Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20 Apple Inc.

message: Open to suggestion, what I have here is based on the discussion so far.  I would love to see a heading beneath this for people's suggest alterations, so we can compare them easily.
thumb|right|Mac OS X "Tiger" Crashing. This error message is the equivalent of a "Blue Screen of Death" on a Microsoft Windows machine.
Some of Apple Inc's Advertising claims have been the subject of lawsuits including false advertising and fraud.  Apple's past claims "it doesn't crash" and current claims of being "free of system crashes" are refuted by The Register and AppleMatters.  This was featured by Apple as reason to switch number two. in the company's Switch campaign, and appeared as a primary reason in several advertisements in the same series. The “Mac OS X crash screen” is called a Kernel Panic. The Kernel Panic is covered in Apple's Support Section.
::--Zeeboid 18:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Altered--Zeeboid 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zeeboid Proposed wording

message: ===Apple favours its own stores===
In 2004, a group of ex-Apple resellers took Apple to court, claiming that Apple unfairly favours its own stores over independent dealers. Then to flesh out this section (if it's going to be kept) we need more detail about the case. What happened when they went to court? If the case was dismissed then maybe this is not so noteworthy.
You can find a description of the status of the case in Apple's 2006 SEC 10K report,  beginning at the bottom of page 41. Basically Apple settled with all the plaintiffs, including the bankruptcy trustee for one that went under. The principal of that company has appealed the bankruptcy court's approval of the settlement and has filed his own suit. None of these cases have been tried in court on their merits.--agr 00:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism (Mmoneypenny)

message: In 2004, a group of ex-Apple resellers took Apple to court, claiming that Apple unfairly favours its own stores over independent dealers. Then to flesh out this section (if it's going to be kept) we need more detail about the case. What happened when they went to court? If the case was dismissed then maybe this is not so noteworthy.
You can find a description of the status of the case in Apple's 2006 SEC 10K report,  beginning at the bottom of page 41. Basically Apple settled with all the plaintiffs, including the bankruptcy trustee for one that went under. The principal of that company has appealed the bankruptcy court's approval of the settlement and has filed his own suit. None of these cases have been tried in court on their merits.--agr 00:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apple favours its own stores

message: Mmoneypenny 22:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ?Greenpeace

message: I believe the above wording is poorly sourced and misleading.
#The first sentence "Some of Apple Inc's Advertising claims have been the subject of lawsuits including false advertising and fraud"  is backed up by an article that refers to a lawsuit that has nothing whatsoever to do with Mac's crashing. The lawsuit was filed by Apple resellers unhappy about Apple opening up their own stores. The complaint in the suit about false advertising deals with Apple's service policies. Anyone can file a lawsuit and likely every large company in the U.S. has been sued for false advertising at one time or another. 
#The source cited for "current claims of being 'Crash Free'" does not support that assertion. The actual text reads "The real secret behind the Mac’s crash-resistant performance lies deep within the operating system itself. Beneath the surface of Mac OS X lies an industrial-strength UNIX foundation hard at work to ensure that your computing experience remains free of system crashes and compromised performance." The term "crash-resistant" is not at all the same as "crash free."The "-resistant" language is widely used in advertising ("water-resistant, fire-resistant) to suggest good but not perfect. There is no evidence presented that this claim is false and plenty of reviews of OS X suggest that it is true. (e.g. "Mac OS X offers the best combination of elegance and stability of any operating system. "  "To put it simply: No desktop offered by Dell or Hewlett-Packard or Sony or Gateway can match the new iMac G5’s combination of power, elegance, simplicity, ease of use, built-in software, stability and security. " 
#The term "refuted" is POV editorializing. Advertising claims are not mathematical theorems disproved by a single counter example. Wikipedia advertises that it is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Yet some individuals are banned from editing. others cannot because that can't access the site and, in any case, Internet access isn't free. 
#The first citation that supposedly refutes Apple is an article in The Register from before the Ad campaign and before the version of software the ad campaign refers to was released. This has been pointed out on the talk page, so it's continued inclusion is very disturbing.
#The second citation is from "Ask Apple Matters" reader forum. essentially a blog. The forum includes several reports of crashes, at least half of which were attributed to hardware problems. No one, including Apple, disputes that operating systems can crash if the hardware fails. It's like citing that article on coma as proof that some humans can't edit Wikipedia.
#Finally there is the question of including the kernel panic screen. The mere fact of its existence proves nothing about the stability of OS X. No one, including Apple, currently disputes that OS X can crash.  Nor is it "equivalent" to the Windows Blue screen of death which has a wide public awareness. Including it in the article appears to be a POV attempt to settle the score.
=== Proposed wording (agr)===
While I still question whether the crashing matter is notable enough to include in the main Apple Inc. article, I would find the following wording otherwise acceptable.
:In August, 2006, the AppleMatters web-site carried comments by Aaron Wright questioning the veracity of Apple ads that suggest Macs don't crash.  Apple currently advertises Macs as being "crash resistant."  A number of commentators have praised Mac OS X for its stability. 
I would also accept a separate section in the Notable Litigation of Apple Inc. article that described the reseller suit, as proposed by moneypenney above. --agr 00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an outsider to the previous controversy, this smaller section is way more encyclopedic than the ones proposed above, which are clear hatchet jobs and attempting to portray the company poorly through a very obvious anti-Apple POV. Even mentioning random accusations by minor individuals unless it has become a big, newsworthy event covered by multiple sources, is highly questionable. See the WP:NPOV police for "undue weight". And the image is clearly only placed to try to lash out at the company and for no overall encyclopedic purpose. DreamGuy 03:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response (agr) 

