![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This is the first archive for Talk:Six Sigma, covering discussion from January 2004 to August 2005. Further discussion should take place at the current talk page.
This was from the Software engineering talk page.
I'm not sure Six Sigma belongs here at all. Here's a typical example of six sigma silliness:
http://www.questdiagnostics.com/brand/b_home_six_sigma.html
What can one say of a methodology that does not recognize a difference between "3.4 defects per million" and "perfection?"
And what can one say of a metholody that doesn't seem to get the numbers right? Unless, of course, Excel is wrong... 2*normdist(-6,0,1,true) = 1.98e-9. In other words, the areas under the tails of a normal distribution 6σ from the mean are 1.98 per BILLION, not 3.4 per million.
Apparently "six sigma" is just empty bragging about how great they are, with no true quantitative meaning.
Meanwhile, why, exactly, is 3.4 defects per million the right number to strive for? Why isn't it a nice round number like 1 per million? Or, say, 1.98 per billion (six sigma, in other words?)
It's things like this that give the word "methodology" a bad name. Dpbsmith 01:20, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Most of the text of the article is devoted to an explanation of why it's called "six sigma" against all seeming reason and knowledge of the normal distribution. Note that the text makes a nod to the idea that six-sigma is nonsense relative to software engineering. Improvements to that text are invited. In fact, in the view of its author the present text is too pussy-footing and polite. Dandrake 02:52, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
the wikipedia article, along with all the top results in google, are nicely complicated. that's ok, it's a complicated subject with a long and changing history. but what is lacking, from wikipedia AND from the top results, is just the facts. can someone write or does anyone have a link to a page with just the factual numbers, with a six-sigma bell curve illustration? here's one, but it only shows to 3-sigma and doesn't have all the numbers: http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml
However market leaders have measurably reached six sigmas in numerous processes.
What "market leaders"? In what market? This sentence is really bloody annoying. Isn't this an example of Weasel words?
-- 221.249.13.34 05:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Using a normal distributon table, 6 sigma actually translates to about 2 defects per billion opportunities only.
But how we get 3.4 defects per million opportunities , which we normally define as 6 sigma? Motorola has determined, through years of process and data collection, that processes vary and drift over time - what they call the Long-Term Dynamic Mean Variation. This variation typically falls between 1.4 and 1.6.
After a process has been improved using the Six Sigma DMAIC methodology, we calculate the process standard deviation and sigma value. These are considered to be short-term values because the data only contains common cause variation -- DMAIC projects and the associated collection of process data occur over a period of months, rather than years.
Long-term data, on the other hand, contains common cause variation and special (or assignable) cause variation. Because short-term data does not contain this special cause variation, it will typically be of a higher process capability than the long-term data. This difference is the 1.5 sigma shift. Given adequate process data, you can determine the factor most appropriate for your process.
"By offsetting normal distribution by a 1.5 standard deviation on either side, the adjustment takes into account what happens to every process over many cycles of manufacturing… Simply put, accommodating shift and drift is our 'fudge factor,' or a way to allow for unexpected errors or movement over time. Using 1.5 sigma as a standard deviation gives us a strong advantage in improving quality not only in industrial process and designs, but in commercial processes as well. It allows us to design products and services that are relatively impervious, or 'robust,' to natural, unavoidable sources of variation in processes, components, and materials."
There are numerous examples of companies that have achieved at or near six sigma levels of quality. The hard drive on your computer has a bit error rate that is much better than six sigma... usually 9 or 10 sigma. Airline safety exceeds six sigma. Many automotive part suppliers are at close to six sigma quality levels.
Yes, the whole business of calling 3.4 DPPM "six sigma" is silly in the extreme. It was probably invented for marketing purposes. However, six sigma as a program, properly done, is anything but silly. It can profoundly improve a company's competitive position.
The debate towards the end of the Why Six section should be resolved I think (doesn't that kind of thing belong in Talk anyway?). I lack the expertise to do a proper job, but if noone else jumps in I'll have a bash in the next day or so.
