the life of the head of the GNU project. Can you describe some of the complex additions here for future discussion? I don't think a blanket revert was an appropriate response to a fellow editor who was attempting to improve Wikipedia content. Chenzw Talk 23:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I should have said more but I hit enter too fast. The main point for the revert is that I did not think it was an improvement on the prose. The link was a secondary thing. I think it made it complex and has added strange parts such as "(we say "free as in freedom")". I did also think the link was spam, but that seems to be a mistake on my part on a second look. Some parts were also improved. --IWI (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I think the revert doesn't make sense at all, since the GNU website was being used as a reference link. I would be interested in finding out more about the reasoning behind the revert. Chenzw Talk 23:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)