Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Method Engineering Encyclopedia
This is about the WikiProject Method engineering.
Concerns have already been expressed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Method engineering that this is not an appropriate project for Wikipedia. The most important being that it is original research.
I am starting this stub to try and obtain a proper, well-advertised discussion on this matter. A previous discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Method engineering was closed with the conclusion nomination withdrawn with no outside votes for deletion. Given that three individual contributions are receiving strong delete votes at the moment, I would like to see some outside votes.
The three debates in question are:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business planning (an integrated plan approach)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Buyer Utility Map
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Product Software Pricing
Another set of related articles in this project is:
- Capability Maturity Model
- Capability Maturity Model Integration
- Capability Maturity Model Integration SM - note this state with links to twenty five (!) highly detailed articles, of which so far, the only one started is ...
- CMMIsm Project Planning
-- RHaworth 11:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Proposals
- My personal recommendation is transfer to a separate Wiki for the Method Engineering Encyclopedia. -- RHaworth 11:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Doesn't that essentially mean deleting the articles and ancouraging their creators to start a new Wiki of their own? That's fine with me, but our side of thing will largely involve AfDing the other articles that you've listed. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- One would hope that if the creators start their own Wiki, they would have the decency to go round and mark all their creations here with {{db|now on our own Wiki}} ! But if they don't, the conclusion of this debate together with an agreed list will serve as authority to delete without AfD's for every article.
- I agree with the comment below that some overview articles can remain. There are two overview articles which desperately need to be written straight away: product software and method engineering ! (I see they have made two unsuccessful attempts to write the first one.) -- RHaworth 10:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with RHaworth's proposal, though I think having a brief article in Wikipedia on something like CMMI as an overview of the topic would be fine. These more in depth articles would be better served in a seperate wiki though. --Isotope23 13:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Concur. As with the Cantors some time ago, let the ME "team" create their own Wiki, to discuss and document their theses, and leave a link to it, on this Wiki, for those who want that degree of detail. In due course an agreed brief form of words can be dropped in here, to summarise the entire concept-field. -- Simon Cursitor 07:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yup. Transwiki to Wikia. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I will try to speak with prof. Brinkkemper personally this week to clarify matters. Most of these articles have been written in an inappropriate way (as I've seen happen before when Wikipedia is used in a class projects) but I think there is a lot of material than can be salvaged here. Simply delteing everything would look like a waste to me. —Ruud 00:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- [removed blunt comment about the quality of the articles —Ruud] —Ruud 02:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- To all, I would like to reflect to the original discussion about our Wikiproject here where the problem with our work seems to be that it is not written in line with the WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:V and WP:RS policies. The nomination for deletion of the project page was withdrawn, however the nomination is still visible at the top of the Wiki. Moreover, I would like to repeat the fact that our work is not original research. All efforts put in the updating process of existing Wiki's as well as the creation of new Wiki's is a direct result of a mandatory litarature study that every participating student committed. Therefore, all new knowledge originates from liteature. All students apply the Meta-Modeling Technique to explain the integrity of their Wiki topic of choice (all methods in the field of information systems and product software engineering). This may tend to give a flavor of originality, but the technique originates from 2003 (therefore also no original research). Also, the technique is only used to graphically represent facts, that would otherwise have are also represented textually. All models that students have incoporated in their Wiki's are direct translations of textual, factual elements. In my opinion, none of the incorporated efforts of our students are therefore against the WP:NOR policy. I do however agree that the other policies may be lacking in our works, but I propose to solve that (just as the original discussion actually concluded) instead of moving all our efforts to our own hosted Wiki. This way our efforts would become static and unaccessible to the larger audience of Wikipedia. Please consider my facts, opinion and proposal to work on the WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:V and WP:RS policies instead of removing all work. - Regards, Jurr 08:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ruud, please try to contact me instead of Prof. Brinkkemper as I am the first contact person related to our Wikipedia efforts in our research group. I would really appreciate to have things all clarified as we intend to live by the Wikipedia policies as much as we can. We are just not keen at it at this moment but we want to learn. Your previous remark is quite against the WP:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Don't_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point and WP:No_personal_attacks policies. I sincerely hope however that you are a bit more willing to point us in the right direction.
{{MEEproj}} Spamming
RfC User:R._Koot: User_talk:R._Koot#.7B.7BMEEproj.7D.7D_Spamming