I need someone’s help with better sentences on Wikipedia. I want to simplify the sentences below contributed by someone (thanks!) on Wikipedia - mainboard section. The outcome in my mind for Wikipedia is like sentences in a scientific paper to simplify and clarify by cutting duplicated or decorated words, using active verbs rather than passive verbs. (E.g. Here are the tips. I am just learning it now.)
There does appear to be an issue with the first generation mainboard that requires complete removal and reconnection of both main battery and RTC cell, if the laptop is not charged for a relatively short period of time.
I don’t understand what the sentences mean. If it is about an abnormal or exceptional case that needs to replace the mainboard, I am still not sure how and where it is written on the Wikipedia page.
My draft:
A first generation mainboard may not power on without plugging AC power, as both the main battery and RTC cell have to reconnect wrongly if the laptop is not charged.
To clarify:
Does this issue happen on every 1st generation Framework Laptop or a few?
The “a relatively short period of time” => How long time? Where is the reference source?
What is the real time clock cell?
@Jasn702@Moe_Wigs Do you know any suggestions about this? I just found you guys on the thread. Thanks.
This sentance seems straight forward to me, “a relatively short period of time” means a period of time much shorter than one would expect normally, but could be variable.
The issue is that the RTC cell is rechargable and when the laptop is off and disconnected from a power supply the RTC cell discharges rather quickly, which leads to a state where both the main battery and RTC cell need to be disconnected and then reconnected to reset the state of the mainboard. Since it’s an RTC problem, I assume that all boards are affected if left uncharged for several weeks at the most.
The RTC cell is the battery that allows a computer to retain power to the CMOS chip where the BIOS stores it’s settings.
I wanted to add a sentence about this Fedora x Framework talk session as a case of Framework’s community relations to Framework’s Wikipedia page - “Community relations”. But I noticed if I would add it by myself, it might violate the rule of Wikipedia as a “conflict of interest”. Because I was a host of the talk session.
So, I just put my draft sentence here. If someone is interested in adding the sentence to the Wikipedia page, feel free to use the sentence.
In August 2022, a Framework's developer had a talk sessions with Fedora contributors in the Fedora Project conference.<ref>{{Cite web|date=July 27, 2022|url=https://community.frame.work/t/fedora-contributor-x-framework-developer-ama-event-friday-august-5th-utc-19-00/20674|title=Fedora contributor x Framework developer AMA event|website=community.frame.work}}</ref>
Edited: I added it by myself with the disclosure of showing I was a host of the talk session in the comment.
A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.(February 2023)
On the latest update of the Framework Wikipedia page, the message above was added to the top of the page. The “A major contributor” means me clearly. And I think the update is the right thing.
I am not paid by Framework. I don’t belong to the company. I tried to be neutral when editting the page. However, I am relatively active in the community. So, I admit someone may recognize me as “close connection”.
So, I will pause the activities to edit and update the Framework Wikipedia page, letting the page go.
Let me share one thing I noticed. I just noticed the Framework Laptop’s product name is updated as “Framework 13” on the Wikipedia page by the latest commit. I appreciate that! However, I believe that “Framework 13” is wrong. “Framework Laptop 13” is correct. I already sent the message to the person who updated the page, as I am pausing to update the page by myself.
Guys, please consider updating it on the Wikipedia page. Thanks.
Someone reached out to me about I am in the conflict of the interest. That is quite valid. So, I will completely stop editing Framework’s Wikipedia page. I hope someone will continuously care about Framework’s Wikipedia page. Especially “Area served”. I saw someone updated the part incorrectly in the past, and I had to fix it. Good luck!
Reading through the post they made and your response, I would argue that while they may be correct in pointing out that you seem to mostly edit the Framework Computer page and that the WP:SPA is mostly in place to keep accounts from editing pages to advertise for a company or group, that pretty much everything I’ve seen from you on the Framework Computer page is objective facts backed up with proper sources. If you choose to stop editing the page that’s your own choice, but after skimming the Wikipedia policies they linked I would personally argue that you are still fine to edit the page, as like you replied, you are not paid by Framework to do this work, and you do not have any personal relationships with anyone at the company as far as I’m aware.
I dug a little deeper into the person who brought up the conflict of interest with the Wikipedia page for Framework and their own citations are over reaching in their definitions. If they followed their own protocols as documented; most of Wikipedia would be flagged as being authored by people with a conflict of interest.
The individual that brought up that you are the primary contributor to the Framework page incorrectly asserted statistics to justify their argument and ignored the fact that because it is a public platform, you happen to be the one to contributing to the accuracy. Thousands of other people could have made the same requests. Your edits happened to be the first and and others recognized they were accurate.
In other words, you were not excluding nor changing information for any possible gain both to you, anyone associated with you, and certainly not Framework. It is actually discriminatory to falsely assert a conflict of interest when there is zero evidence of ANY conflict taking place.
There are literally tens of thousands of pages in Wikipedia that are nearly sole source contributed. It was a little disheartening to see some of this persons other edits/comments (because everything done on Wikipedia is publicly accessible) have taken the same approach to protect their views of the platform.
Conflicts of interest only exist when an individual or group stands to gain unfairly through their actions. It is not immediately apparent what you stood to gain from submitting information to Wikipedia about your knowledge of this subject (Framework).
Thank you for your past contributions and I hope you will consider continuing to maintain the accuracy of Framework and other personal knowledge you have on the Wikipedia platform.
@pkunk thank you for posting that. I could not agree more. @junaruga, please don’t let the inaccurate conflict of interest comments dissuade you from continuing to contribute to that page.
I would appreciate you spending time to check the Wikipedia guide.
On what basis was it asserted that you have a conflict of interest?
The person contacted me saying you “may” have a conflict of interest. That means the person was not 100% sure if I was in the case of a conflict of interest. I was one of the editors the most heavily updating and editing the Framework Computer Wikipedia page. According to the person’s investigation, 85% of all of my edits in my Wikipedia account are for the Framework Computer page. I think this made the person suspect that I might be editing to promote the Framework Computer paid for by Framework Computer. Before the person contacted me, I didn’t write my personal information on my profile page as I didn’t know the info was required as a disclosure for the conflict of interest.
Apart from whether what I am doing is following Wikipedia’s policy or not, what I am thinking is whether what I am doing is ethical or not.
Another concern was the person’s this change removing some of my contributions without mentioning clear reasons. I am trying to clarify the person’s intent of the deletion by asking questions at Talk:Framework Computer - Wikipedia - Deleted contents by restoring revision 1225028792 .
I still have a complicated feeling about editing Framwork’s Wikipedia page.
I took a stab at adding some information to the Framework Wikipedia page on the Intel Core Ultra Series 1. Specifically information in the table of specs. There is probably room in the Wiki article somewhere to highlight the current products and upgrades to the existing Framework Laptop 13 platform. Like the webcam v2, upgraded 2.8K display, hinges, speakers, battery, even the color of expansion cards! I had never edited a Wiki page before.