message: While I still question whether the crashing matter is notable enough to include in the main Apple Inc. article, I would find the following wording otherwise acceptable.
:In August, 2006, the AppleMatters web-site carried comments by Aaron Wright questioning the veracity of Apple ads that suggest Macs don't crash.  Apple currently advertises Macs as being "crash resistant."  A number of commentators have praised Mac OS X for its stability. 
I would also accept a separate section in the Notable Litigation of Apple Inc. article that described the reseller suit, as proposed by moneypenney above. --agr 00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an outsider to the previous controversy, this smaller section is way more encyclopedic than the ones proposed above, which are clear hatchet jobs and attempting to portray the company poorly through a very obvious anti-Apple POV. Even mentioning random accusations by minor individuals unless it has become a big, newsworthy event covered by multiple sources, is highly questionable. See the WP:NPOV police for "undue weight". And the image is clearly only placed to try to lash out at the company and for no overall encyclopedic purpose. DreamGuy 03:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed wording (agr)

message: #The apple law suit link and the line for it is in responce to a request for a source to show that there are claims about apple's advertising being false, requested by you.  I give a link showing a suit for false advertising, and this is now not good enough.  You are correct it does not list "Crashing" as part of the false advertisement, but the line next to the source does not claim so either.  It is also in a sectoin titled "Critism" not "Crashing"
#The source cited for "current claims of being 'Crash Free'" does support that assertion.  On apple's website you can find both "free of system crashes" and "It doesn't crash."  I have asked for this time and time again, but if you take issue with the second listing there of "it doesn't crash" could you please prove to us somehow that it is an "Archived" page despite it not saying Archive in the link or on the page it self?  Also could you please show to us how Apple Computer could overlook a revamp of their advertising like that?  is there any history to show they tend to leave advertising up despite it not being current?  but even if you list that, the statement "free of system crashes" speeks for it self.  Apple's advertising people are not stupid.  If they did not intend to tell people that OSX "remains free of system crashes" they would have not said it.
#Apple Matters and the Regester both refute appple's claim of "free of system crashes" or in the context of past advertising (if you can show to us that the page in question is an archive) "Doesn't crash."  what word would you sugguest here?
#Could you please tell me then how Mac Magazine issue number 65 Sept 2000 also shows the claim of "it doesn't crash" in relation to OSX?  thats two years before the Regester's article.
#The apple matters link is not a forum or a blog.  it refrences what people have said in a forum, but it is a news article from apple matters.  as far as your statement "No one, including Apple, disputes that operating systems can crash if the hardware fails."  if this is the case, could you show us where apple states "It doesnt' crash... except if the hardware fails."? 
#one of the two voters earlier addressed this one here
Look.  I have bent to requests up until now.  The requirements and requests to justify this thing to stay up there have changed at every fulfillment of that request.
