Talk:Raspberry Pi/Archive 5: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:16, 27 February 2018

Revision as of 04:56, 12 March 2018

Line 433:

Encyclopedic articles should not parrot the company's or organization's talking points and PR slogans. Intentions, motives, and the developers' overall desire to make the world a better place (sorry for the sarcasm) are not encyclopedic facts. Product achievements and successes should not be praised empathically, but described in a ''neutral'' and ''uninvolved'' tone. Of course editors are excited about such new technologies and developments, but these positive opinions should ''not'' be reflected in the article's main text (except from a properly sourced and attributed "Reception" section). I'll try to tone down some of the problematic phrases, but more care should be taken to meet the requirements of [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:GermanJoe|GermanJoe]] ([[User talk:GermanJoe|talk]]) 19:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

== Commercial use ==

[[User:Proogs|Proogs]] ([[User talk:Proogs|talk]]) 11:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi; I don't edit wikipedia much other than minor edits, so I hope this is right place to ask this.

I added some info about a commercial use for a Pi - the Robe MiniMe - that's been reverted. I'd linked to the product's own webpage as proof of its inclusion in the product but I think you need a more independent source. Would an article in the industry press be sufficient? I've found PLSN's road test of the product - would this be a better reference?

[http://plsn.com/articles/road-tests/robe-minime/ PLSN's article] It actively talks about the use of the Raspberry Pi as a media server within the unit.

If it's OK, perhaps someone can revert the text back again with this as the reference, please?

Thanks.

:The information needs a source to confirm it is notable. An industry source may be suitable, better than first party source. Also, the content shouldn't be seen as advertising a product - something Wikipedians are particularly vigilant about. More information at [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]]. Feel free to add content back if you have suitable sources. [[User:Jonpatterns|Jonpatterns]] ([[User talk:Jonpatterns|talk]]) 12:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

[[User:Proogs|Proogs]] ([[User talk:Proogs|talk]]) 01:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - it's rather difficult to talk about commercial use of something and to name the product without someone taking it as an advert. Is there an accepted way of phrasing something such that it mentions a commercial product without it being misinterpreted? Perhaps I should just be nonspecific when mentioning it - but then it becomes a useless addition to the 'commercial' section!