Talk:OpenRAW

Page creation statement

Disclaimer: I was never part of the OpenRAW working group, and I only learned of OpenRAW about the date of launch. I was an early registered supporter, and a prolific contributor to the forum on the website from April 2005 to February 2007. I fully agreed with its primary objective (or motto) "Digital Image Preservation Through Open Documentation", and still do. (I would have supported any legal initiative to achieve that aim, as would many 1000s of photographers worldwide). However, I disagreed with the initiative's limited tactics for achieving this objective. Specifically, I advocated both open documentation of manufacturers' own raw file formats plus the establishment of a common, preferably standard, raw file format. So did many other supporters. The OpenRAW decision-makers focused almost solely on the former, and played down the importance of a common raw file format. Barry Pearson 07:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

BLP issues and resolution: Juergen Specht is identified by name right near the start. I quote words, which he almost certainly wrote himself within the last year, directly from the OpenRAW website which he owns and controls, with a citation to that quote at the end of the sentence. It is anyway not contentious; he is to be complimented for doing what this says. Later I name Juergen Specht and Michael Reichmann as co-authors of "The RAW Flaw". The citation at the first mention of "The RAW Flaw" links to the article at Michael Reichmann's own website, and a shorter version of the article appears on Juergen Specht's OpenRAW website, again with co-authorship. That article has been freely copied and translated, with their permission, worldwide. Both of them come out well for this article. In other cases, where I have written things, then verified them by citing sources containing the names of people involved with OpenRAW, (which is inevitable when writing an article about OpenRAW!), I have made more generic statements like "OpenRAW's stance", or "a founder of OpenRAW". The names of the people involved with OpenRAW, and statements they have made, are inevitably "out in the open" worldwide, and all I can do is minimize the mention of their names in this page to these instances. Barry Pearson 10:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

One problem with writing this page has been that a simple statement of facts sounds like wild exaggeration. When it launched, it began within days to establish a "global brand", the expressive word/term "OpenRAW", used in articles whatever language they were written in. Even now it has "fans" and a page on Facebook! Had this page been written a few years ago, there would be no doubt about its "notability". The working group which created it was multi-national, led by a German photographer working in Japan. At OpenRAW's peak there were over 1500 registered individual supporters from across the world, writing in English but sometimes as a 2nd language. Nearly 30 software and hardware companies registered their support, 30 "photographic resources" were supporters, and so were 5 professional organisations. Its 2006 survey was answered by over 19,000 photographers world-wide. (All of these are still recorded on the website). Barry Pearson 07:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Now the initiative is dormant, and it remains to be seen whether it will contribute anything more. But its "brand" and the awareness it raised has changed perceptions. Wikipedia has pages for many historical organizations. OpenRAW justifies a page here as a recent very notable initiative which influenced many people and some companies worldwide, and which still has an accessible, although inactive, website. Barry Pearson 07:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have written about OpenRAW on my personal website, but including links to it here would raise questions about non-neutrality (etc). And although I now have access to archives of much of the OpenRAW mailing list used by the working group and others while planning and steering the OpenRAW initiative, it would be inappropriate to publish them. This mailing list has ceased to exist, and the archives are not publicly available. Therefore, two important sources of information about OpenRAW are not available for citation by me, so there is a limit to what I can write while conforming to Wikipedia standards. A fuller description awaits input from others who are not limited in these ways. Barry Pearson 07:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This page needs more people editing it, so I'm about to move it! I know too much about the topic, and what is blindingly obvious to me may look like original research to others. (I have written more about OpenRAW than just about anyone else outside the core team, on my personal website. That certainly contains original research. I have chosen not to refer to it in this page, but others may choose to do so). Barry Pearson 13:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Judgemental language

cf. WP:IMPARTIAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capi (talk • contribs) 03:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The Limitations section seems quite judgemental to me; almost chastising. Starting with the title itself. Examples:

• «Instead of seeking synergy between its aims and those of DNG,[46][47] OpenRAW limited itself to seeking specifications for proprietary file formats.»
  Opinion as fact: Implies this is a bad thing, instead of documenting that A and B think it's a bad thing. Judgemental: implies they should be "seeking synergy between [...]".

• «From April 2005, OpenRAW did not acknowledge the need to avoid the ever increasing number of proprietary formats»
  Stating there is a need, and OpenRAW does not acknowledge it. Editorializing.

• «removing the acknowledgment that Adobe had created such a file format»
  Those bastards!

Status in 2011 section also seems NPOV. Example:

• «However they do so by using this openly documented non-proprietary format rather than by using their own proprietary formats and openly documenting them. So they are helping to solve both parts of the "ever increasing number of proprietary formats" problem»
  Editorializing. The "openly documented non-proprietary format" is portrayed as a better alternative, and "they are helping to solve both parts" of the problem by using it. Reader is left to applaud them for this.

Capi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Capi, I have addressed issues you mentioned above and removed the notice. Feel free to update, change, revert as needed :) -- JonathanCross (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)