Talk:Quality management/Archives/2011

2005

"Quality management for IT services is a systematic way of ensuring that all the activities necessary to design, develop and implement IT services which satisfy the requirements of the organization and of Users along with client compliance activities which takes place as planned and that the activities are carried out cost effectively."

That sounds very narrow. Quality Management certainly has a much broader focus than IT services. --Darrylv 01:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it. You're encourged to be bold and fix it yourself! Samw 04:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Old comment

Did a major edit to cover the broad scope of quality management and improvement. Han —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanvanloon (talk • contribs) 09:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am always wary of 'major edits', as especially ones done without any prior consultation on the discussion pages. This is not the Wikipedia way. I would urge that in future you take the time to raise your intentions here, so that others can input their opinion and discuss.

I am not convinced it is a great idea to list all the regional societies here either. This is not a directory. I have merged the Australian ones for starters, and re-added the original QM link. I may revisit this area. Time permitting I will also look at your other changes, and urge others to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.83.20 (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the Quality Management network a commercial organization or national association? As noted elsewhere, links to commercial organizations are considered as inappropriate under the Wikipedia policy. About regional organizations, ASQ is a regional organization, just as the UK one is. Finally, could you please log in so I know with whom I am having this discussion? Thank you. Han van Loon

I have no idea who owns it. However, whether it is owned by a commercial company or not is totally irrelevent. This is a 'policy' that you have invented. The issue is the content of the site linked to, not who owns it. In this case the content is significant and on topic, hence it seems to be a good fit.

Daniel Penfield has argued elsewhere that such commercial organizations should be excluded, I am ambivalent, as long as >GNU Free document license applies then I think it is ok.

Equally, the addition of all those regional societies is questionable. Wikipedia is not a directory. Those that merit it will likely have their own page here (such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_for_Quality), which can be serviced via an internal link. Marcus Bright. 80.86.83.20 (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Marcus for the explanation. The reason to include these societies is that they are the local societies that provide further information on one or more of the quality management methodologies and/or improvement methods mentioned in the text (just as ASQ does). Hence the reader should be able to follow the link to obtain local information. I have always understood that Wikipedia should provide accurate global information, hence the reason I found the previously limited text disturbing. The link to 'Quality Management Network' is not providing on-topic information on the linked page and this was the reason I originally removed it. I am still unsure why it is reinstated as elsewhere I have discussed what links are allowed and been guided that such commercial site links are to be avoided as 'link farming'. Depending upon time, I would like to try improving the page further as it is still incomplete and can be improved with further QM areas. One last note, ISO9000:2008 will be coming out soon so the page will need updating for that. --Hanvanloon (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is important to understand that sites owned by commercial entities can have useful content: the sites have to be judged on their own merits. Regarding ISO 90000, that is an extremely important development. I do look forward to your input. Marcus 80.86.83.20 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to Daniel Penfield who thoroughly disagrees on this.--Hanvanloon (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Added some more text to the evolution of quality. The aim is to highlights a few notable people & events without becoming too detailed.--Hanvanloon (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

New comment

It appears that Daniel Penfield does not follow Wikipedia policy in deleting content without discussionWP:Vandalism. I am restoring a link to a page provided by a user to the STARS methodology as well as various book references. STARS is a serious and valid methodology and has been published in the American Society for Quality. Deletion by Daniel Penfield appears to be based upon personal attack and doe not follow valid Wikipedia policy. --Hanvanloon (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is disorganized

This page is badly disorganized. It is difficult to follow conversations. I am going to reorganize it into proper chronological order. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

The entire contents of this article may be true, but it is not easily verified. There are no footnotes at all. Please add footnotes for all new material and for old material, too. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you are encouraging good editorial practice, and I have no argument with you about this, I would like to point out that since there are a large number of Wikipedia cross references, it makes little sense to double up on inline references that exist in the page referred to. It is easy to criticize but harder to contribute. So I would really appreciate if people actually contribute to the article instead of criticizing those of us prepared to put real content as subject matter experts onto the page. I have been the only person to make these contributions for some time and do not appreciate it if valid methods are deleted based upon personal whim which represents WP:Vandalism as I have noted above.--Hanvanloon (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am confused. I added several inline references and Helixweb deleted the lot. Can an editor please explain? --Hanvanloon (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Without speaking for Helixweb my guess is that the inline references were deleted because they didn't look like references. I've been thinking about your question to me earlier. Since the ISO document itself often is the reference, I think what we should do is include a page number or section number to point more specifically to the verifiable source. And I think each inline reference should be something like this:<ref>ISO 1234, sec. B.23.c</ref>. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2008

Thanks for the suggestion, it does make sense. The problem I see is that I am pointing inside a copyrighted document, which might cause problems with ISO and/or readers would have to buy it. The high level solution is that readers can at least see the abstract on the ISO site, so I could possibly point to it at abstract level. I will think on this more. It is doubly annoying for me because I am actually writing a draft ISO standard and when it is formally published I cannot openly refer/copy what is inside it :-)--Hanvanloon (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You absolutely can reference to copyrighted materials - and you should. This, in fact, is the only way to provide many references when using traditional print materials as references. What you cannot do, as you seem qyite aware, is copy or distribute the materials. Pastordavid (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)