Talk:The Open Definition
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Buidhe paid in topic Wiki99 summary
 | The Open Definition has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 17, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Edit request
edit | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I would appreciate if someone replaced the content of the page, except the categories, with User:Buidhe paid/Open definition. I've rewritten and expanded the page based on independent sources. Buidhe paid (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Done good work! ——Serial Number 54129 19:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
GA Review
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:The Open Definition/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Buidhe paid (talk · contribs) 19:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Sohom Datta (talk · contribs) 04:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Gonna take a stab at this. Sohom (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- and it has become
somethingof a standard. - I think discussing Gartner's alternative would be DUE here.
- Done
- Lawyer Andrew Katz criticizes this definition for not doing enough to guarantee transparency and prevent vendor lock-in. Why?
- Expanded
- Made some small CE edits
- Source review is pending
- Looking at the Martin 2022 source, it might make more sense to talk in brief (maybe just one line) about David Wiley's interpretation of the open-content as well as Bruce Peren's definition (again a single line) since those seem relevant to the content at hand.
- Done
- Sourcing seems to check out
- MOS tends to prefer that there are no citations in the lede, with the lede being mostly a summary of content in the article.
- It is, but former names are expected to be included in the lead and direct quotations have to be cited even if they summarize the body.
- The rest seems great, thanks for working on this article. :) Sohom (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing! Buidhe paid (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wiki99 summary
editSummary of changes as a result of the Wiki99 project (before, after, diff):
- Complete rewrite from reliable sources
- Fixed unsourced content issues and overreliance on the Open Knowledge Foundation as a source for its own definition
- Significant expansion, more than tripling in size
- Added information on topics such as: related free/open content definitions, the specific criteria of the Open Definition, and derivative definitions
- Achieved peer-reviewed Good Article status
Further possibilities for improvement:
- Keep the article updated if new sources are published