There are at least a dozen people spending at least several hours attacking GrapheneOS across platforms on a daily basis.
-
@aliu @Xtreix The biggest issues in the article are the incredibly inaccurate narrative about the history of GrapheneOS presenting it entirely based on Copperhead's debunked claims which they widely propagated with press releases and their own direct edits to Wikipedia. They heavily wrote the content in the CopperheadOS article which is still present there. CopperheadOS is the former name of GrapheneOS and after that was a zombie project based on repeatedly forking our code.
@aliu @Xtreix The next biggest issue in the article is how it cites an announcement from us about the harassment towards Daniel completely out-of-context while ignoring most of what we said and misrepresenting it. Interpreting primary sources that way isn't supposed to be happening especially when it involves a living person. We didn't announce what it claims we did and it omits the context of what we said we were dealing with and why it was happening. Why is the main context omitted from it?
-
@aliu @Xtreix The next biggest issue in the article is how it cites an announcement from us about the harassment towards Daniel completely out-of-context while ignoring most of what we said and misrepresenting it. Interpreting primary sources that way isn't supposed to be happening especially when it involves a living person. We didn't announce what it claims we did and it omits the context of what we said we were dealing with and why it was happening. Why is the main context omitted from it?
@aliu @Xtreix The article very clearly takes something out of context, misrepresents it and tries to present it as a contradiction entirely based on direct interpretation of primary sources. If the article cannot cite the ownership of the original GitHub repositories, commit history and much more to correctly present the history of the project then why does it use primary sources to misrepresent our statements? The standard being used to justify the inaccuracies is ignored to justify others.
-
@aliu @Xtreix The article very clearly takes something out of context, misrepresents it and tries to present it as a contradiction entirely based on direct interpretation of primary sources. If the article cannot cite the ownership of the original GitHub repositories, commit history and much more to correctly present the history of the project then why does it use primary sources to misrepresent our statements? The standard being used to justify the inaccuracies is ignored to justify others.
@aliu @Xtreix The bias against GrapheneOS by the authors of the article including people who work for companies it is extreme.
Take a look at the CopperheadOS article. It's a massive page about something which only ever existed as the former name of GrapheneOS and then a proprietary fork of GrapheneOS only ever used by hundreds of people. They repeatedly forked the latest GrapheneOS code to keep recreating it. Why is it that it has a huge article presenting it as a standalone thing?
-
@aliu @Xtreix The article very clearly takes something out of context, misrepresents it and tries to present it as a contradiction entirely based on direct interpretation of primary sources. If the article cannot cite the ownership of the original GitHub repositories, commit history and much more to correctly present the history of the project then why does it use primary sources to misrepresent our statements? The standard being used to justify the inaccuracies is ignored to justify others.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix Well, I don't know the context and I can't find a secondary source to provide the context, while there are secondary sources other secondary sources claim are reputable that contextualize the early repo history you mention.
I think that's the problem: Wikipedia has yet to find a better objective indicator of truth than being published by the bubble of secondary sources, and I can't think of any either. -
@aliu @Xtreix The bias against GrapheneOS by the authors of the article including people who work for companies it is extreme.
Take a look at the CopperheadOS article. It's a massive page about something which only ever existed as the former name of GrapheneOS and then a proprietary fork of GrapheneOS only ever used by hundreds of people. They repeatedly forked the latest GrapheneOS code to keep recreating it. Why is it that it has a huge article presenting it as a standalone thing?
@aliu @Xtreix The fact is that Copperhead and companies working with them heavily edited the articles. For years, most media coverage based their basic understanding about both on the Wikipedia articles and started from the point of an inaccurate narrative. Wikipedia is citing laundered information from itself as a source. That golem.de article and most other sources are essentially blog posts. You're just recycling information from Wikipedia written by Copperhead back into Wikipedia.
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix Well, I don't know the context and I can't find a secondary source to provide the context, while there are secondary sources other secondary sources claim are reputable that contextualize the early repo history you mention.
