Talk:OpenPrinter

Relevancy

Please see our policy on the inclusion of positive consumer-focused acts and practices. While open-source alternatives are good, merely existing is not enough for inclusion on the wiki. — Sojourna (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that policy; thankyou for citing it, Sojourna.

The remainder, below, isn't intended for anyone specific, but more ‘whom it may concern’, especially in terms of this article being under review.

My intention behind the article was;

• as a tangible example of how products can be (both technically, and it being economically viable), so that when contrasting user-hostile products the difference is very clear. As opposed to comparing against a description of a hypothetical, abstract ideal. In my experience, having a tangible example of how things not only could be, but should be, is more persuasive than a series of rhetorical talking points,
• printers are a notorious problem area for many users, and (considering the above re tangible examples) the user-base of this site might appreciate knowing of a forthcoming product with which they can vote with their wallet, and escape techno-hell. Especially that the R&D for OpenPrinter is ‘crowd-funded’.

While I agree with many of the points in the cited policy, I do feel that OpenPrinter isn't merely neutral, since it's actively & deliberately solving many of the common objections to proprietary printers. By design, rather than accident, and in a way which can't be revoked in future; it preserves a user's rights via technological mechanism rather than legalities. For the sake of clarity, I'm not associated with OpenPrinter (or OpenTools) in any way; I'm merely a ‘concerned technologist’ like other ordinary folks here.

I would suggest that the senior folks of this wiki (the ones who decide on policy) address the broader social problem of ‘what are people supposed to do, instead?’. One thing they can do is learn about replacement products which they might consider instead of user-hostile ones. I'm all for tackling these predatory practices from a legal angle, but that's not the only attack vector; economics is another (which works across legal jurisdictions, and on a much quicker time-scale). I think a multi-pronged approach would be more effective.

Ultimately; what's the goal? I understand the need to enumerate badness, as evidence, especially for legislative change. I don't disagree with that aspect. However, surely that's merely part of the broader objective of improving the experience of technology-users? Enhancing their legal rights is one aspect of that, but definitely not the only one. Otherwise, it's all a bit utopian/dystopian; talking about a nice-to-have which either doesn't exist or can't be pointed to.

Surely, enabling prospective buyers to be better informed, especially in terms of what they as individuals can do (in the sense of being self-determining agents, rather than mere passive consumers of what others make available to them) is fundamentally aligned with the theme of ‘having control of (owning) what you've purchased’. Consider that, on the Main Page there's a list of useful links, which includes the likes of AdNauseum. Clearly there's demand for a non-BS printer, given that the funding campaign (for R&D) yielded >100% of the sum asked for.

Alternative suggestions:

• if the problem is more about the article not being ready for ‘prime time’ general reading, then by all means move it to a “Draft:” namespace (compare how Wikipedia uses this), or otherwise mark it as ‘draft’ or ‘in progress’. Especially if the objection is around the product still being in development and not yet available for sale/purchase.
• if the main focus of the site is enumerating badness, then perhaps have a section which lists ethical products for the benefit of those who wish to seek them out.

Thankyou for your attention.

Lee Carré (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I wonder whether a theme article on 3D printing software might be the way here? Projects like OpenPrinter could be mentioned within it, and it could generally discuss the issues with proprietary software in the context of 3D printing. I agree that it's important to highlight this sort of thing, but at the same time creating an article on every open source project seems a bit beyond the wiki's scope.

List articles are another place where it can make sense to be a bit looser on the criteria, since it's not like a whole article is being dedicated to every list entry.

In terms of a draft namespace, we typically use userspace subpages for this, along with articles that people want to write but which don't meet notability/evidence criteria. Keith (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

“3D printing”

For clarity, OpenPrinter isn't about additive manufacturing (so-called ‘3D printing’), but traditional (2D) ink-on-paper printing.

Yes, OpenPrinter is solving that notorious problem.

Though, there are other Crowd Supply projects which do tackle additive-manufacturing.

“an article on every open source project seems a bit beyond the wiki's scope.”

I see the risk/problem re the concern of such proliferation, and how it could distract from the goal of focusing on the (legal) rights aspect.

“theme article” about printing in general

That might well be sensible, and serve as a suitable place to mention user-respecting products, if avoidance of article-proliferation is a major concern.

Perhaps such theme articles could serve as a per-topic/contextual starting point for unfamiliar readers (thus, such articles could have very generic names, like “Printing”); introducing them to the basics, an overview of the contemporary problems, explaining how those problems are artificial, manufactured, and defects-by-design (perhaps with a brief explanation of the usual motives (profiteering, subjugation/control)), links to prominent examples (eg HP), and a section which suggests remedies (both collective-scale eg legal, and individual eg nagging their political representative, and replacement products which respect their freedom).

This section re ‘what you can do’ could, and should, be curated, rather than trying to enumerate every possibility. A few quality suggestions, kinda thing, for those who simply want a quick answer. Perhaps with a link to more exhaustive info (for the truly curious readers), at the end.

I've seen this approach work well, in other wikis, where sometimes the need was more of an introductory guide for newbies, to point them in the right direction, than a strict set of facts (or a long list of possibilities which they have to figure out for themselves).

“List articles are another place where it can make sense to be a bit looser on the criteria, since it's not like a whole article is being dedicated to every list entry.”

Indeed; this could be simply/literally a list of pointers to relevant info/work elsewhere, as reference material, for those who really do want to learn more (especially the details).

Such list articles could be linked from theme articles, via a ‘learn more’ or ‘find other pro-user products’ link (unless the list article's name/title is sufficiently self-descriptive).

This serves both the casual/new reader who wants only basic info & context/overview, and users who want more verbose information. I'm thinking in a usability/reader-experience sense, here. Which would also help search-engine spiders/bots, too.

Such structuring of the wiki as a whole, will become more important as the set of incident articles, and associated bad-(faith|reputation) corporation articles continues to grow. The challenge then becomes architecture, navigation, categorisation, and other types of organisation.

Lee Carré (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Apologies - there have been so many stories about 3D printers recently that I forgot about 2D printing altogether!

I think your descriptions of what theme or list articles can and should be in relation to the user experience are absolutely spot-on, and we'd very much like to see more articles like those make their way onto the CRW. Keith (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2026 (UTC)