Talk:Windows Package Manager

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (assessed as Low-importance).

Microsoft Windows: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Self-published sources

Hi Ghettoblaster, thanks for researching sources in Special:Diff/960258047. However, all three of the cited sources are personal blogs and are self-published sources, which are not considered reliable. Do you have any reliable sources for this information? — Newslinger talk 00:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/960261076 improves the situation a little bit, but the ZDNet article doesn't mention Visual Studio Code or provide the PS C:\Users\Wikipedia> winget install vscode example. Are there other reliable sources that provide this example? If not, the article content should be reduced to what is fully supported by reliable sources, e.g. something like "Users can install packages with winget using the winget install command, followed by the name of the package." — Newslinger talk 00:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

vscode is actually in the example screenshot in the article. Ghettoblaster (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. I've removed the self-published sources. — Newslinger talk 00:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historical neutrality

The following passage:

"After the release of winget, Keivan Beigi, the developer of AppGet (a similar free and open-source Windows package manager), claimed[5] that Microsoft interviewed him in December 2019 under the pretense of acquiring AppGet and hiring Beigi. After talking with Beigi, Microsoft allegedly ceased communication with him until confirming one day before the launch of winget that they would not be hiring him. Beigi was dismayed at Microsoft's lack of attribution of AppGet. The release of winget led Beigi to announce that AppGet would be discontinued in August 2020.[6][7][8] Microsoft responded with a blog post crediting a number of winget's features to AppGet.[9][10]"

In the history section is not objective and is written in the style of a narrative and without neutral point of view. The style of writing paints a narrative that Beigi was slighted by Microsoft. If this is true, it would make a great blog, but it doesn't fit the Wikipedia style. Phrasing like "Beigi was dismayed at ..." and "Microsoft allegedly ..." and "The release of winget led Beigi to announce ..." feel as though they are suggesting that Beigi was a victim. The sources cited are personal accounts from Beigi, not an objective analysis by a third party. The objective part of this story is more like

 "Microsoft may have expressed initial interest in acquiring AppGet in 2019 [5]; however, they created their own tool during 2020, and credited features of WinGet as inspired by AppGet [9,10]."    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.98.105 (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there are reliable, independent sources quoting Beigi and Microsoft's response is included at the end of the paragraph. You've read that too. Not sure how else one could copy-edit this without going too much into WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft's response 84.250.17.211 mentioned objectively established that there is no lack of neutrality here..

This GitHub based approach led us to AppGet and Keivan. We talked with Keivan last summer about potential opportunities to work together to deliver the Windows Package Manager. During those conversations we were impressed with Keivan’s insights into the package management world on Windows and with his desire for there to be a great package management experience on Windows.

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/winget-install-learning/

"Microsoft may have" is thus not accurate. Ybllaw (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]