I think that's the problem: Wikipedia has yet to find a better objective indicator of truth than being published by the bubble of secondary sources, and I can't think of any either.@aliu @Xtreix People who aren't subject matter experts doing cursory research based on the equivalent of blog posts by people who aren't subject matter experts isn't a recipe for writing accurate content. The approach is incredibly biased and primary sources do get heavily cited including in this article. Conveniently, the primary sources are cited to take statements in an announcement from us out-of-context in order to present a warped take on it and try to make us look bad based on it.
-
@aliu @Xtreix People who aren't subject matter experts doing cursory research based on the equivalent of blog posts by people who aren't subject matter experts isn't a recipe for writing accurate content. The approach is incredibly biased and primary sources do get heavily cited including in this article. Conveniently, the primary sources are cited to take statements in an announcement from us out-of-context in order to present a warped take on it and try to make us look bad based on it.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix The problem with that is you're also a blog post. I really appreciate what you are doing but lowering the RS barrier to interpreting primary sources when people still disagree on a fact would make a lot of fact-finding discussions the equivalent of Reddit toxicity and Truth Social toxicity combined.
-
@aliu @Xtreix People who aren't subject matter experts doing cursory research based on the equivalent of blog posts by people who aren't subject matter experts isn't a recipe for writing accurate content. The approach is incredibly biased and primary sources do get heavily cited including in this article. Conveniently, the primary sources are cited to take statements in an announcement from us out-of-context in order to present a warped take on it and try to make us look bad based on it.
@aliu @Xtreix Why is it that there's a paragraph based on a manipulative interpretation of our posts without the context, without actually conveying what was written in them and with a Wikipedia editor's own opinions clearly involved in it? Why is it that you can't use objective facts from a primary source but you're fine with an inaccurate interpretation of something directly from a primary source? Why is there one standard for making attacks on GrapheneOS and another for correcting them?
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix The problem with that is you're also a blog post. I really appreciate what you are doing but lowering the RS barrier to interpreting primary sources when people still disagree on a fact would make a lot of fact-finding discussions the equivalent of Reddit toxicity and Truth Social toxicity combined.
@aliu @Xtreix Okay, so remove the paragraph in the article inaccurately interpreting the announcements we made about protecting Daniel from harassment. It shouldn't be in the article unless it comes from secondary sources, particularly since it involves a living person and the current content is an extreme misrepresentation of what was said and the context of it as part of someone trying to make a jab towards us. Why is that paragraph there, but actual facts can't be cited?
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix The problem with that is you're also a blog post. I really appreciate what you are doing but lowering the RS barrier to interpreting primary sources when people still disagree on a fact would make a lot of fact-finding discussions the equivalent of Reddit toxicity and Truth Social toxicity combined.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix I think it's a tiny bit plausible that these sources were bought by Donaldson to parrot his claims while also painting Donaldson as the villain. But the sources we have only contextualize the part where you think primary sources favor your view and not when it doesn't, and absent of an official announcement that tries to contextualize the 2024 resignation we can cite, this is what's best.
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix I think it's a tiny bit plausible that these sources were bought by Donaldson to parrot his claims while also painting Donaldson as the villain. But the sources we have only contextualize the part where you think primary sources favor your view and not when it doesn't, and absent of an official announcement that tries to contextualize the 2024 resignation we can cite, this is what's best.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix If there's already a post on the gOS website somewhere that says Micay will not be succeeded by a different director or whatever you want to add, feel free to link it!
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix I think it's a tiny bit plausible that these sources were bought by Donaldson to parrot his claims while also painting Donaldson as the villain. But the sources we have only contextualize the part where you think primary sources favor your view and not when it doesn't, and absent of an official announcement that tries to contextualize the 2024 resignation we can cite, this is what's best.
