Jump to content

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Method Engineering Encyclopedia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Centralized discussion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Goonies~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 07:19, 19 April 2006 (→Thoughts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Method engineering was closed with the conclusion nomination withdrawn with no outside votes for deletion.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:

Another set of related articles in this project is:

-- RHaworth 11:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Proposals

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Yup. Transwiki to Wikia. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Thoughts

Gentlepeople, as (I hope) a neutral in these discussions I have a couple of points to make.

  1. Some of the entries that seem to have been provided by the project are certainly based on referenced sources, techniques and tools and as such I would fully support their presence on Wikipedia. examples include:
  2. I am however concerned at the volume (quantity) of text on those pages that appears to have been drwan directly (close to verbatim) from the seminal texts themselves and as such the potential copyright violation that may have resulted.
  3. I am also concerned about the large number of pages such as those on UML, ITIL and other processes and practices that have been tagged by this project in the past few days, many of which don't appear to contain significant input from and certainly can't be held to be a part of the work of this project. There is a difference between arguing that a page forms a component of the complete work covered by, or is referenced by .... and suggesting that a page is a part of ... the project. Some might read this as a cynical attempt to make the project appear more valuable and a contributor of more material than it has, to date, contributed. I don't think that this is neccesary and believe that much of the work proposed by the project is worthy of inclusion on the basis that:
    1. It follows the Wikipedia style guidelines
    2. It accurately describes the processes, frameworks and methods that is proposes
    3. That it doesn't exceed fair use doctrine or other relevant legal rights of the author(s)
    4. That the project identifies it's 'contribution' and doesn't attempt to claim work that is, in part or in whole, the work of other individuals or of the community as a whole.
    5. Preferably (but less essential) that the page creators/significant contributors provide some Talk: type information and forum to discuss their work and become actively involved in it so as to engage others in its improvement and enhancement.

Also please note that pages such as ISPL have not followed Wikipedia guidelines for attribution of images and as a result are scheduled to, or have had, their images deleted or removed which detracts considerably from any value add in the article, and potentially reduces the volume of non-copyright material included.

Simply my POV but I hope a contribution from outside might be useful.

Mark G 23:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, when I noticed the flagging of the ITIL page as a part of the MEE project, I was as worried as you! Therefore I contacted the originator of the flagging. He seems not to be part of this project but instead (as a Wiki-admin) tracking where changes by the MEE Team occured. Anyhow I don't yet know how a planned delete will affect the pages non-MEE people (like us) worked on. That still worries me a lot! I think the communication on both sides (MEE and Admins) is worth improofing. Regards, --Goonies 07:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Method_Engineering_Encyclopedia&oldid=49130736"