-- Stephenh 12:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This link is a partial explanation: http://www.qualitydigest.com/dec97/html/motsix.html
From what I can piece together (note that I am not a six-sigma-black-belt, but I have a brown-belt in seeing through marketing hype):
Part to part variation: 6 sigma of samples within acceptable tolerances (ie 2 per billion are outside spec)
Long term variation: This is quoted at 1.5 sigma (defined by Motorola as an aim, I guess). I believe what is being said is that the long term variation degrades the original six-sigma-of-samples-within-tolerances to 4.5-sigma-of-samples-within-tolerances. This gives a combination of 4.5 and 9 sigma error, of which the 4.5 sigma variation dominates to give 3.4 per million.
So where does this leave us? Motorola's process appears to relate to their customers (ie final delivered item) and not to (say) their transistors (1 million transistors needs more than 4.5 sigma per transistor!).
This is a long way from any mathematical definition, as far as I can tell.
I did a little work on the first section; as always feel free to do whatever's necessary to improve upon my changes. My inference is that Six Sigma (both cap) is the name of the methodology, whereas six-sigma is an adjective meaning "corresponding to the sixth standard deviation". Therefore, in one instance I corrected Nine Sigma to nine-sigma, b/c AFAIK no one has published a metholodolgy called Nine Sigma. Does the community agree with me? - PhilipR 14:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that this discussion is a mess? Yes, some have, but why not do something?
The comments arguing against 6-sigma look not unreasonable, but it's the sort of treatment that (as I think someone has already said) belong in the Talk page, not the text. To begin with, it jumps into Cp and Cpk without a hint of definition. Foo. Should I venture in and start the exdit wars, or submit it to peer review by people who handle statistics better than I? Trying to figure that out.
And then there's the amazing little gem I reproduce here:
What on Earth is this supposed to mean? What it seems to mean is that when you put two parts together, each of which has variations with some standard deviation, the combination has a smaller standard deviation. Talk about goofy!
Concretely, let an assembly have some measurement with a tolerance of 5. It is made from two pieces, and their deviations from spec are phsyically additive. Suppose part A is off by 3.0. Part B is off by 2.1 in the same direction: result, off by 5.1, out of spec. Part B is off in the opposite direction: result, off by 0.9, in spec. The measurement might, for instance, be the diameter of a hole and of the pin that fits in it. This is the sort of thing we're addressing, right?
Now, if A and B each have a sigma of 1, the sigma for the combination isn't less than 1 because errors will cancel out so often; it's more, because they won't cancel out so often. In fact, it's about 1.4 (square root of 2). Does anybody who deals with statistics not know that? For those who need a refresher, [1].
I'm about to replace this with something that isn't flagrantly wrong. If I'm missing the point completely, someone tell me, please.
Dandrake 19:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
1. The article is not a talk page. Hypotheticals, questions, arguments, etc. should be minimized.
2. NPOV - It doesn't matter if the topic is daft, just marketing, etc. Describe what it *is*, not how you feel about it.
Suggestion:
Describe and explain from adherent's point of view. Raise points from detractors. Give treatment to rebuttals.
Wikipedia is not in the business of assigning validity to any idea/practice - it merely describes things. -- 23:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines found at Wikipedia:External links clearly state that it is a good idea to include several reference-type external links in an article, even if they are commercial websites. The idea here is not to have half a dozen random pages that are selling products, nor is it to have absolutely no external links. A few links to high quality, informative websites will improve this page. I do not appreciate the efforts of 69.220.192.25 ( talk · contribs) in eliminating the links. S/he has not made any effort to discuss this issue, though I have asked for comment on the user's talk page. I am still open to discuss the issue, and hope that s/he will quit simply reverting every external links related change made on this page. -- Spangineer (háblame) 02:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I think we should have the following links
- GE - Motoroloa - ASQ - isixsigma - treqna.com (this is my site) - please recommend others...
