This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Microsoft Windows article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
Page history
Microsoft Windows was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
RM, Microsoft Windows → Windows, Not moved, 29 January 2018, discussion
RM, Microsoft Windows → Windows, Not moved, 23 November 2022, discussion
Freedows OS was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 January 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Microsoft Windows on 27 January 2013. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Flying Windows was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 28 August 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Microsoft Windows. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Selfpublished sales materials like 'digitalconfidence.com' are clearly not reliable sources per WP:RS. And 'Try it yourself in windows' is also not a source. If this is important, you should be able to find sources that meet requirements, such as computing books from major publishers. MrOllie (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article at 'digitalconfidence.com' is an analysis of the Windows Remove Properties and Personal Information feature, and not of a product by Digital Confidence, I don't think it's a "sales material". I don't find it to contradict WP:RS, and I think it's a reliable source in this case.
They sell software to strip metadata. If they publish something on that topic it is obviously marketing. And again, it is self published. If you read WP:RS and missed the parts about self published sources, you should read it again.
MAC address randomization is a very minor detail and probably not worth covering - especially since the source you cited is of the opinion that it isn't enough to secure privacy. Thus I found that the text added misrepresented the point of the source. MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that Digital Confidence has an interest in pointing out flaws in Windows built-in metadata stripper so that people will buy their metadata strippers. It supports their marketing effort, but it's not marketing in itself. I don't think that makes the article unsuitable to be a source in Wikipedia. A "reliable" publisher of a book or a magazine also have an interest - to sell its books/magazines.
I have not missed the part about Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper). It gives "Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums" as an examples. None of them relevant to the article in question. It also says "self-published sources are largely not acceptable".
I think that removing the part about the Windows Remove Properties and Personal Information feature, and the source that was attached is a mistake.
The exceptions to the rule on self-published sourcing are specific and obviously do not apply here - they're for people like Eugene Volokh who is a noted scholar who also publishes a blog. If you don't believe me for whatever reason, feel free to seek clarification with others - WP:TEAHOUSE is good for such things. MrOllie (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting this: we'll return my addition and use this as a source for the mere existence of the Remove Properties and Personal Information feature in Windows Vista.
I could not find another analysis of this feature like the one by Digital Confidence. I think it's an important and useful analysis. So we'll mention that "This feature has been criticized for its very limited support of file formats and metadata elements and for having a misleading user interface." and use the article by Digital Confidence as a source just for the claim that the feature has been criticized, without Wikipedia actually endorsing the critique and presenting it as a fact.
This raises a question of whether the fact that this feature has been criticized by Digital Confidence is notable enough to be mentioned here. I think that given the fact that Digital Confidence has been focusing on creating metadata stripping products since 2009, it can be regarded as an expert on the subject, and therefore its critique of another vendor's tool in this field is notable. The article appears to be neutral and professional, despite the vested interest, and the claims there are verifiable. For the purpose of my suggested use of this source, these traits are relevant. Sovmeeya (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The solution for 'I can't find a reliable source' is not 'use the unreliable source anyway'. We have to leave this out. Selling software does not cause one to become an expert as Wikipedia defines such things - this citation is clearly unusable. MrOllie (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm saying that the Digital Confidence source cannot be used. WP:ABOUTSELF is obviously not applicible. That's for things like a celebrity sharing their middle name on social media. Digital Confidence could only be used under aboutself for things like describing their company location, officers, etc. MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's unreasonable. Digital Confidence surly can be used as a source for saying "Digital Confidence has published an analysis of Microsoft's metadata stripper where it claims it to be flawed". That don't mean that what they say in the analysis is true! but if what they say appears to be true, and certainly if it's verifiable by anyone who has Windows, (tens of millions of people) that could be enough to establish notability of the statement, and to be mentioned in Wikipedia. (without presenting what they say as facts) Sovmeeya (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may find Wikipedia's sourcing policies unreasonable, but we still need to follow them. Tossing 'Person X says' in front is not enough to include a self published source in an article, or else we'd have 'Flat earther X says the Earth is actually flat' in our article about the solar system. MrOllie (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different and independent questions here:
1. Is self-published work a reliable and usable source of info about themselves, such as "Person X says"? ("about themselves" include their personal view of other people or matters, whether it's explicitly stated, as in "I believe that" or not)
2. Is some fact backed by a reliable source worth mentioning in a particular Wikipedia article?
The answer to the first question is without a doubt yes! This is consistent with Wikipedia policies. It makes no difference who the person is and what he says. Even if the person is some random guy, and what he says is utter nonsense, it satisfies the Wikipedia requirements for a reliable source.
Of course, not every fact with a reliable source should be published in Wikipedia. Only notable facts should. The facts must be examined and judgment must be exercised for each case.
Example:
Lets say, hypothetically, Tylor Swift tweeted on her official social media page the following:
All three statements could be ascribed to Swift in Wikipedia as simple facts with a reliable and usable source! but not all should be mentioned in Wikipedia. The first two would have been quite interesting facts to mention on the Wikipedia page on Swift. Fact no. 2 could also be mentioned at Modern flat Earth beliefs, since she is a notable and influencing celeb, even if not an expert in the field. The third fact is certainly not interesting at all.