Its amazing to me how anything negative on Microsoft's page (or General Motorsis held up, yet the moment something negative is added to Apple's article, its a "hatchet job" or "POV." The very non-existance of a critism section on this article compaired to a Critism section on every other corperation's wiki article is POV.  ARG's proposed line there carries with it, an infalacy of apple caliming "Crash Resistant" while a sentance later they say "Free of system crashes" (as it seams listed all over the place when an application crashes in OSX), and also your line AGR contains a "yea but..." statement, POV Pushing.  The Apple Article mentions in many places about OSX's stability, yet when a critism is listed, you feel it nessesary to list it yet again, and outsiders here feel that it is approperate.  To correct someone's mind after a critism is listed is not the palce of an encyclopedic entry.
The approperateness of a "critism section," much like the valadity of the Apple Matters source, is not my saying, but what is currently being used or going on in Wikipedia.
I don't mind a critism section be listed in addation to information added to the litigation section, but hopefuly the listing of the Mac Magazine article will help to add to Mmoneypenny's sugguested listing.  I have altered my listing accordingly based on this discussion.--Zeeboid 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zeeboid Responce

message: I'm glad to see that we've got some input from some other parties as well.  The more input we get, the better consensus I believe can be reached.
A concern has been brought up regarding whether "criticism" sections are useful in corporate articles at all.  There is nothing in guidelines or policies that gives us a clear answer to this question, and I cannot find anything in the Manual of Style to guide us here, either.  As a point of reference, I have checked 10 selected corporate articles for "Criticisms" or related sections.  Of the ones I randomly picked, Microsoft, Ford Motor Company, ExxonMobil, Citigroup, Boeing, and Dell all have such sections, while Charles Schwab Corporation, Home Depot, and FedEx did not.  While this cannot be construed as any kind of policy, I do believe that it indicates a general consensus that sections reporting criticisms of a company's practices or behaviors are, in general, accepted by the Wikipedia community. Arkyan • (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usefulness of criticism 

message: The consensus above seems to be mostly in favor of allowing this information to exist somewhere, but I would like to clarify.  Regardless of the final destination, are you okay with this information being on Wikipedia at all?
:I think the consensus is in favor of allowing it to exist somewhere because we are mostly agreeable people who want to reach a compromise about this issue, not because we think that the issue is particularly notable. I would also hope that most of us agree that this is not the most important thing about Apple, nor the most important criticism that could be made, this can be seen by the sheer lack of people in the streets/on the web protesting about the false advertising and/or that their Mac is constantly crashing.Mmoneypenny 19:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I agree. In the interests of accounting for all points of view I do see it having a place on the ’paedia. --Walafrid 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure it does.  if "every hiccup" in its operations is major enough news, why is there no critism section?  The sources I have listed, have proven themselves under "wikipedia's policies and guidelines" until, low and behold, now, so I don't have faith in that line of reasoning.--Zeeboid 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, you did so also when this was voted on a month (or so) ago (as noted under POV in the Apple Talk page).  I have strived to meet every qualm braught up, but I fear there is nothing that can be done to meet your requirements.  thankfully we have policy and this process.--Zeeboid 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You argue that the KP be removed yet similar information exists under other articles dispite your 'requirements' listed.  I am not a fan of hypocrisy.--Zeeboid 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it belong? 