So lets please add them to the list. I also think that we should not censor websites people add unless they are not relevant to six sigma. Censoring for personal gains seems to be against the Wikipedia spirit. Posted by FeralTitan
PS: How do we catch the arsonist? Posted by User:FeralTitan -- Spangineer (háblame) 19:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree with your assessment. I see numerous google ads, but what really bugs me is the "You no longer have to spend $200, $300, or more for Six Sigma and other quality control charting or SPC, (statistical process control), software with features you may NEVER USE and still meet customer requirements! Our SPC software is only $150.00 (USD)". That's marketing hype, and it's the primary content of the page. The ads on iSixSigma are prevelant, yes, more so than many other commercial websites, and there are alot of them at the bottom of the page, but the centered material is not advertising, it's information. -- Spangineer (háblame) 13:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I am not Mr. Utteruser; so Spangieer, you are getting petty about this and seem to have a big chip on your shoulder. I fail to understand why you are so egoistic about this subject. So next time before you make an accusation, please think about how it reflects on you - poorly needless to say.I have tried to maintain a moderate tone in this affair and always suggested that the list is 'SECULAR'.
I did not put up treqna.com here today. If you notice it is from a different IP address and not my username or ip. So effectively you have CENSORED what someone else put up, and he/she had nothing to do with Treqna.com - that is my friend also a good example of VANDALISM. I would like to know how you intend to BLOCK me! Actually I would like to know who the hell you are to do so?
Please don't try to make judgements about which Six Sigma site is good or bad - it is NOT your position to do so. A Wiki is open to everyone - that includes ME and Mr utter and the gentleman/lady behind 69.220.194.41 Also, I really would like to know what your qualification/understanding of Six Sigma is and while you are at it - please explain to me what you fing missing in Treqna.com(please notice that it is a voluntary site, incidentally it does not have any advertisments!) - yeah and don't say free registeration requirement is an issue. Make points about Six Sigma knowledge. Do you know enough to IMPOSE your decisions on others?!?
Commercial or NOT is not a debate. I personally think isixsigma should stay and so should the other sites. But your reasoning for defending isixsigma is completely fallicous and extremely limited.Nonetheless that is not isixsigma's fault only your limited use of reason, they can't be blamed for it.
Your understanding of PageRank also seems limited. Please goto GOOGLE and read a little about Page Rank and how it works. Also, if you really wish to learn something, google for criticsm on Pagerank and you will find that it is not a divine method of figuring out which site counts.
Lastly, please let spalding speak for himself.
Mr. UtterUser, please comment so that our Mr.Suspicious Spangineer may differentiate between us and that we may be allowed in the kingdom of heaven once more.
Spangineer I eagerly await your response. And I also suggest AGAIN that we allow all sites, for its wisest. FeralTitan 15:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Wow! This is an awful lot of discussion for one little section. Anyway, I just wanted to voice my support for Spangineer's work here. We have guidelines that have been fine-tuned in practice, so they should be followed, and he is trying to do just that. They do say that a site requiring registration should be used only if there are no others. Spalding 16:59, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Spangieer, Thanks for your measured response, it does make me believe what you are saying. And it seems to me that you are trying to do your job as best as possible, also that you are taking cognizance of other opinions. Apologies if I blew my top in the last post, but I find implications about character unpleasant. You will have to take my word on the fact that I and UtterUser aren't the same people. If I wanted to say or do anything, I would do it using my own account.
As far as joining wikipedia and getting into a discussion right away is concerned - I don't understand how that a bad thing. As far as adding treqna is concerned, I couldn't care less anymore. One thing that does bother me is the fact that someone else added treqna to Wiki, I don't know who it was or if they even know what a discussion on an article is, I discovered all this functionality recently myself. This situation unfortunately implies that everytime someone who is not proficient in using Wiki, adds treqna as a link - it will just get shot down.
