This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems to me to be rather biased, with a hostile tone and derogatory links hidden by inappropriate pipes; e.g., [[Biased sample|distribution]] and [[Self-serving bias|post analysis]]. ➥the Epopt 03:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Made a bunch of changes, removed the derogatory links. Let me know what you think. -S
Looks like the comment about Marines is original research. Although I do agree somewhat with the editor's comments, I see no sources... plus it is way too POV.
Supersquid 13:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
More original research: "NMCI is referred to by many users (tongue-in-cheek) as the 'Non Mission Capable Intranet', out of frustration with a perceived lack of performance." I'd like to see a citation for that. ➥the Epopt 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Anecdotal evidence such as the quote in question are usually acceptable as unattributable if they reflect a "general trend in thought" among the referenced audience, and is considered to be verifiable. This makes it "original source material," and as such, doesn't require a citation. It's also caveated with "many," rather than "most" or "a majority of," and so can be categorized as a selective viewpoint, but one which supports the narrative.
Also, based on my personal experience, I think that it does reflect the attitude of "many" NMCI users, myself included.
Okiberv 04:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
There was an article that I read in the Navy Times that did cite that almost all of the NMCI users out there thought it sucked. Good luck tracking it down though
I think a lot of comparisons are being made in the above text between commercial systems, and systems that are supposed to run in a military environment, one way or another. Hardly fair given the obvious differences between the two. For starters, companies and corporations don't need to be worried in the same sort of way about certain fundamental aspects of security unless they are doing something illegal; more to the point, companies and corporations also have the choice to simply buy insurance instead of practicing rigorous asset protection. There is mentioned a pricing system for memory above that seems high at first glance, but when ones takes into account that the memory is probably priced against what it cost at the time the military stockpiled it. Maintenance costs may seem high, but only until one contemplates what it might actually cost to get a qualified computer technician on-site to repair a machine. Oh, by the way, this same technician also needs a pretty good security clearance. Imagine the plethora of electronic espionage opportunities that would exist if the government were simply calling in people from Best Buy. Zaphraud ( talk) 01:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
In the last couple of years, a lot has been written about NMCI by independent publications—like SIGNAL and Military Technology Information magazines—and I thought it would be a service to update the NMCI article on Wikipedia to include information from those articles.
There is still a debate over the extent to which EDS has succeeded in achieving all of NMCI’s stated goals, and I do not want to shortchange (let alone short-circuit) that debate. I do, however, think that the debate is more even now, with many voices represented.
In the future, I think this article should be restructured to make it easier for people to find information about specific components of NMCI, for example, listing its basic functions (security, consolidation, application management, procurement, etc), the state of the Navy’s IT infrastructure prior to its commencement, and the steps taken to improve the network in chronological order. Likewise, headings should be added for ease of navigation.
Does anyone have suggestions for additional topics I may have left out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passat123 ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Today I'm adding a new section to this article, incorporating (and expanding on) the criticisms of NMCI that an editor from 205.110.147.14 posted this week. I am also working on a larger edit to this entry, breaking the text up into logical sections and working in criticism and contextualizing EDS' decisions—showing how EDS has tried to balance the needs and expectations of the end-users against the requirements of maintaining a highly secure and stable network and managing a robust set of applications. Of course, I welcome any input on the discussion page and will try to incorporate all legitimate viewpoints into the next iteration of this article.
Passat123 ( talk) 13:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
On June 11, an anonymous user from 138.162.140.54 added a banner to article questioning its neutrality. I think the article adhere to NPOV, but is someone has suggestions for specific passages or even whole sections that should be improved, could they post them to this discussion page? I’ve reached out to other editors and would like to fix the article and remove the banner. Passat123 ( talk) 12:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be accurate to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.166.214 ( talk) 02:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I showed my wife the following quote: "HP depends on their comments to enhance NMCI, and the intent of the surveys has always been to pinpoint specific areas in need of improvement." She agreed that it was advertising, and not objective. As a user who has been frustrated by the limitations and excessive cost of NMCI, I certainly agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor.leigh ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
While I agree this article continues to read far too much like an ad for EDS/HP, I'm also too involved to consider toning this down -- N7bsn ( talk) 16:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm an HP rep and I'd like to add a Today section, between history and next steps
The Naval Enterprise Networks (NEN) program office, in collaboration with NMCI partner HP, which manages the CoSC program, is deploying a number of new Navy initiatives, including:
Tablet laptops for Navy recruiters
Hosted Virtual Desktop (HVD) capability
Expanded support for smartcards
Enterprise-wide operating system upgrade and improved end user hardware delivery times
Tjb hp ( talk) 21:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
As an NMCI user, I'd like to comment that NMCI is NOT in Japan, as it is a CONUS (Continental United States) Intranet only. The citation to the DON CIO should be check for currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.58 ( talk) 14:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This is correct. OCONUS connectivity is ONENET (OCONUS Navy Enterprise NETwork) controlled by SPAWAR, the USN's Systems Command.
TomConsidine (
talk) 22:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
References
This article needs to be updated with news about the NGEN contract which replaces COSC and went into effect during late 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.214.219 ( talk) 21:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I hope not to cause any fuss by saying, bluntly... Look, I know it probably made sense to who wrote this, but the page currently, literally says "[...] Weller said during [...]" without ever mentioning who Weller is. Further research shows this is just copy-pasted from the article cited. Okay, it might be obvious who Weller is, but this is an internationally public encyclopedia..... aside from (barely) being plaigarism, if the USN needs a wiki, wikipedia uses mediawiki which is freely downloaded... :( xerxesbeat ( talk) 17:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Navy Marine Corps Intranet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems to me to be rather biased, with a hostile tone and derogatory links hidden by inappropriate pipes; e.g., [[Biased sample|distribution]] and [[Self-serving bias|post analysis]]. ➥the Epopt 03:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Made a bunch of changes, removed the derogatory links. Let me know what you think. -S
Looks like the comment about Marines is original research. Although I do agree somewhat with the editor's comments, I see no sources... plus it is way too POV.
