Talk:PRINCE2/Archives/2013

External links

I have cleaned out what a fairly large number of inappropriate external links in this article. This appears to be disputed by at least one anonymous editor, so I have outlined my removals here for discussion.

The list of 'software' is simply an unqualified list of commercial links acting as a service directory. Please see the policy at WP:NOT#DIR. If anyone feels software here is notable according to WP:SOFTWARE then please create an article and we can set up an corresponding category - a directory here is not appropriate and is merely advertising.

In the 'external links' there are three links to prince2.org, ogc.gov.uk, and usergoup.org.uk which appear to be official sites: I'm assuming that is not disputed and they seem to pass WP:EL. The rest seems fairly useless:

• www.p2ug.com, "The PRINCE2 User Group Forum" - Low content site with a handful of posts, maybe five or six this year. This adds nothing to the article.
• prince2.technorealism.org, "PRINCE2 Wiki" - Affiliated with the p2ug group above, apparently. Wiki with maybe nine changes in the last 15 months, and none this year. Ultra low content as it is.
• www.microupdate.net, "Prince2 TiddlyWiki complete", Good outline content, but none of the secondary links are filled in. Also does not appear to have been touched in about 20 months.
• www.spoce.com, "Mini-Method for small projects" - Complete commercial spam for training classes - absolutely no reason for this.
• www.whyprince2.com, "Why Prince2 site: Background to PRINCE2 method", A handful of pages on general project management and an outline of PRINCE2 that then leads to a commercial training site. This seems to simply be a spam leader.
• www.ruleworks.co.uk, "PRINCE2 Guide - A to Z, FAQ and 1000+ Exam Questions" - Much of the content appears lifted from www.prince2.org.uk. Most, if not all, of the links lead to a subscription site, which seems to be the main reason for this link. The google ads are not excessive, but there's no reason to have them for a subscription based site.
• www.outperform.co.uk, "Prince2 2005 Changes and Product & Process Matrix" - Low content consultant's page. Almost every page ends with a list of prices and services from a single vendor along with a pitch. Looks simply like a promotional site.
• www.prince2.org.uk/web/site/ConsultingAccred/ACOListing.asp, "List of Registered Consultants" - there is no need to link to prince2.org.uk again.

If the 'official' sites are not useful, I do not see ant that are. I'm fine with simply removing all links if there are objections to the official ones. Kuru ^talk 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your points on the software have some validity. On the links, none at all. You demonstrate a poor understanding of Prince2, which is why you err towards the so-called 'official sites', which are actually poor. Either zap all the links, or none of them. To retain links on the basis of the word 'official' is adhoc at best, and definitely ill advised. It is not what wiki is meant to be. I would add as well that some of your comments above are horribly subjective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.150.224.172 (talk • contribs).

You could, of course, explain your own logic on what value the links add to the article. Feigned indignation over PRINCE2 'understanding' does not seem particularly useful. Since at least two of the links are blatant spam, which you have re-added with only a tangential disparagement of 'official' links, I'm going to have to ask you to explain your actions. Please be specific as to what you feel each site contributes. Kuru ^talk 23:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not defending every link there, but your broad brush is missing one gigantic reality. There is a battle raging with regard to the OGC, over an 'open' versus 'closed' future. The 'official' channels are trying to wrap these methods up behind paid/closed doors, using APMG as a shield. They are trying to deny knowledge, unless you pay them for it. Do you not see the irony of what you did by deleting all but links to the 'official' sites, which are low quality anyway? This is a wiki. It is open and its ethos is to provide free knowledge to all. Yet you zap links which provide unfettered knowledge, or at least not the cartel's knowledge, incuding even to other wikis? Think about it.

Wiki is part of 'open' and it should not be used as a tool to blatantly support 'closed' cartelism, especially in the current sensitive context. There are some half decent links there and some poor ones, the latter include what you call 'official'. None are outstanding quality in all honesty. The very least you should do though is balance open and closed, and not chop open and support closed. I hope it makes some sense to you and you understand this perspective.

Wow -what was a useful, interesting and resourceful page has become a very weak, mono-cultural blurb about PRINCE2. No links, no debate, no 'people's view', no links or resources for all the independent PRINCE2 practitioners who will learn nothing from this page now. I agree with all the 'closed' vs 'open' comments, above. Oh well, another free voice is stifled... Stevo 10:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)stevo

You're free to correct the article to introduce 'closed' vs. 'open' issues using cited and referenced materials using reliable and verifiable sources. This is intended as an encyclopedia, not your personal blog, not a directory to promote yor products.