About google as a measure of what adds in the links section - my opinion is fairly well known by now. A couple of thoughts I want to leave behind on the subject are - 1. My arbitary and limited scan of some other Wiki pages shows a fair number of links on any subject that don't figure anywhere in Google. So why has the phenomena of a rapidly growing list that doesn't add value apply there. 2. If this is a policy you wish to follow, then it implies that wiki does not allow new websites a fair chance - the time it takes to get any kind of page rank is months if not longer and to rank as a top google hit may take much longer. 3. Wiki also then becomes a place for the obvious, something that can be achieved by googling. Any positive experience a wiki user may have with a new or unranked site can never be shared, in other words, no other six sigma site (in this instance) no matter how good it is - shows up, even if people find it of value. In my personal opinion if wiki has to be an encyclopedic experience and work - it needs to be holistic and exhaustive, atleast to some degree.
As far as file under downloads at treqna are concerned, it is easier for a small volunteer group to manage a bunch of users if they could be tracked in some fashion. Registeration allows us to restrict people from abusing the forum, we also believe it will help build a sense of community - this may be essential if we are to mobilize any commitment from people and have them contribute to an open source concept. The site is new, but a lot of knowledge on the site is being made available without registeration, an article section is browsable by everyone, the forums are readable and the Glossary and other sections will be...once they are available. Registeration is limited to downloading and using the forums. If you or someone else finds value in the site, please do put it up, albeit with a disclaimer that it requires registeration.I hope all the energy the lot of us have spent in debating this comes to some good use. Cheers :) FeralTitan 19:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is clear enough on the matter of criteria for excluding links. Spangineer is making a good-faith attempt to offer reasonable and consistent criteria to establish what is link-spamming and what is not — he should be treated with according civility. If anyone feels that there are shortcomings in reasonably prominent external links, readers should be given some indication of the issues in the entry via NPOV presentation of external authorities (i.e. do not try to make a point of your own or present original research). If a site is so far outside of the mainstream that controversies it generates are not regarded as notable, the site probably ought not be linked. Adding links to an external site from someone who is not a recognised authority allows subversion of these editorial policies: if you want to contribute on the subject for wikipedia, please contribute here and under wikipedia policies and guidlines. Anything else is subject to charges of self-promotion. Buffyg 15:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This is the first archive for Talk:Six Sigma, covering discussion from January 2004 to August 2005. Further discussion should take place at the current talk page.
This was from the Software engineering talk page.
I'm not sure Six Sigma belongs here at all. Here's a typical example of six sigma silliness:
http://www.questdiagnostics.com/brand/b_home_six_sigma.html
What can one say of a methodology that does not recognize a difference between "3.4 defects per million" and "perfection?"
And what can one say of a metholody that doesn't seem to get the numbers right? Unless, of course, Excel is wrong... 2*normdist(-6,0,1,true) = 1.98e-9. In other words, the areas under the tails of a normal distribution 6σ from the mean are 1.98 per BILLION, not 3.4 per million.
Apparently "six sigma" is just empty bragging about how great they are, with no true quantitative meaning.
Meanwhile, why, exactly, is 3.4 defects per million the right number to strive for? Why isn't it a nice round number like 1 per million? Or, say, 1.98 per billion (six sigma, in other words?)
It's things like this that give the word "methodology" a bad name. Dpbsmith 01:20, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Most of the text of the article is devoted to an explanation of why it's called "six sigma" against all seeming reason and knowledge of the normal distribution. Note that the text makes a nod to the idea that six-sigma is nonsense relative to software engineering. Improvements to that text are invited. In fact, in the view of its author the present text is too pussy-footing and polite. Dandrake 02:52, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
the wikipedia article, along with all the top results in google, are nicely complicated. that's ok, it's a complicated subject with a long and changing history. but what is lacking, from wikipedia AND from the top results, is just the facts. can someone write or does anyone have a link to a page with just the factual numbers, with a six-sigma bell curve illustration? here's one, but it only shows to 3-sigma and doesn't have all the numbers: http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml
However market leaders have measurably reached six sigmas in numerous processes.
What "market leaders"? In what market? This sentence is really bloody annoying. Isn't this an example of Weasel words?
-- 221.249.13.34 05:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Using a normal distributon table, 6 sigma actually translates to about 2 defects per billion opportunities only.