@aliu @Xtreix You're demonstrating that you're extremely biased and apply double standards. It's not something which is going to stand. We know the reality of Wikipedia which is that it's extremely astroturfed and biased. It reflects the overall bias of the editors. It doesn't reflect a consensus among people who want to have accurate content.
-
@aliu @Xtreix You're demonstrating that you're extremely biased and apply double standards. It's not something which is going to stand. We know the reality of Wikipedia which is that it's extremely astroturfed and biased. It reflects the overall bias of the editors. It doesn't reflect a consensus among people who want to have accurate content.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix If there's already a post on the gOS website somewhere that says Micay will not be succeeded by a different director or whatever you want to add, feel free to link it! As I've mentioned, that should be usable as a primary source.
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix If there's already a post on the gOS website somewhere that says Micay will not be succeeded by a different director or whatever you want to add, feel free to link it!
@aliu @Xtreix The post is citing us as a source out-of-context while ignoring the vast majority of what we've said about it. We said those steps were taken to protect Daniel from harassment and yet harassment isn't mentioned in the article. It's presented in an incredibly slanted way as part of false narratives being pushed about GrapheneOS to attack it.
-
@aliu @Xtreix The post is citing us as a source out-of-context while ignoring the vast majority of what we've said about it. We said those steps were taken to protect Daniel from harassment and yet harassment isn't mentioned in the article. It's presented in an incredibly slanted way as part of false narratives being pushed about GrapheneOS to attack it.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix Give me of a link of a website that you know.
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix Give me of a link of a website that you know.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix PSST: Just as a test please reply to this post, not the previous one, ASAP if you see it.
-
@aliu @Xtreix The post is citing us as a source out-of-context while ignoring the vast majority of what we've said about it. We said those steps were taken to protect Daniel from harassment and yet harassment isn't mentioned in the article. It's presented in an incredibly slanted way as part of false narratives being pushed about GrapheneOS to attack it.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix If you were confused by other replies: Sorry about that, you're replying so clickly that I suspected you were a bot! I again apologize.
Where did you say that? It would be best to cite it as an official statement from your website.
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix If you were confused by other replies: Sorry about that, you're replying so clickly that I suspected you were a bot! I again apologize.
Where did you say that? It would be best to cite it as an official statement from your website.
@aliu @Xtreix There was no official announcement from GrapheneOS saying what's claimed there. It's citing a personal account and misinterpreting what it says. If the content cannot be sourced from a reliable secondary source, it should be removed. It's an incredibly biased interpretation of a primary source. How does that qualify as something notable if you can't find any secondary source saying what it does, but yet you would remove factual information about GrapheneOS without one?
-
@aliu @Xtreix There was no official announcement from GrapheneOS saying what's claimed there. It's citing a personal account and misinterpreting what it says. If the content cannot be sourced from a reliable secondary source, it should be removed. It's an incredibly biased interpretation of a primary source. How does that qualify as something notable if you can't find any secondary source saying what it does, but yet you would remove factual information about GrapheneOS without one?
@aliu @Xtreix Why is the article directly interpreting what someone posted on their personal Twitter account and subsequently deleted as if it was an official announcement? You can't actually justify that, especially when it's warping what was said by leaving out the context. Why is harassment not mentioned when the topic of the posts was harassment and a plan for dealing with it? The plan was revised a few more times prior to official announcements about the actual concrete details...
-
@aliu @Xtreix There was no official announcement from GrapheneOS saying what's claimed there. It's citing a personal account and misinterpreting what it says. If the content cannot be sourced from a reliable secondary source, it should be removed. It's an incredibly biased interpretation of a primary source. How does that qualify as something notable if you can't find any secondary source saying what it does, but yet you would remove factual information about GrapheneOS without one?
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix WP:ABOUTSELF is fine if without reasonable doubt. Making a statement about how exactly that's misleading would provide that reasonble doubt as well as clear up confusion for anyone not very active on Mastodon.
