Talk:Ecco Pro

Fresh sweep

I just made one, cleaned up some prose, removed an unsupported claim, took out the code weavers section, copy edits. Just a head's up. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Horrible, Ignorant, Erroneous Article

Having watched editors who feel confident of their knowledge of wikipedia policy, and vast 'expertience' 'editing' wikipedia articles, must say that result shows editors ignorant of a topic cannot produce an accurate, informative, and helpful article on the subject.

The article has been modified to be radically inaccruate. The intro, "Ecco Pro is a Personal Information Manager based on a grid based outliner similar to a spreadsheet, and supporting "checkmark folders", which allowed filtering and sorting of information on user defined criteria.[1]" Is horrid. First of all, does not even mention that this is a software program. Secondly, is factually erroneous, ecco is not grid based, and while it supports 'folders' checkmarks are only one type, and the context based cross-reference value of ecco, as well as PIM functionality is ignored.

The 'wikipedia policy' based 'edits' seem not to care about accuracy, "truth is not our purpose", and reflect a very strange value system as to references (magazine article mentioning software is more reliable than software's reference manual, etc.).

YSWT (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like core policy at wikipedia, head over to the policies pages and try and change it (which has no chance of actually happening but if you want to waste your time...). --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't like your personally directed comments. Just because editors 'edit' often does not mean they understand-- at all-- wikipedia policies. The result in this article speaks for itself. YSWT (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

YSWT, do you mean that we, or at least a number of us, do not understand-- at all-- wikipedia policies? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You are free to improve it, YSWT. But note that if you include things which are not policy or guideline based, they will be reverted. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a couple of edits based on his comments, and pulled the COI template (since we're free of that now I think). Yes, YSWT, truth is not our purpose, sorry about that. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

To make this a bit laughable .. YSWT, are you aware the the second sentence clearly showed already that we were talking about a computer program .. you'r right, it wasn't in the first sentence, but well .. there is soo much not in the first sentence. I'm going to update the text as such. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, removal of references to active development of software and re-insertion of compusol link

once again the active development of this freeware software is 'redacted' in most places from this article, once again insertion of pay-to-access compusol site.

The legitimate sites, such as public domain DDE, and freeware/free to access lists such as the eccowiki and eccotools sites are absent and once again reader is directed to compusol.

