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
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
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
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
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
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.
Request for comment on reliability of a self-published work as a source of info about themselves
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}
The redirect Freedows OS has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 11 § Freedows OS until a consensus is reached. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
