Re: [Fwd: Re: Wikipedia criticism about root]

Valeri Onuchin wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROOT
>
> The "Criticism" section "looks like" a typical FUD created
> by Python, AIDA fan and man who's stuck on "academical ideas".

Actually, I'm not that sold on AIDA. I'll admit to being fond of Python. I have no idea what you mean by "academical ideas"! (Please don't respond: I have no desire to let this degrade to personal attacks.)

> "FUD sands for Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
> It is a marketing technique used when a competitor launches a product
> that is both better than yours and costs less, i.e. your product is no longer
> competitive. Unable to respond with hard facts, scare-mongering is used
> via 'gossip channels' to cast a shadow of doubt over the competitors offerings
> and make people think twice before using it."

Sorry, does that apply to me? I'm not advocating any particular "more expensive product" and what I've said has either been hard fact or at least is easily disprovable. No-one has offered a proper refutation of any specific points, I'll carry on assuming that the criticisms have some validity.

If you read back over the posts in this thread, the posts with a lack of "hard facts" have primarily come from the "ROOT side". So is this "FUD^2": FUD concerned with applying the "FUD label" to a rival? ;-)

> This section (might be unintentionally) disapproves potentional users
> from trying/testing/using ROOT.
>
> I appologize if you didn't have this intention in mind.

That wasn't the intention. I agree that the section doesn't read as well as it should, but I still believe the content to be accurate and largely appropriate.

I also wouldn't oppose the creation of a criticism section on any of the other tools I've mentioned: I just wouldn't have any particular content to add to them right now.

> I suggest to remove this section (untill it will be discussed and
> approved by the ROOT community).

I've been trying to argue here that the criticisms are valid and no-one has yet shown that any of them aren't: quite an achievement given the volume of words expounded here!

I strongly oppose the unilateral removal of the section since that would encourage a sort of "censorship through inaction". I've heard a lot of support through private email for the points made on the page: removing them doesn't seem appropriate, but modifying them to better fit the tone of the article would be perfectly acceptable.

The Wikipedia page has a corresponding "talk" page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ROOT --- I suggest that we move the Wikipedia discussion there and debate the modification/removal of each criticism. If a discussion about ROOT's problems, independent of the Wikipedia page, wishes to continue on the list, so be it.

Andy

-- 
Andy Buckley: CEDAR @ IPPP, Durham
Work: www.cedar.ac.uk
www.insectnation.org