YSWT (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted both, problem solved. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Cameron Scott, you're quite the optimist. (; Thanks, --Nuujinn (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Now the legitimate, established by external sources ecco_pro user group external link which was used as justification for excluding other links, eg., 'they are listed at the user group home page', has been removed on the basis that the pay-to-access bootleg distribution 'compusol' site is objectionable ? YSWT (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(Sigh) Compusol is also mentioned in at least one reliable source. My feeling is that there are two groups still supporting the software, one free and one subscription based. We include the one, we should include the other. Or we include neither. Honestly, I don't care which option we take. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Compusol is a pay-to-access website, not a group, and has no active ('still') user forum. The eccomagic forums and the eccotools board are examples of 'free' forums still supporting the software. Other than the social engineering compusol engaged in, what is basis to exclude those others from external links list ? Also, 'we include the link I want or we include none' does not seem to be a policy based argument for inclusion or removal of an external link. In fact, seems to be an inappropriate argument. Do you have any policy support for that argument ? Also, isn't there a policy against links to pay-to-join sites ? YSWT (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Notably, if we are going to have a helpful external links list to sites relevant to the software, including the eccomagic, eccotools, and eccowiki sites, then have no problem with the compusol site as well (beyond the pirate software issue). My problem is with having the article funnel readers to a pay-to-download bootleg site. Seems very POV or agenda driven to argue solely for 'compusol' when same agruments apply in the 'rejection' of sites like eccowiki, eg., not link farm, site is listed as link in ecco_pro user group, etc. My primary concern is funneling reader to pay-to-access pirate software site. If sufficient alternative links also included in external links, that is not an issue. If desire is to avoid excluding any particular relevant forum or 'support' site, and the mutliple relevant sites are included, the funnel issue is negated. Notably, it was myself who first added compusol as a link, prior to the piracy issues being raised. Beyond that, if there is any reference for active development at the 'compusol' site, let's discuss. There is clearly such reference and contribution of documentation by users in the group, etc., for the ecco_pro forum. YSWT (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Final note, it is not helpful to wikipedia to push links to sites with pirated software. If you read the compusol site you see it is offering (for a pay-to-access fee, and aside from bootleg of 90's version of ecco) software such as "Intellilink 3.1.1 Combo click here. Intellilink works only with ECCO Version 3... but it's worth it. It saves many steps getting data in and out of ECCO. Intellilink links Ecco with ACT, ASCII text delimited, CaLANdar, Casio devices, Commence, dBase, Franklin, HP OmniBook and HP 95LX, Lotus Organizer, Excel, Schedule, Word, PackRat, Paradox, Psion 3 and 3A, many Sharp devices, Sharp Zaurus, Sidekick, Tandy devices, Windows Cardfile and WordPerfect. Of course, Intellilink was written in the mid-90's and might not work with your present operating system. ... The Intellilink Version 3.1.1 is the last version which supported EccoPro". Since current push for 'compusol' link seems not to come for those with knoweldge of subject, point out that Intellilink Version 3.1.1 is not freeware, nor developed by nor licensed to 'compusol'. It is a bootleg of an 'old' software from the '90s. Bootleg of 'old' software is still bootleg. Promotion of links to this type of site is not what wikipedia is about. YSWT (talk) 8:17 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Johnuniq attempted to remove this part of the discussion Diff. If there is policy reference to support such action, please provide. The facts will not 'go away' by attempting to cover them up. YSWT (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I _think_ Johnuniq's point was that you are making legal accusations without providing sources for same. Can you provide any sources supporting your allegations? --Nuujinn (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Specifically, while it would obviously be unacceptable to put an unsourced statement into an article saying "Company X sells pirated software", it is also unacceptable to make such claims on talk pages. If a highly reliable source were available, it may be acceptable to say "According to a report at Y, company X sells pirated software". The issue has been discussed before, for example at Talk:Ecco Pro/Archive 1#Response to warez claims. I support the removal of such unsourced commentary. I mentioned "U.S." in my edit summary because while it may not be feasible to take action against a website in some places, persistent copyright violations in the U.S. would be easily handled, thus making the claims unlikely. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this horse not dead yet .. YSWT, besides that you don't have any source saying that Compusol is doing anything illegal, the differences are merely that on the forum there is a free version, and on compusol is a version which you have to pay for (and some slight version differences). Wikipedia does not care about that, we link as well to Microsoft for its Windows distrubution (which is NOT free), as to the various Linux versions which can be downloaded for free (but for most specific distributions you have to pay in a shop). That it is not free is not a reason not to link, that it is free is also not a reason to link to it. IF, and only if, it can be proven that Compusol is actually doing something illegal, something that is only suggested by you (but for which you have, as usual, not given ANY independent source), then linking to Compusol from Wikipedia would be bad. I would suggest to close and blank this discussion. As a besides, I also support removal of all external links to free and non-free download sites, in the external links section, in the infobox (... and in the image ...). Lets stop these continuous attempts to promote these sites, we are writing an encyclopedia here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the allegation--it's in the history if anyone needs to see it. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And I have removed the remaining link, and one images which showed the urls (feel free to make a new version with e.g. example.com), and one which used only promotional language (also for that one, feel free to make one with a less promotional text). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently some editors feel at liberity to edit other's comments on this page. I believe that violates wikipedia policy. Once again, a concerted effort has been made to remove from this software article all links to the official distribution site of the actively developed software. I do not have the time for this now, but hope someone will take care of this. YSWT (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, YSWT, making unsubstantiated remarks is also not allowed on talkpages. Can you provide the sources asked for. And when you do, also provide a source that the links that were there were of the official distribution site .. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And WP:TALK is where you want to be. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Every source that mentions the active development (there are at least 3 discussed previously) sources the distribution and development to the ecco_pro users's group. My 'remarks' were referenced directly to the compusol website. Moreover, my remarks were not directed at legality, bootleg software might be legal to distribute where the site is located, that was not the issue. The issue is links to download sites for pirated software is not helpful for wikipedia. Similarly, having a software article without a link to the official distribution site of the actively developed software is not helpful for wikipedia, at least in my opinion. The argument that, either you agree to have an external link to a bootleg software site, or we'll strip all the links to the actively developed software's distribution site, seems very much against the core editing rules of this wiki.