Supersquid 13:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
More original research: "NMCI is referred to by many users (tongue-in-cheek) as the 'Non Mission Capable Intranet', out of frustration with a perceived lack of performance." I'd like to see a citation for that. ➥the Epopt 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Anecdotal evidence such as the quote in question are usually acceptable as unattributable if they reflect a "general trend in thought" among the referenced audience, and is considered to be verifiable. This makes it "original source material," and as such, doesn't require a citation. It's also caveated with "many," rather than "most" or "a majority of," and so can be categorized as a selective viewpoint, but one which supports the narrative.
Also, based on my personal experience, I think that it does reflect the attitude of "many" NMCI users, myself included.
Okiberv 04:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
There was an article that I read in the Navy Times that did cite that almost all of the NMCI users out there thought it sucked. Good luck tracking it down though
I think a lot of comparisons are being made in the above text between commercial systems, and systems that are supposed to run in a military environment, one way or another. Hardly fair given the obvious differences between the two. For starters, companies and corporations don't need to be worried in the same sort of way about certain fundamental aspects of security unless they are doing something illegal; more to the point, companies and corporations also have the choice to simply buy insurance instead of practicing rigorous asset protection. There is mentioned a pricing system for memory above that seems high at first glance, but when ones takes into account that the memory is probably priced against what it cost at the time the military stockpiled it. Maintenance costs may seem high, but only until one contemplates what it might actually cost to get a qualified computer technician on-site to repair a machine. Oh, by the way, this same technician also needs a pretty good security clearance. Imagine the plethora of electronic espionage opportunities that would exist if the government were simply calling in people from Best Buy. Zaphraud ( talk) 01:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
In the last couple of years, a lot has been written about NMCI by independent publications—like SIGNAL and Military Technology Information magazines—and I thought it would be a service to update the NMCI article on Wikipedia to include information from those articles.
There is still a debate over the extent to which EDS has succeeded in achieving all of NMCI’s stated goals, and I do not want to shortchange (let alone short-circuit) that debate. I do, however, think that the debate is more even now, with many voices represented.
In the future, I think this article should be restructured to make it easier for people to find information about specific components of NMCI, for example, listing its basic functions (security, consolidation, application management, procurement, etc), the state of the Navy’s IT infrastructure prior to its commencement, and the steps taken to improve the network in chronological order. Likewise, headings should be added for ease of navigation.
Does anyone have suggestions for additional topics I may have left out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passat123 ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Today I'm adding a new section to this article, incorporating (and expanding on) the criticisms of NMCI that an editor from 205.110.147.14 posted this week. I am also working on a larger edit to this entry, breaking the text up into logical sections and working in criticism and contextualizing EDS' decisions—showing how EDS has tried to balance the needs and expectations of the end-users against the requirements of maintaining a highly secure and stable network and managing a robust set of applications. Of course, I welcome any input on the discussion page and will try to incorporate all legitimate viewpoints into the next iteration of this article.
Passat123 ( talk) 13:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
On June 11, an anonymous user from 138.162.140.54 added a banner to article questioning its neutrality. I think the article adhere to NPOV, but is someone has suggestions for specific passages or even whole sections that should be improved, could they post them to this discussion page? I’ve reached out to other editors and would like to fix the article and remove the banner. Passat123 ( talk) 12:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be accurate to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.166.214 ( talk) 02:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I showed my wife the following quote: "HP depends on their comments to enhance NMCI, and the intent of the surveys has always been to pinpoint specific areas in need of improvement." She agreed that it was advertising, and not objective. As a user who has been frustrated by the limitations and excessive cost of NMCI, I certainly agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor.leigh ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
While I agree this article continues to read far too much like an ad for EDS/HP, I'm also too involved to consider toning this down -- N7bsn ( talk) 16:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm an HP rep and I'd like to add a Today section, between history and next steps
The Naval Enterprise Networks (NEN) program office, in collaboration with NMCI partner HP, which manages the CoSC program, is deploying a number of new Navy initiatives, including:
Tablet laptops for Navy recruiters
Hosted Virtual Desktop (HVD) capability
Expanded support for smartcards
Enterprise-wide operating system upgrade and improved end user hardware delivery times
Tjb hp ( talk) 21:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
As an NMCI user, I'd like to comment that NMCI is NOT in Japan, as it is a CONUS (Continental United States) Intranet only. The citation to the DON CIO should be check for currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.58 ( talk) 14:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This is correct. OCONUS connectivity is ONENET (OCONUS Navy Enterprise NETwork) controlled by SPAWAR, the USN's Systems Command.
TomConsidine (
talk) 22:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
References
This article needs to be updated with news about the NGEN contract which replaces COSC and went into effect during late 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.214.219 ( talk) 21:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I hope not to cause any fuss by saying, bluntly... Look, I know it probably made sense to who wrote this, but the page currently, literally says "[...] Weller said during [...]" without ever mentioning who Weller is. Further research shows this is just copy-pasted from the article cited. Okay, it might be obvious who Weller is, but this is an internationally public encyclopedia..... aside from (barely) being plaigarism, if the USN needs a wiki, wikipedia uses mediawiki which is freely downloaded... :( xerxesbeat ( talk) 17:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Navy Marine Corps Intranet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)