But how we get 3.4 defects per million opportunities , which we normally define as 6 sigma? Motorola has determined, through years of process and data collection, that processes vary and drift over time - what they call the Long-Term Dynamic Mean Variation. This variation typically falls between 1.4 and 1.6.
After a process has been improved using the Six Sigma DMAIC methodology, we calculate the process standard deviation and sigma value. These are considered to be short-term values because the data only contains common cause variation -- DMAIC projects and the associated collection of process data occur over a period of months, rather than years.
Long-term data, on the other hand, contains common cause variation and special (or assignable) cause variation. Because short-term data does not contain this special cause variation, it will typically be of a higher process capability than the long-term data. This difference is the 1.5 sigma shift. Given adequate process data, you can determine the factor most appropriate for your process.
"By offsetting normal distribution by a 1.5 standard deviation on either side, the adjustment takes into account what happens to every process over many cycles of manufacturing… Simply put, accommodating shift and drift is our 'fudge factor,' or a way to allow for unexpected errors or movement over time. Using 1.5 sigma as a standard deviation gives us a strong advantage in improving quality not only in industrial process and designs, but in commercial processes as well. It allows us to design products and services that are relatively impervious, or 'robust,' to natural, unavoidable sources of variation in processes, components, and materials."
There are numerous examples of companies that have achieved at or near six sigma levels of quality. The hard drive on your computer has a bit error rate that is much better than six sigma... usually 9 or 10 sigma. Airline safety exceeds six sigma. Many automotive part suppliers are at close to six sigma quality levels.
Yes, the whole business of calling 3.4 DPPM "six sigma" is silly in the extreme. It was probably invented for marketing purposes. However, six sigma as a program, properly done, is anything but silly. It can profoundly improve a company's competitive position.
The debate towards the end of the Why Six section should be resolved I think (doesn't that kind of thing belong in Talk anyway?). I lack the expertise to do a proper job, but if noone else jumps in I'll have a bash in the next day or so.
-- Stephenh 12:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This link is a partial explanation: http://www.qualitydigest.com/dec97/html/motsix.html
From what I can piece together (note that I am not a six-sigma-black-belt, but I have a brown-belt in seeing through marketing hype):
Part to part variation: 6 sigma of samples within acceptable tolerances (ie 2 per billion are outside spec)
Long term variation: This is quoted at 1.5 sigma (defined by Motorola as an aim, I guess). I believe what is being said is that the long term variation degrades the original six-sigma-of-samples-within-tolerances to 4.5-sigma-of-samples-within-tolerances. This gives a combination of 4.5 and 9 sigma error, of which the 4.5 sigma variation dominates to give 3.4 per million.
So where does this leave us? Motorola's process appears to relate to their customers (ie final delivered item) and not to (say) their transistors (1 million transistors needs more than 4.5 sigma per transistor!).
This is a long way from any mathematical definition, as far as I can tell.
I did a little work on the first section; as always feel free to do whatever's necessary to improve upon my changes. My inference is that Six Sigma (both cap) is the name of the methodology, whereas six-sigma is an adjective meaning "corresponding to the sixth standard deviation". Therefore, in one instance I corrected Nine Sigma to nine-sigma, b/c AFAIK no one has published a metholodolgy called Nine Sigma. Does the community agree with me? - PhilipR 14:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that this discussion is a mess? Yes, some have, but why not do something?
The comments arguing against 6-sigma look not unreasonable, but it's the sort of treatment that (as I think someone has already said) belong in the Talk page, not the text. To begin with, it jumps into Cp and Cpk without a hint of definition. Foo. Should I venture in and start the exdit wars, or submit it to peer review by people who handle statistics better than I? Trying to figure that out.
And then there's the amazing little gem I reproduce here:
What on Earth is this supposed to mean? What it seems to mean is that when you put two parts together, each of which has variations with some standard deviation, the combination has a smaller standard deviation. Talk about goofy!
