Talk:Free Software Foundation Europe

Criteria for person list

FSFE#Persons behind FSFE doesn't seem to have any criteria for who should and shouldn't be included. If the list is on an FSFE webpage, it should just be linked to rather than reproduced. Anyone got any suggestions for what would be a useful criteria for inclusion in this list? Or should it remain at all? Gronky 14:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The list is almost entirely made up of non-notable people according to Wikipedia's standards, and I think it should be removed. Instead FSFE's president could be mentioned somewhere in the article. Most (or all?) of the names are available on FSFE's team page, which is already a link in the article. - Kaare 13:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Logo and license

Both are wrong, I think. this page not only contains what would appear to be a new logo, but also points out that there are restrictions on use (yay non-free GFDL!) - for this reason, I reckon we should delete this image. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The page says: "The Logo of the FSFE must never be used in a way that could be understood as endorsing certain activities, home pages, products or entities without prior consent of the FSFE. Please contact <team@fsfeurope.org> if you wish to know whether your intended usage is suitable and whether you can use it in a certain context." So it's probably ok to use the logo here! --Hugord (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

File:FSF-Logo.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:FSF-Logo.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

This page was devoid of a Criticism part so I thought in the interest of a balanced view that I should contribute.

Apparel. Recently I was given the exciting oppoutunity to go to FOSDEM and listen and talk to the FSFE stand in brussels. Unfortunately most of the staff just acted like drones and instead of opeing the debate just simply asked me if I had a sweatshirt or not, implying that I wasn't really in the spirit of things if I didn't comply with their suggestions. So, I went to FOSDEM and got the FSFE sweatshirt, but most of the 'engine' of their activity seemed to just be about 'compliance' with their methods and ways. I have looked all over the internet and I cannot find any 'in' into the world or debate that should be unleashed in the software sceptre and I find that the only way to act in such a way is to be like rms , become a double doctor in computer science and put on expensive talks. Unforunately , I'm not that active as I'm taking on the likes of google in my websites on a daily basis. However, the sweatshirt that I bought for £27 simply had a FSFE droidlogo on the front and a "FREE SOFTWARE, FREE SOCIETY" message on the back. I live in a very critical small community and the overall message of free software is one of 'bemusement' and not-yet spelling out the 4 freedoms that gnu-ware aspires to. My 2 cents. (oh and dont put it in the wash over 50 degrees ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.16.7.243 (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Mismatch content of references

Tthere are several cases in which the content is not matching with the reference provided. In particular, the Goal section is not reflecting what is available in the reference (even at the given date it was retrieved)

I think this page needs serious rewriting.

Ahangarha (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

"Networking" as a verb in this context

This seems awkward (in subsection Goals):

"...networking other initiatives..."

What would be an alternative?

--Mortense (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest, Criticisms, Controversy

Looking at the page history, it has frequently been edited by employees or voting members of the organization. Examples: Reinhard Müller, Mxmehl

Page content appears to be written in the way these people see themselves and not in the way that an independent person would see the group. It is close to propaganda.

Members of this organization interact with Wikimedia Foundation members and there have also been cases where the organizations interact in a more formal sense so it may be harder for some people to be impartial in any dispute about this page.

The last community Fellowship Representative in this group was elected in 2017 and resigned in 2018 expressing disappointment with the group.

--TransparencyDude (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll focus on the important point: sure, per Wikipedia:Verifiability it would be nice to add more reliable sources, preferably independent sources. For such an entity these tend to be news articles or academic sources, which have their own issues, but with some work it's possible.

As for me I don't normally make major contributions to an article like this because I'm a member of FSFE. (Are you or were you?) However, when an edit blatantly violates policy it's another matter. Nemo 16:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your Transparency about FSFE membership. So we both have Conflicts of Interest too. If you really care about Wikipedia's integrity, which is what your comments suggest, how do we get somebody independent to survey all sides and edit appropriately? As it stands, the page is blatant propaganda. Letting FSFE staff edit their own page is like allowing China to edit the page about democracy in Hong Kong. TransparencyDude (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent defamatory edits and their cleanup

@Ognarb: Thank you for your cleanup in this article. When you removed the content referring to the partisan blog, did you maybe miss that there is another source (currently no. 4) with the same issue? I would remove it myself, but seeing the current discussion I'd prefer to not do such an edit here. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Your welcome @Reinhard Müller:, I will remove the source because it isn't trustworthy (and quite insulting for the victim of the Third Reich). But I wonder if the corresponding text to the source should also be deleted: "Leaked emails show that FSF and FSFE are now in dispute about the use of the name FSFE, derived from the FSF trademark". I couldn't find any source confirming this and I guess then we should remove it too, but it would be nice that someone more experimented with Wikipedia like @Widefox: could confirm that it should be removed. (Also full disclosure I'm neither an FSF nor FSFE member, but I'm a KDE developer and as such closely related to the Free Software world) --Carl Schwan (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ognarb: I think Widefox didn't see your question. However, in my eyes, it should be a rule that if the source is not valid, the text that's claimed to to be backed by that source should also be removed if no trustworthy other source can be found. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Widefox: Thank you as well for stepping in here. I saw that you added the {{COI}} tag. If that refers to myself and/or Mxmehl as suggested above, I'd tend to disagree with the "major contributor", looking at the version history of the page. I do completely agree though with the {{Third-party}} tag. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone here with a WP:COI should WP:DISCLOSE. Widefox; talk 11:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I am a member and a volunteer of the Free Software Foundation Europe. I am not employed by the organisation, and I do not receive any money from them. I don't know whether that constitutes a COI. Thanks --Reinhard Müller (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Any editors here with a financial COI, should additionally read and abide by WP:PAID. Widefox; talk 18:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: remove sentence for which the source has been removed as untrusted

The sentence "Leaked emails show that FSF and FSFE are now in dispute about the use of the name FSFE, derived from the FSF trademark." should be removed, because the source given for it has already been removed as untrusted (see diff). Thank you --Reinhard Müller (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. It shouldn't be in the lead anyway, but especially not unsourced and without anything in the body. (as to the merits of a missing "Reception" or something is an ongoing issue, as it currently looks like an advert, which I've tagged) Widefox; talk 14:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The "Multiple issues" leading template

I disagree with a statement of the "Multiple issues" template. I am a neutral party (no connections to FSF or FSFE).

I don't agree that the article contains content written like an advertisment. The content simply states the most important facts regarding FSFE. It is expected that the goals and projects of many volunteer non-govermental associations are largely positive, so just listing those goals and projects might look like an advetisment, at a first glance, while in reality it is not.

What I would like to suggest to other editors of the article, is to look on the Internet for additional sources not associated with FSFE (newspaper articles, web articles, awards by neutral parties, and similar). Then, some of the perspectives of those other parties may be inserted into the article. Z80Spectrum (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is another tip: take a look at IBM's page, to get some ideas about what kind of information are appropriate for inclusion, and how to insert information from third parties not connected to FSFE. Z80Spectrum (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)