Back to our case. The statement "Digital Confidence has published an analysis of Microsoft's metadata stripper where it claims it to be flawed" is a fact with a reliable and usable source. (self-published) The only question now is whether this fact is worth mentioning in this article or not. I believe it is, in light of the following:
Digital Confidence has been focusing on developing (not just selling) metadata stripping products since 2009, hence it can be regarded as an expert on the subject, and therefore its critique of another vendor's tool in this field is notable
The article appears to be neutral and professional, despite the vested interest
The claims there are verifiable
Digital Confidence has an economical incentive not to publish false analysis that can be easily refuted
The flaws has still not been rectified in the latest Windows 11, 17 years after the feature has been introduced in Vista
In this case, for the purpose of determining whether the fact that Digital Confidence has published an analysis is notable, these traits are relevant. Publishing this fact on Wikipedia does not imply that Wikipedia endorse the analysis, it only means that it's worth mentioning.
The fact and the source in this case are similar to an "External link". In Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_be_considered it is said "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." In this case, we cannot put the link in the "External link" section since it's too minor issue in relation to Windows, but the References section is certainly appropriate.
You are 100% wrong about the answer to the first question. This is not a reliable or usable source. Again, feel free to find a second opinion if you don't believe me for some reason. WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:RSN would be good for that. The rest of your comment flows from that flawed premise and reaches similarly flawed conclusions. MrOllie (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors who admittedly did not look at this discussion and based their comments on your one-sided presentation of it. I continue to object to this proposed section. MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have presented the question of reliability of a self-published work as a source of info about themselves in a neutral and complete manner. Your insinuation is inappropriate.
Only the first editor there admitted to have not looked at this discussion
You have made a comment there, and had an opportunity to argue against. (you still have this opportunity)
Do you still believe that I'm wrong about the answer to the first question? (regarding reliability of a self-published work as a source of info about themselves) Sovmeeya (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can this self-published work by Digital Confidence be used as a reliable and usable source of info for saying that "According to Digital Confidence, the Remove Properties and Personal Information feature has a very limited support of file formats and metadata elements, and has a misleading user interface."? Sovmeeya (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The matter has been discussed above by me and MrOllie. I belive the answer to this is clearly yes, whereas MrOllie believes the answer is no. Later, it has also been discussed at the Teahouse, where I presented the question and two editors agreed with me that the answer is yes. No one has agreed with MrOllie. Despite this, MrOllie insists that the answer is no. In light of he's rigidity on this, I find that other dispute resolution processes would be a waste of time, as they are not enforceable, and unlikely to persuade MrOllie to change his mind. (the discussion at the Teahouse was a sort of 3rd and 4th opinion already) Hence I've opened this RfC.
To be clear, to keep things simple, the question at hand, at this point, is only whether the self-published work at hand is a reliable and usable source of info for the proposed statement. That is, whether this complies with Wikipedia sourcing policies or not. (as they are explained at Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works) The question of whether the proposed statement and self-published source should actually be used in this article or not is a different question that should not be discussed in this RfC.
According to case 3 of Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Acceptable_use_of_self-published_works the answer to the question is yes. (the statement concerns the source itself) An example is given there: "For example, for the statement "The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control," the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published."
Digital Confidence, a software company in the field of metadata stripping, has published in its official website an analysis of the built-in metadata stripper in Windows. This is a self-published work and therefore cannot be used as a source for the assertions made in the analysis. But I think it can certainly be used as a source for the simple fact that Digital Confidence has published such analysis. So Wikipedia cannot say that "the Remove Properties and Personal Information feature has a very limited support of file formats and metadata elements, and has a misleading user interface.", but it can definitely say that "According to Digital Confidence, the Remove Properties and Personal Information feature has a very limited support of file formats and metadata elements, and has a misleading user interface.", and use the analysis on Digital Confidence website as a reliable source for this statement. Sovmeeya (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MrOllie is mostly correct. The requirements are quite strict. "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:
The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
It does not involve claims about third parties;
It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
The article is not based primarily on such sources."
It can be a source for "Digital Confidence has criticized the Remove Properties and Personal Information feature" without the other details you have added. Whether it should be included is a separate question related to WP:DUE. Senorangel (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the other details about the nature of the criticism makes no difference. When you ascribe these details to Digital Confidence, it doesn't mean what they say is true, and it doesn't mean that Wikipedia endorse it. If the source is reliable for saying that the feature has been criticized, then it's just as much reliable for giving the details of the criticism. Sovmeeya (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, any statement that begins with "According to Digital Confidence," is a 100% statement about Digital Confidence, not about any third parties, regardless of how this statement continues. So a self-published source by Digital Confidence is a valid source for any such statement. In the proposed statement, it's Digital Confidence that makes a statement about a third party (the Windows feature), but the proposed statement only mentions it second hand, without endorsing it, and in compliance with Wikipedia sourcing policies. Sovmeeya (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There could be only one interpretation. The proposed statement is about the views expressed by Digital Confidence, so it's entirely about themselves. It's not certain that their expressed views are correct, but it's certainly certain that these are their expressed views.
The purpose of the sourcing policies of Wikipedia is to assure articles are reliable. Nothing more. You can't get any more reliable for someone's expressed views than their official website.
To prevent confusion and similar disputes, I've asked that it will be explicitly added to the policy that any statement like the proposed one could always be used with a self-published source. Sovmeeya (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's DC's views about a third party. MrOllie and Senorangel are correct. If DC's review of the feature had been covered by an independent source, it might be considered for inclusion, depending on WP:WEIGHT. Schazjmd(talk)19:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No the source is not reliable in that context it's a self serving statement, and if it's going to be included shouldn't be sourced to the subject directly. Also simply adding "According to" to the start of the sentence doesn't stop the sentence from being about a third party, it still specifically includes claims about a third party. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°09:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
