Talk:Firefox 1.5 beta released to public

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

It kind of reads like an ad for Firefox. Can we get some balance, perhaps by elaborating on the deficiencies of the current version and mentioning competitive products ? StuRat 02:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I've cleaned up alot of the marketing talk so it should be more neutral now. Thanx 69.142.2.68 20:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Please sign up/log in before leaving comments so we know who you are. StuRat 12:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
It still looks like an ad to me. Can we get some balance, perhaps by elaborating on the deficiencies of the current version and mentioning competitive products ? StuRat 21:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
So, following your logic, if this was an article about, lets say, a new version of Linux, we'd have to mention any possible flaws and say that Mac OS and Windows exist? Come on. Or if it was about Windows Vista we'd have to say "but windows still crashes an there are other operating systems"? Please. This article is about the release of a product. Naturally, it says what's improved and where to find it. Articles that compare a piece of software to others are for an encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia, not for a news source like Wikinews.
Please sign up/log in before leaving comments so we know who you are. StuRat 12:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
What I want to avoid is one article that says, essentially. "Firefox is the greatest thing since sliced bread and all the others suck", followed by other articles that say "Netscape is the greatest thing since sliced bread and all the others suck", "Internet Explorer is the greatest thing since sliced bread and all the others suck", "Opera is the greatest thing since sliced bread and all the others suck", "The AOL browser is the greatest thing since sliced bread and all the others suck", and so on. A single BALANCED story will not lead others to feel the need to "defend" their own browsers. Looking at one of your examples, if we just regurgitate the Microsoft press release for Windows Vista, I'm sure it would say it's perfect and all the problems are solved. If people read that story here, then go and get it, and find out it has even more crashes and security holes than their current software, I would say we are to blame for their incorrect decision to switch, by endorsing a biased and untrue press release without supplying the other side of the story. StuRat 12:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Here are the opening lines of the WikiNews NPOV policy which I believe applies:
The neutral point of view policy states that one should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly.
The neutral point of view policy is easily misunderstood. The policy does not mean that you should write an article from just a single unbiased, "objective" point of view. The policy says that an article should fairly represent all, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct.
StuRat 12:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


Specific NPOV suggestions[edit]

  1. When a press release says a product is "new and improved", this means the previous version was "old and inferior". Any advantages of the new product can therefore be listed as disadvantages of the predecessor.
  2. An ad will normally only compare their product with competitors when they win the comparison. We should compare their product when they lose, as well.
  3. A company would typically list new features as being "the first in the industry", unless they aren't. We should specifically list whether the new features listed are available on other browsers.
  4. The fact that they list two intended beta releases (which is really a misuse of the term, BTW) means they aren't very confident in the quality of the first beta, to me. We should either do some first hand reporting on this (download it and check it out) or find some comments from others who have done so, to try to find out what the "instabilities" are, and report them.

StuRat 12:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Problem with Image ?[edit]

The Firefox logo only displays about half the time on my computer, is anyone else having this same problem ? StuRat 12:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)