message: The "yeah but" sentence was tacked on to the end of the paragraph in an attempt to provide balance and counterpoint to the claim.  Assuming the information about this criticism is kept, should the counterclaim sentence remain in the paragraph?
:I like the "yeah but" sentence, it evens out a one-sided argument (regardless of what is said in the rest of the article) and it is a form found throughout Wikipedia articles to allow people to see both sides of the argument and also appreciate that the world is very rarely black and white, but rather a shade of magenta. Keep.Mmoneypenny 20:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote “Stay” too. Most readers will take the gist of the criticisms, I think, and it keeps the paragraph appearing balanced. --Walafrid 20:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This information is included elseware in the article.  To include it in a "critism" section is POV.  A critism section should contain "Critism" not "Critism plus any data to refute critism."  Unless you would like to rename the section "Critism plus refutations" I highly object to any "yea, butt..." statements that exist elseware.--Zeeboid 19:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep provides balance. -steventity 19:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do they "Provide balance?"--Zeeboid 21:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It provides balance by showing OSX has recieved praise for its stability, and is not, as could be inferred from the some of the paragraph, prone to crashes.  -steventity 22:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It removes balance by including this informaiotn in a critism section, while the information in question is listed throughout the article.  no where does the proposed paragraph give the impression "prone to crashes"--Zeeboid 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Yeah but" sentence 

message: There seems to be agreement by all but one of the editors participating in this discussion that the moderator's wording is better than what is there now and that it belongs in the advertising section.  I don't think unanimity is required, nor does it seem achievable here. I would propose that this change be made now and that moderation continue on the broader question of whether this material meets Wikipedia standards for inclusion, perhaps by seeking the opinion of other neutral editors.--agr 22:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me.  It's an improvement over the misleadingly sourced and written section that exists on the Apple page now. -steventity 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Something needs to happen. The above discussion is going round in (the same) circles. Mediation does not work when the most vocal party is not willing to give any ground. --Walafrid | talk 23:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to thank Arkyan for all his help so far, there is no doubt that he/she has been instrumental in improving the article and sharpening our thoughts. It does seem that we are starting to reach an impasse. I would like to see what Arkyan thinks but I cannot help but feel that agr's proposal is "fairest." Mmoneypenny 08:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far Mmoneypenny's sugguestion for the critism section is on the right track.  as listed, with a little fleshing out, that would work, and I feel is a far better fit then the moderator sugguestion (no offence).  As far as this information meeting standards, AGR, we wouldn't be here if it didn't... it would have just "been removed"--Zeeboid 14:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addationally, its not aobut "conspiring" though I would expect anyone to be cautious of removing information that is something other the "posative" from a wiki article on a topic with self proclaimed "Cultish" followers.  Why do you think no critism section exists currently?  Because this article is heavaly protected, and when it was voted to keep the section we are discussing long ago, I thought this issue was done with until new reasons (as I pointed out above) kept appearing to remove.  adding "Yea But..." statements in a critism section is not acceptable, as by looking at the examples of Critism sectoins listed by Arkyan above, they do not contain "yea but..." statements. and neither should this one.
But yea, you want to move forward, I sugguest working with Mmonneypenny's proposal.--Zeeboid 14:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a "yes" from me!Mmoneypenny 15:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. Apologies that my tone began to betray some exasperation above. Arkyan, thank you sincerely for your wise comment. --Walafrid | talk 15:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: which one are you refering to when you say "the most current proposal we have"?--Zeeboid 16:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Referring to the one I proposed.  I just put it there as a stopgap measure - this current question regarding consensus is not in reference to that proposal nor is it to gauge support for it.  Right now all I want to know is, when the majority of people do decide to endorse a proposal, are you willing to accept that as consensus even if it is not necessarily the one you like most? Arkyan • (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree in it being up up until this is settled, but without the "Yea but..." statement.  Apple's stability is well known and refrenced elseware in the article, and other Critism sections as have been pointed out, do not contain "Yea but..." statements either.  (Evidence supporting this standard can be found in: Microsoft, Ford Motor Company, ExxonMobil, Citigroup, Boeing, Dell) What of this will be put in the litigation section? with this stopgap measure?--Zeeboid 18:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The litigation section was updated as well per the proposal.  Take a peek and see what you think.  But, as I said, right now I'm less concerned with an up/down "Do you like this proposal" and more concerned with reaching a conclusion.  The changes I made to the Apple article were requested and agreed with by 4 users and that's good enough as a temporary measure.  It has no bearing on the final version, however.    So if you could please let me know where you stand on the notion of reaching a conclusion via the method of consensus of the majority, as I said - "when the majority of people do decide to endorse a proposal, are you willing to accept that as consensus even if it is not necessarily the one you like most?" Arkyan • (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  While the "yea, but..." in a critism section now only exists under Apple inc and none of the other examples provided, and I am uphauled that it is here... we can work with whats up.  now what?--Zeeboid 18:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As of 2006 Apple had reached settlements with all of the plaintiffs, including the bankruptcy trustee for one reseller that failed. The former principal of that company has appealed the bankruptcy court's approval of the settlement. Apple 10K p.41
This is well sourced and should not be controversial.
Third, I may not have been clear enough about the proposal for moving forward I made. I am suggesting that the "Criticism" section in the current Apple Inc. article entirely be replaced with the full and unaltered text in the first paragraph under "Moderator proposed compromise" above and that this paragraph be put under the Advertising head in the Apple Inc. article. I hope this is what the others agreed to, but it would be best if they reaffirmed that.--agr 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means add the update for that case, the information certainly is relevant and should be uncontroversial.  I did use the full text from the "moderator proposed version" with the exception of a very minor change of a few words, but left it under "Criticisms".  I think, at least until we reach a conclusion here, to leave it under that title. Arkyan • (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope, In its own Critism Sectoin, of which other critisms can be added.--Zeeboid 20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for moving forward

