Edit "Howtogeek" Reference on Pale Moon Wikipedia Article

[hujan86]

I'm fairly certain the Howtogeek link was added quite recently just to criticize Pale Moon and the article is probably isn't really factual anyway. So I deleted it but this morning my edit was reverted with the reason given as "unexplained whitewashing." So I was wondering if anyone here can help come up with a convincing explanation so that the How to geek reference is rejected indefinitely. I don't even know what "whitewashing" means.

[Isengrim]

Whitewashing means attempting to make something look better by hiding its faults or criticisms.

I suggest instead of removing the criticism, try adding a source of praise or reasoning after it. Perhaps something from the ghacks article on the initial UXP release, or one of Moonchild's posts on why the rebase had to be done.

Alternatively you could try giving a detailed explanation for why you think the material should be removed - because it offers only criticism, with no deeper explanation, and thus appears somewhat biased to the reader.

[Moonchild]

It's not whitewashing if what is removed only highlights one opinion on the matter that is not based in fact, but rather a perception from too limited research.
I recommend against linking to one of my articles because that will just be seen by the (biased) mods as a "primary source" which is not independent information.
Deleting it again with a more detailed explanation why is better. Adding a counterpoint will make the article an argument; that is not what Wikipedia is for.

[hujan86]

If that's what "whitewashing" means, then the link is definitely out of topic. The subsection is supposed to explain Pale Moon's history. That's no place to argue on cons of Firefox forks.

[Moonchild]

I've updated the article (as I've done many times in the past, most of which was undone again for arbitrary or PoV reasons)
Market share based on statcounter was also removed because it's a poor measurement (considering most adblockers block it by default "it's tracking!!11!ONE" -- yeah that's the whole point of statcounter...) and at low percentages often falls well within the margin of error and is therefore unreliable.

[hujan86]

Let's hope it stays that way. Even on Wikipedia, Pale Moon is getting - as Tobin puts it - demonized. As if it's the biggest jerk in the world. Sigh.

[Moonchild]

Yeah trying to keep the Wikipedia article somewhat neutral and factual has been a fight from day 1.

Also: benchmark update -- tossed in some sunspider benchmarking from current builds of Firefox and Pale Moon. No significant difference -- in fact, Pale Moon looks slightly better across the board. (and we are achieving that -without- benchmark-biased application profiling during build...)
http://dromaeo.com/?id=278112,278113