Concretely, let an assembly have some measurement with a tolerance of 5. It is made from two pieces, and their deviations from spec are phsyically additive. Suppose part A is off by 3.0. Part B is off by 2.1 in the same direction: result, off by 5.1, out of spec. Part B is off in the opposite direction: result, off by 0.9, in spec. The measurement might, for instance, be the diameter of a hole and of the pin that fits in it. This is the sort of thing we're addressing, right?
Now, if A and B each have a sigma of 1, the sigma for the combination isn't less than 1 because errors will cancel out so often; it's more, because they won't cancel out so often. In fact, it's about 1.4 (square root of 2). Does anybody who deals with statistics not know that? For those who need a refresher, [1].
I'm about to replace this with something that isn't flagrantly wrong. If I'm missing the point completely, someone tell me, please.
Dandrake 19:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
1. The article is not a talk page. Hypotheticals, questions, arguments, etc. should be minimized.
2. NPOV - It doesn't matter if the topic is daft, just marketing, etc. Describe what it *is*, not how you feel about it.
Suggestion:
Describe and explain from adherent's point of view. Raise points from detractors. Give treatment to rebuttals.
Wikipedia is not in the business of assigning validity to any idea/practice - it merely describes things. -- 23:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines found at Wikipedia:External links clearly state that it is a good idea to include several reference-type external links in an article, even if they are commercial websites. The idea here is not to have half a dozen random pages that are selling products, nor is it to have absolutely no external links. A few links to high quality, informative websites will improve this page. I do not appreciate the efforts of 69.220.192.25 ( talk · contribs) in eliminating the links. S/he has not made any effort to discuss this issue, though I have asked for comment on the user's talk page. I am still open to discuss the issue, and hope that s/he will quit simply reverting every external links related change made on this page. -- Spangineer (háblame) 02:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I think we should have the following links
- GE - Motoroloa - ASQ - isixsigma - treqna.com (this is my site) - please recommend others...
So lets please add them to the list. I also think that we should not censor websites people add unless they are not relevant to six sigma. Censoring for personal gains seems to be against the Wikipedia spirit. Posted by FeralTitan
PS: How do we catch the arsonist? Posted by User:FeralTitan -- Spangineer (háblame) 19:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree with your assessment. I see numerous google ads, but what really bugs me is the "You no longer have to spend $200, $300, or more for Six Sigma and other quality control charting or SPC, (statistical process control), software with features you may NEVER USE and still meet customer requirements! Our SPC software is only $150.00 (USD)". That's marketing hype, and it's the primary content of the page. The ads on iSixSigma are prevelant, yes, more so than many other commercial websites, and there are alot of them at the bottom of the page, but the centered material is not advertising, it's information. -- Spangineer (háblame) 13:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I am not Mr. Utteruser; so Spangieer, you are getting petty about this and seem to have a big chip on your shoulder. I fail to understand why you are so egoistic about this subject. So next time before you make an accusation, please think about how it reflects on you - poorly needless to say.I have tried to maintain a moderate tone in this affair and always suggested that the list is 'SECULAR'.
I did not put up treqna.com here today. If you notice it is from a different IP address and not my username or ip. So effectively you have CENSORED what someone else put up, and he/she had nothing to do with Treqna.com - that is my friend also a good example of VANDALISM. I would like to know how you intend to BLOCK me! Actually I would like to know who the hell you are to do so?
Please don't try to make judgements about which Six Sigma site is good or bad - it is NOT your position to do so. A Wiki is open to everyone - that includes ME and Mr utter and the gentleman/lady behind 69.220.194.41 Also, I really would like to know what your qualification/understanding of Six Sigma is and while you are at it - please explain to me what you fing missing in Treqna.com(please notice that it is a voluntary site, incidentally it does not have any advertisments!) - yeah and don't say free registeration requirement is an issue. Make points about Six Sigma knowledge. Do you know enough to IMPOSE your decisions on others?!?
Commercial or NOT is not a debate. I personally think isixsigma should stay and so should the other sites. But your reasoning for defending isixsigma is completely fallicous and extremely limited.Nonetheless that is not isixsigma's fault only your limited use of reason, they can't be blamed for it.