message: Let me take a brief moment to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion, whether at length or just briefly.  Every bit of input has been helpful, I believe, in getting points across and helping to at least reach some kind of understanding on these issues.
During the course of this discussion we have come up with a number of proposed solutions, refined them, and discussed the options.  I believe that this has enabled us to generate a solution that is able to satisfy the concerns raised on both sides of the issue and will thus reiterate the recommendation I made previously and suggest that it be adopted as the final version for the sake of discussion.
Unfortunately it appears that we are unable to reach any sort of unanimity on this problem.  Ultimately that was the goal I had in mind when setting out, to come up with a solution that everyone could agree to.  However, at this point I cannot see any change in the outcome with further discussion or compromises - particularly with statements to the effect that compromises on certain points, of any nature, will be unacceptable to some parties of this dispute.  It is unfortunate that we have reached such an impasse and I feel that it ultimately means the attempt at moderation has been less than successful.
At the same time we seem to have generated a fairly broad consensus in favor of the proposed solution, and I see no problems in implementing it at this time.  I understand that there will be some disagreement with this assessment, and as an informal, unofficial moderator I will leave it up to the discretion of the editors as to whether or not to implement the compromise.  As I have stated consensus is highly in favor of this solution with only one voice of dissent, and in the spirit of collaborative editing and cooperation I once again strongly urge all parties to abide by this consensus.  
If this solution is however unacceptable and any parties are unable to consent to it, I fear that this mediation attempt can do nothing more to resolve that situation.  Please refer to the dispute resolution process for further information on how to resolve the issue if you find the solution presented in this mediation to be unacceptable.
Again, thank you all for your time and participation.  As all opinions have been presented and there are no further evidence or arguments that have been brought up, I am hereby considering this informal mediation case closed.  Bear in mind that case closed does not mean discussion closed - in fact I would hope that it does not and productive discussion on this issue and the improvement of the article in general continues among the involved editors. 
Happy editing, and good luck to you all. Arkyan • (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again Arkyan. Since the mediation is close, I think it is appropriate to move continued discussion back to the talk page.--agr 16:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing case