Wikipediocracy

I've been watching articles related to Adobe Systems. I figured given that Wikipedia was founded by open source zealots that Adobe articles would be negatively biased. One editor, Stuckgreenpixel (T-C-L), has been focusing entirely on Adobe articles and adding negative information to them. I wonder if he has a conflict of interest or is just a open source zealot? Stuck especially loves adding "Creative Cloud controversy" to every Adobe article. The man's obsessed.

The Joy wrote:I've been watching articles related to Adobe Systems. I figured given that Wikipedia was founded by open source zealots that Adobe articles would be negatively biased. One editor, Stuckgreenpixel (T-C-L), has been focusing entirely on Adobe articles and adding negative information to them. I wonder if he has a conflict of interest or is just a open source zealot? Stuck especially loves adding "Creative Cloud controversy" to every Adobe article. The man's obsessed.

No, no way; couldn't be a sock puppet COI special account either. No, no way.

A little assgoofai, please.

enwikibadscience wrote:

The Joy wrote:I've been watching articles related to Adobe Systems. I figured given that Wikipedia was founded by open source zealots that Adobe articles would be negatively biased. One editor, Stuckgreenpixel (T-C-L), has been focusing entirely on Adobe articles and adding negative information to them. I wonder if he has a conflict of interest or is just a open source zealot? Stuck especially loves adding "Creative Cloud controversy" to every Adobe article. The man's obsessed.

No, no way; couldn't be a sock puppet COI special account either. No, no way.

A little assgoofai, please.

*squints*
Fae, this is not a reference to you, honest.

I have noticed Stuckgreenpixel before, and didn't mention him/her/it, because Adobe's got a miserable reputation today. It's difficult to feel sorry for a company that outrageously sleazy and greedy, so not sure if talking about their defamation on WP would really gain traction.

SGP is clearly a sockpuppet, probably of someone we've seen before in other areas, but he's doing a good job of covering up his identity. Would not be surprised if he's a disgruntled Adobe employee. They've got scads of them.

Wikipedia has always hated Adobe. Consider the oldest revision in the database. Plus, the main article has scads of past SPA editors who have that "paid smell".

Marksirapat (T-C-L)
Mopupcrew (T-C-L)
Sparc64 (T-C-L)
90.209.104.47 (T-C-L)
67.98.55.147 (T-C-L)
Mehdiirfani (T-C-L)
etc. etc.

EricBarbour wrote:I have noticed Stuckgreenpixel before, and didn't mention him/her/it, because Adobe's got a miserable reputation today. It's difficult to feel sorry for a company that outrageously sleazy and greedy, so not sure if talking about their defamation on WP would really gain traction.

SGP is clearly a sockpuppet, probably of someone we've seen before in other areas, but he's doing a good job of covering up his identity. Would not be surprised if he's a disgruntled Adobe employee. They've got scads of them.

Wikipedia has always hated Adobe. Consider the oldest revision in the database. Plus, the main article has scads of past SPA editors who have that "paid smell".

Marksirapat (T-C-L)
Mopupcrew (T-C-L)
Sparc64 (T-C-L)
90.209.104.47 (T-C-L)
67.98.55.147 (T-C-L)
Mehdiirfani (T-C-L)
etc. etc.

It's a carefully manipulated article; some shadow boxing between the sides.

EricBarbour wrote:I have noticed Stuckgreenpixel before, and didn't mention him/her/it, because Adobe's got a miserable reputation today. It's difficult to feel sorry for a company that outrageously sleazy and greedy, so not sure if talking about their defamation on WP would really gain traction.

I am shocked ... shocked ... to hear such invective from you about a company merely trying to protect and monetize its significant investment in intellectual property. Shocked.

Mmmmmm.....

Lewis Louveteau (T-C-L)

Similar edits to Stuckgreenpixal. Even the userpages have similar themes. If this is the work of a sockmaster, he's not very clever.

The Joy wrote:Lewis Louveteau (T-C-L)

http://www.mchenrymasons.org/short_talks/stb_lewis.htm
Ha ha. Freemasons. Ooohhhh, conspiracy! Run, the Masonic flying saucers are coming for us!

I dunno, I wouldn't rank Adobe as being anywhere near as bad as, say, Electronic Arts. At least most Adobe products work, and work pretty much as they should...

Adobe Edge Animate

The last "good" version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =570928010

The current version states:

Forever beta

Adobe Edge Animate was rushed through a hasty beta and the effects of that is clearly shown, even in the current 3.0 version of the software. The lack of a vertical scrollbar, the frequent crashes and the limited tools are just some of the problems with the software as it is today.

The Joy wrote:Adobe Edge Animate

The last "good" version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =570928010

The current version states:

Forever beta

Adobe Edge Animate was rushed through a hasty beta and the effects of that is clearly shown, even in the current 3.0 version of the software. The lack of a vertical scrollbar, the frequent crashes and the limited tools are just some of the problems with the software as it is today.

I have to wonder if the person who wrote that has ever used a legitimately acquired copy of the software. Adobe, by and large, has no meaningful competition in its market space, and piracy of its products is rampant, especially with the teenage wannabee crowd that often finds its way to Wikipedia. Adobe generally doesn't care that much about piracy by individuals, though, because for the most part people who get pirated copies are just developing skills that, should they get good at it, will end up being another seat on a legitimate license.

I used to work on graphics software, and I have a great deal of respect for their developers, at least on the flagship products. I don't think they're any particularly worse than Microsoft, and certainly nothing compared to the nasty crap done by, e.g., Electronic Arts.

Blame the pirates for Adobe having the final physical version of the Creative Suite be CS6 (I use this version and I paid for it legitimately). Now, Adobe is pushing the Creative Cloud, which actually becomes more expensive over time.

greybeard wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:I have noticed Stuckgreenpixel before, and didn't mention him/her/it, because Adobe's got a miserable reputation today. It's difficult to feel sorry for a company that outrageously sleazy and greedy, so not sure if talking about their defamation on WP would really gain traction.

I am shocked ... shocked ... to hear such invective from you about a company merely trying to protect and monetize its significant investment in intellectual property. Shocked.

Where would we be without Adobe fonts, Adobe Acrobat & pdf, InDesign,† and Photoshop?

That said: they are the greediest fucking software corporation on the planet, by a long shot.

RfB


† - PageMaker was better!

Johnny Au wrote:Blame the pirates for Adobe having the final physical version of the Creative Suite be CS6 (I use this version and I paid for it legitimately). Now, Adobe is pushing the Creative Cloud, which actually becomes more expensive over time.

I do like their software, but I agree that the prices are outrageous. I pay about $21 a month and I think that's part of a student discount. My web design professor says most colleges and schools are staying with CS6 while avoiding CC. CC is cost prohibitive.

The Joy wrote:

Johnny Au wrote:Blame the pirates for Adobe having the final physical version of the Creative Suite be CS6 (I use this version and I paid for it legitimately). Now, Adobe is pushing the Creative Cloud, which actually becomes more expensive over time.

I do like their software, but I agree that the prices are outrageous. I pay about $21 a month and I think that's part of a student discount. My web design professor says most colleges and schools are staying with CS6 while avoiding CC. CC is cost prohibitive.

Same. I paid $250 for the education version of CS6. I will not subscribe to the Creative Cloud, which after one year, becomes more expensive.

I fear that creative software would follow Adobe's lead in the future.

The general move is towards a subscription model.

See Office cloud.

Its going to result in most corporations heading down the open office/secure network route.

Yep. The pirates forced quite a number of popular software packages to move to the cloud.

Na bollocks. Pirates dont force anyone to lose anything. Pirates *wont buy your product*. Its not a case of 'pirate or buy' for the pirate, its 'pirate or pirate something else'.

The *excuse* has always been piracy, however the real reason is that with the growth of high speed broadband the service contract is now a viable business plan for software. Businesses of all types in a wide range of industry have always preferred 'service' rather than 'up front' payment because it makes them more money. It just required the technical backbone before the software industry could move to it.

Randy from Boise wrote:

greybeard wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:I have noticed Stuckgreenpixel before, and didn't mention him/her/it, because Adobe's got a miserable reputation today. It's difficult to feel sorry for a company that outrageously sleazy and greedy, so not sure if talking about their defamation on WP would really gain traction.

I am shocked ... shocked ... to hear such invective from you about a company merely trying to protect and monetize its significant investment in intellectual property. Shocked.

Where would we be without Adobe fonts, Adobe Acrobat & pdf, InDesign,† and Photoshop?

That said: they are the greediest fucking software corporation on the planet, by a long shot.

RfB


† - PageMaker was better!

Business 101: The primary purpose of a business is to make money. If people are willing to pay out the wazoo for a service or product, they will and the business will continue its practice. When enough people can't afford to pay or refuse to buy a service or product, the business will change or drop dead.

There's been some push-back against the Creative Cloud and the subscription price. Whether that push-back will affect Adobe's bottom line and force a change remains to be seen. What bugs me is that one or more anti-Adobe Wikipedians are adding undue weight to the Adobe articles. Do the reliable sources out there confirm there is a major push-back and should this be included in every single Wikipedia article regarding Adobe?

The Joy wrote:There's been some push-back against the Creative Cloud and the subscription price. Whether that push-back will affect Adobe's bottom line and force a change remains to be seen. What bugs me is that one or more anti-Adobe Wikipedians are adding undue weight to the Adobe articles. Do the reliable sources out there confirm there is a major push-back and should this be included in every single Wikipedia article regarding Adobe?

Difficult to say, since a) Wikipedians can never agree on anything, b) Adobe has done a fair job of controlling or hushing up criticism of its products. There isn't much online anymore.
http://godadobesucks.tumblr.com/

Plus, remember that unless certain complex or specialized jobs are involved, 90% of the basic functionalities of CS's applications are now available in open-source software, at no charge. Why cough up serious money to Adobe if all you need to do is resize photos, produce a newsletter, or make simple charts?
http://www.gimp.org/
http://inkscape.org/en/
http://www.scribus.net/canvas/Scribus
http://www.openshotvideo.com/
http://www.blender.org/