Per the above, I'm going to remove all of the links and we can restore them based on discussions here. I'm looking for useful sites that actually add to the content of the page, and I'm simply not seeing that with the very poor links there now, many of which are blatantly spam. Please constructively discuss specific links rather than general moaning about how you're being "stifled" and how the cartel is out to get to you. This rhetoric is not helpful. If you can make your point without theatrics, I'm more than happy to listen. Kuru ^talk 12:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What is this? A dictatorship? King Kuru must not be questioned, or he stamps has jackboot down? Who are you? What makes YOU correct? Silly me. I thought wiki was a 'collaboration'. It seems to be for others, but not he who calls himself Kuru. Read your own 'theatrics' and then consider what they make you sound like. As for the sites themselves, you have even chopped the other wiki's. I wonder about that. There is only room for one wiki in your view? I suppose that would make you consistent. Your comments on the other sites are your opinion as well. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. I said it three times, because your opinion is subjective. But most of all it is OPINION. The silver lining here? At least we now know the dictatorial nature of things around here. I've added so much trext in the past to wiki, but never again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.150.224.172 (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

One last point. You use the word 'concensus'. Where is the concensus for your change? I see your proposed action, and then two voices disagreeing with it. Yet you still go ahead? Is that what you call concensus? Sorry, but whoever you are, you are way off track and not helping Wikipedia one jot. And before you convince yourself I have vested interests here, I don't. I am a PM who knows a thing or two about this subject. Enough to see things more objectively than you it would appear. Over and out from me. It's your playgound, enjoy it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.150.224.172 (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

The editing of these pages, in my opinion, has taken a backward step. It used to be a very useful source of what's happening in the PRINCE2 world. As a PRINCE2 registered consultant I appreciate TSO/OGC's need to protect their copyright, but the dumbing down of these pages makes them little more valuable than the opening chapter within the manual (you get as much information from amazon). The value for me was in some of the external links which have now been removed. I also appreciate wikepedia's editorial code and since the policy is not to have directories, then so be it. It will just limit these pages to focus on the PRINCE2 method rather than the PRINCE2 community. I do take objection to the defamtory remarks made on each of the websites that have been removed. I'm partly responsible for www.outperform.co.uk and do not regard 56 pages of content, numerous white-papers, templates, presentations and checklists as 'low content', particularly since they've been produced by Registered Consultants qualified and licensed to use crown copyright. The particular article that was referenced was comparing the changes from the 2002 to the 2005 versions of the manual. Considering that 50% of PRINCE2 practitioners (circa 100,000 people) sat their exam prior to 2005, and that this information is not readily available elsewhere, we thought it would be useful for people to know (and simpler to add a link rather than to regurgitate the content within the wiki). I also take objection to the statement that 'Almost every page ends with a list of prices and services from a single vendor along with a pitch'. Erm, only 1 page of 56 pages has any service prices on them. Check the facts! Again, if the policy is to not have a directory, then simply state "this is a commercial site" and do away with the opinionated narrative. PRINCE2Andy 13:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I vote for putting all the links back. They add an option for users to look for more information. As long as the list is not very long (perhaps max. 12 links) then there is no need to apply censorship. When there are many links then the less useful ones could be trimmed away.

Hmmmm... looks like some rogue links have been added to the PRINCE2 page. We can't have that, they might be useful! Or, even worse, commercial and useful!. Go, Kuru, go! Stevo 09:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Stevo

External links tag I've had a look at the (sometimes heated) discussion regarding the external links on this article. I've also had a look at some of the WP guidelines such as the External Links policy. Based on what I've read there do seem to be many more external links than there should be. I have therefore tagged this article with a "clean up the external links" tag. We all know the benefit (search engine rankings) that external links have to the people who insert the links on the WP pages and I'm sure that each site owner sincerely believes that their site really does add value to the WP article. But let's be objective. Wikipedia is not a links directory - it is an encyclopedia.

So who should stay in? Prince2 is "owned" by OGC (well they own the trademark anyway) and they have empowered APMG to administer it. Those two links should obviously be in the list. But I believe everything else should go. Even the so called official user groups look dodgy. If they really are official then shouldn't the OGC and APMG websites reference them? The wikipedia guidelines recommend that the external links list should be short and this isn't just for the benefit of the reader. It is also for the benefit of us people who contribute to the article. The more links that appear in the list, the more difficult it is for us to police the list. Maybe that's the reason why so many spam links have persisted on this page since the last discussion on this topic in April. Wikikob 21:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

External links tag - week +1 update There do not seem to have been any replies to my discussion above so I have gone ahead and tidied up the external links. I have done this in good faith and I hope that the only people this will offend are the spammers themselves. Wikikob 07:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But we have had this debate before. See above, directly above your own words. The consensus was to leave the links as they were as they were functional.

Consensus is NOT making a self proclamation and then claiming consensus when nobody replies to it! I am reverting your change. Please note that I am not a 'spammer', a word you may be using to defend your actions. The above sequence is clear.

I have just replaced the entire section about exams and accreditation which had been added in July. This section was incredibly badly written and had a blatant spammy link to a commercial training organization called the Knowledge Academy. The links in this section now point to authority sites. I also removed 3 spammy links to another prince2 training company calling themselves managementplaza who had a link to their site for the official prince2 manual along with a self-promotional ebook. Dave

Process Diagram

The process diagram shown is incorrect as it seems to indicate that planning is a PRINCE2 high-level process, which it is not, as theere are only seven of these and planning is not one of them.

Martyn Jones martynineurope@gmail.com 8/October/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.62.216 (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed this diagram because it was a blatant link to a commercial organization trying to sell its prince2 training courses. Dave —Preceding undated comment added 12:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)