Talk:Treefinder

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Computational Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Tree of Life Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life 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.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

citation counts.

I would like to remove the citation counts from this page. It strikes me as OR-ish to use citation counts to establish importance. Not to mention the average reader will have no basis for comparison to how frequently these types of documents are cited.

2015-10-04 changes to Treefinder wiki page

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You've removed my somewhat out-of-date edits but left the comment: "(... still wrong, sorry, read carefully the Treefinder news page ...)", along with several others that explicitly stated that the information submitted was incorrect at the time of its writing.

Your edits are largely proper, but the facts asserted in your commit logs are incorrect. The information in those revisions was correct at the time of writing. (My edits were made on September 30th. It was asserted that the software was re-released on October 1. Your edits were made on October 4.)

Indeed, if you start to think about how the announcement of the first TREEFINDER re-release (If the software ever is made available, it will be the first release in roughly four-and-a-half years) comes a couple of days after the publicity surrounding Gangolf Jobb's anti-Imperialist and anti-immigration stances, and the investigation performed by myself and others into the disconnect between his statements on his blog, you might be lead to believe that it was the investigation that prompted the re-release and license change. If you read the TREEFINDER news page, you find this statement:

"The TREEFINDER version of March 2011 together with the above and all previous license changes becomes "the latest version" according to license statement in the manual!"

This is a tacit admission that a re-release was required to achieve the author's desired licensing changes.

I -personally- am very glad that Gangolf Jobb is planning to re-release the project and properly change the license to his project. (95% of the reason for my edits was to spur him into actually changing the license for his software.) He authored the project, and he has the right to change the terms of use of his software in any way he sees fit... as long as he uses a way that is permitted by the license under which he distributes his software to his users.

I hope he releases his software soon, so that his (entirely proper and reasonable) desires to restrict its use are realized! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:202:8861:F66D:4FF:FE53:D79C (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Add topic