Your understanding of PageRank also seems limited. Please goto GOOGLE and read a little about Page Rank and how it works. Also, if you really wish to learn something, google for criticsm on Pagerank and you will find that it is not a divine method of figuring out which site counts.
Lastly, please let spalding speak for himself.
Mr. UtterUser, please comment so that our Mr.Suspicious Spangineer may differentiate between us and that we may be allowed in the kingdom of heaven once more.
Spangineer I eagerly await your response. And I also suggest AGAIN that we allow all sites, for its wisest. FeralTitan 15:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Wow! This is an awful lot of discussion for one little section. Anyway, I just wanted to voice my support for Spangineer's work here. We have guidelines that have been fine-tuned in practice, so they should be followed, and he is trying to do just that. They do say that a site requiring registration should be used only if there are no others. Spalding 16:59, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Spangieer, Thanks for your measured response, it does make me believe what you are saying. And it seems to me that you are trying to do your job as best as possible, also that you are taking cognizance of other opinions. Apologies if I blew my top in the last post, but I find implications about character unpleasant. You will have to take my word on the fact that I and UtterUser aren't the same people. If I wanted to say or do anything, I would do it using my own account.
As far as joining wikipedia and getting into a discussion right away is concerned - I don't understand how that a bad thing. As far as adding treqna is concerned, I couldn't care less anymore. One thing that does bother me is the fact that someone else added treqna to Wiki, I don't know who it was or if they even know what a discussion on an article is, I discovered all this functionality recently myself. This situation unfortunately implies that everytime someone who is not proficient in using Wiki, adds treqna as a link - it will just get shot down.
About google as a measure of what adds in the links section - my opinion is fairly well known by now. A couple of thoughts I want to leave behind on the subject are - 1. My arbitary and limited scan of some other Wiki pages shows a fair number of links on any subject that don't figure anywhere in Google. So why has the phenomena of a rapidly growing list that doesn't add value apply there. 2. If this is a policy you wish to follow, then it implies that wiki does not allow new websites a fair chance - the time it takes to get any kind of page rank is months if not longer and to rank as a top google hit may take much longer. 3. Wiki also then becomes a place for the obvious, something that can be achieved by googling. Any positive experience a wiki user may have with a new or unranked site can never be shared, in other words, no other six sigma site (in this instance) no matter how good it is - shows up, even if people find it of value. In my personal opinion if wiki has to be an encyclopedic experience and work - it needs to be holistic and exhaustive, atleast to some degree.
As far as file under downloads at treqna are concerned, it is easier for a small volunteer group to manage a bunch of users if they could be tracked in some fashion. Registeration allows us to restrict people from abusing the forum, we also believe it will help build a sense of community - this may be essential if we are to mobilize any commitment from people and have them contribute to an open source concept. The site is new, but a lot of knowledge on the site is being made available without registeration, an article section is browsable by everyone, the forums are readable and the Glossary and other sections will be...once they are available. Registeration is limited to downloading and using the forums. If you or someone else finds value in the site, please do put it up, albeit with a disclaimer that it requires registeration.I hope all the energy the lot of us have spent in debating this comes to some good use. Cheers :) FeralTitan 19:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is clear enough on the matter of criteria for excluding links. Spangineer is making a good-faith attempt to offer reasonable and consistent criteria to establish what is link-spamming and what is not — he should be treated with according civility. If anyone feels that there are shortcomings in reasonably prominent external links, readers should be given some indication of the issues in the entry via NPOV presentation of external authorities (i.e. do not try to make a point of your own or present original research). If a site is so far outside of the mainstream that controversies it generates are not regarded as notable, the site probably ought not be linked. Adding links to an external site from someone who is not a recognised authority allows subversion of these editorial policies: if you want to contribute on the subject for wikipedia, please contribute here and under wikipedia policies and guidlines. Anything else is subject to charges of self-promotion. Buffyg 15:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)