Talk:UBlock Origin/Archives/2015

Citation overkill

We've added too many in-line reference links, and some of them aren't really needed (like the excessive Github links). Please clean up this to avoid WP:Citation overkill. -- Marawe (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't see your comment until I made it worse. Makes a lot of sense. Removed 4-5 citations, including the ridiculous line under Features. Think more should come out? --Kintpuash (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kintpuash: It looks cleaner and more reliable now. I've commented out the latest release date because there are new versions frequently, so that we don't need to keep changing it. -- Marawe (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Audit?

Open software is as good as closed-source if not independently audited. Here we are giving the benefit of doubt to developers, not applying recently acquired knowledge and a healthy dose of skepticism. I hope this (audit record) would become a normal part of open software reviews.

I suggest adding a section mentioning audit information. and if anyone has more information on this please include it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.106.25 (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Monetization strategy

While it is true the uBlock project doesn't solicite donations, individual developers may. Currently one of the developers does accept donations. Additionally, language contrasting monetization strategies with other software sounds like advertisement, as there are other content filtering options that are not monetized. Kintpuash (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for pointing this out. I think the project certainly doesn't need to be portrayed as focused on politics or business strategies. ChrisAljoudi (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is outdated enough as it is, but as of today, Raymond Hill has transferred ownership to Chris Aljoudi, who earlier was behind the Safari port and who does accept donations; apparently it's not an April Fool's joke. Julyo (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Fork explanation

I think the page would benefit from a neutral explanation of the fork. It's a bit messy, but I think some kid basically tried forking it, removing credit and trying to monetise it for himself. I don't have the full details, but it'd be easier enough to get for someone with more time for wikipedia editing than I. --81.104.217.234 (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I've read multiple articles on the subject, but the article has to be worded in a way to not slander anyone. To prevent edit wars and yelling, it's best to write it as neutral as possible and try to describe it in general high-level terms, then let readers find out the details in the referenced articles. I have this article on a permanent watch to ensure it doesn't get out of control. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Seamonkey/Palemoon

Should these be included? Since Seamonkey and Palemoon are not officially supported and utilize a work around. Likely to break with new releases? --Kintpuash (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Question is now obsolete as these browsers are currently receiving support. Kintpuash (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)