To my view, as someone who understands the topic and subject of this article, the article has been 'hijacked'. I also believe that the deletion of my comments from this page violates core wikipedia policies. When time permits I will deal with the matter in more depth. I will leave it to others to fix the article if they so desire. YSWT (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I've restored your allegations that compusol is distributing bootleg software and that it is a site for pirated software, since you insist on making those claims without providing any supporting sources. In regard to the rest of your comments, I'll point out that the ecco yahoo group is in no way an "official distribution site", and the software itself is not being actively developed do to licensing issues--it is rather being manipulated via the programs API, in the same manner as a plugin adds additional functionality to a browser. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, you really hurt the credibility of Wikipedia. You are a key editor to this article and you've responded to one of the developers involved in re-coding ecco's object code telling him that he is not doing what he is doing. Since I use it I can tell you personally, Ecco is actively developed. The actual program code is new. I am a member of both the Ecco user groups, and you are wrong again. The Ecco_Pro group is the official distribution site, and the only site you can download the latest developments. New "API" Add-ons that you are referring to are at the EccoTools.com site. In any case, the factual errors in this article are embarrassing and do a lot to discredit Wikipedia as an accurate source of information about things. 82.81.207.127 (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is disturbing. I made the above comment, and about 20 seconds later it was deleted. I see this has happened to other editors who expressed similar views. I am emailing a note about this to Wikipedia. 82.81.207.127 (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OMG. Once again my comments instantly vanish. Is it like 'illegal' here to point out the factual errors of the article ? So, not only are the Wikipedia articles grossly erroneous factually, but discussion about that is instantly deleted ? 82.81.207.127 (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

82.81.207.127. Having unreferenced, original research is what hurts Wikipedia. Any reliable, secondary or tertiary, sources stating that the developers are actually altering the source code of the software, or the binary code of the program itself is developed (as opposed to patched)? Actually, my .exe is not changed (but that is also original research)

No, it is not the official distribution site, it is a distribution site. Anyone can open a forum and give software for download, that it is there does not make it official. I could easily download the software from the site and offer it for download somewhere else and claim that I have the official download site. What exactly makes this the official site (and I want an explanation for the word official - what makes it official).

82.81.207.127. Your edits were reverted as you damage many threads here on this page. If you would have just posted here, nothing would have happened and you would have gotten an answer, as I did now. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC) (adapted --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC))

Also, I would add that according to reliable sources, the source code for Ecco Pro has not been released to the public. From what I have read, what work is being done with it extends and modifies what the program does via it's API, similar in approach to how a plugin works with Firefox. So as far as we have been able to determine, based on reliable sources, the Ecco Pro program code itself is not being modified, although new code is being developed for use with it. Personally, I think that's way cool, and unusual since commercial software is generally not freely available and often they lack an API or the API is not documented. But there's little discussion of this aspect of Ecco Pro in reliable sources. Also, as an aside, I'm still confused as to the degree of ire between the compusol folks and the ecco user group, but my gut tells me there's a history there that's not public. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, clearly you do not understand the subject of this article, or 'reliable sources' in connection with the subject. Since the software's official distribution is the yahoo ecco_pro forum, and the official documentation is the eccowiki.com wiki, those are the reliable sources for technical specs of the software, just as microsoft is cited as source for tec specs of products developed by microsoft. The 'work being done' is program code modification. It is not via API. Most of updates are applied 'in-line' that is, at the time the program is loaded into memory, as opposed to updating file on the disk. Some, such as LightenUP! at the eccotools.com board, change the physical disk file code. Since your understanding is 100% wrong, your 'reliable sources' cannot be very reliable. The problem is that you are an indictment to wikipedia generally. If the information in this article is so completely INACCURATE, how can any information on wikipedia be trusted. Replies like, 'truth' is not our purpose, just proves the point. The fact that you'all are so active in other articles, also proves the point. A little knowledge is dangerous. You have confused requirments for notoriety (self-notoriety is worthless) with reliable sources for info on sources (developer specs about software, generally highly reliable). Accordingly, the premis of reliable information be so far off base, the information in the article ends up off base. Add that to Ego involvement and need for 'control', led to removal of relevant links, DDE API extensions, free add-ons, tech specs, etc. All in all, you have made this article a poster child to demonstrate that wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Maybe that has something to do with the recent 'please contribute money to us, we are in trouble' ads that now greet visitors. YSWT (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

YSWT, you do not get the point, do you. The Yahoo Ecco_pro forum is NOT the official distribution point for the software, and the eccowiki.com wiki is not the official documentation point - since there is nothing that says that they are the official sites. So there is where you are 100% wrong. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and if you can find a source for any of your assertions, YSWT, then please bring them to the table and we'll discuss them. Please do review WP:RS, you'll find that WP is, in fact, not considered by WP to be a reliable source. Also WP:TRUTH, our policies require that we use reliable source. I may be well wrong that the code modification is done by API, and you're probably right that the binaries are being modified, but that's not really important--the issue is that the source code is not available, and as far as I can see from what the sources say, there simply is no "official" distribution point. What remains unclear to me is why there is so much ire between the compusol folks and the ecco user group. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing Latest Version Information

Why doesn't the article have any recent information on Ecco. I use the 64bit version with active scripting, clones, MV Pane internalized PDF files, bookmarks, and such, but don't see any of that in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.184.70 (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). TJRC (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)