Talk:SPSS Modeler

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

how about a citation for the claim that "The most common configuration in large corporations is to house the Clementine Server software on a powerful analytical server box (Windows, UNIX, Linux), which then connects to the corporate Data warehouse."

This page still needs a lot of work. I added links to SPSS Inc. and IBM, added most recent release to "release history", and added 2 more competitors to listKarl (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for great edits to the first sentences. I modified them to sound less like a sales pitch. Added more wiki-links too. Also removed the word unique used to describe the GUI. It was an early data mining tool to use a workflow GUI (perhaps the first), but it is no longer unique (see e.g., Oracle Data Miner and SAS Enterprise Miner, and several others). Karl (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch Karl, I've added some content around the versions available and shifted some of the content to better fit the sections. I have also added a new section around the features of the product including the available models and versions. The architecture section still needs a lot of work. Bradhill14 (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

Apar from the fact that the current text is almost entirely promotional in tone and content, it appears to have a significant overlap with http://www-01.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/products/modeler/edition-comparison.html and hence is very likely to be a copyright violation as well. I am boldly removing the promotional content and hope that only original text based on independent reliable sources can be added back. Deltahedron (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the tone of the text needs modification. However, I think the content is pretty good. To me, what is really lacking is citations to independent sources. As an example, I put citation needed tags on the bullet list items near the top of the article. If other authors can add citations for the claim that SPSS Modeler is being used in these industries, then I think it would be fine for this list to remain on the page. However, if independent citations are not available, then this whole list (or specific items on it) should be removed. I tried to edit the first paragraph to modify the tone a little.Karl (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Entertainment industry to the bullet list, along with a citation.Karl (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to make a big thing of it, but strictly speaking that wasn't right. Wikipedia:Verifiability policy mandates Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. I have challenged it, so it needs a reliable published source. The sources, such as they are, are either to the company that produces the software, or to Youtube, which is not a reliable source. The list of features and the list of competitors are both completely unsourced. Without an independent reliable source, they have no place in this article. Deltahedron (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort that wikipedians have given in response to my appeal to add citations to the industry list at the top of the SPSS Modeler page. However, I agree with Deltahedron: there are problems with the citations that have been added. The citations added to the fraud detection, healthcare, law enforcement, education and telecom bullet points are all IBM whitepapers. In my opinion these are not valid independent published sources, and should be removed. However, I am a novice wikipedia editor, so I hesitate to remove them myself. I recognize that they were put up in good faith.

Please note the difference. The citation I posted to the "Entertainment" bullet is to an independent published source. I encourage other wikipedians to replace the problematic IBM whitepaper citations with citations to independent published papers. E.g., I noticed that Jing Luan (Vice Chancellor of Educational Services in San Mateo County) is the author of the IBM whitepaper cited in the "Education" bullet item. I am not personally familiar with this person's published work, but I see in Google Scholar that he/she has published in several independent publications, including a few papers in "New Directions for Institutional Research", and he/she has several conference presentations too. Maybe someone familiar with this person's work would know if one of these publications discusses the use of SPSS Modeler. If it does, then that would (in my opinion) be an appropriate independent published source, and would be a good citation to replace the (problematic) IBM whitepaper publication currently listed as a citation. Karl (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

I observe with some concern that no fewer that four of the contributors to this article have made almost all their edits to Wikipedia adding material about this topic which is promotional in tone and have user names which are similar to the real names of employees of IBM, the company which sells this product. It might be prudent for all contributors to review the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. For example, an employee of a company would be strongly discouraged from editing articles related to their employers products (or their competitors). Deltahedron (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Versions section

I would suggest renaming this section to Editions as versions could also refer to the numbered release eg SPSS Modeler v15 Bradhill14 (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I made this modification. Yes, this edit reduces possible confusion readers will have between the term "version" and "edition". The Wikipedia entry now uses the same terminology that IBM uses to refer to these two editions.Karl (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I would like to suggest adding 2 links to this section

The IBM DeveloperWorks user community - http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/forums/forum.jspa?forumID=2311
The Facebook page for IBM SPSS Modeler - http://www.facebook.com/IbmSpssModeler

This will allow users looking for information on SPSS Modeler to connect and collaborate with others with the official pages --Bradhill14 (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided point 10. Deltahedron (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do they not also fall under WP:ELOFFICIAL --Bradhill14 (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually there's only one official link, to the main official site. The exceptions are very limited, and off the top of my head I can't think of any examples. Certainly not to discussion forums and Facebook pages – they exist for everything now and should be linked from the main site if important/official. If it's not linked from the main site it seems unlikely its official or important.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced sections

The sections Architecture, Features and Competitors cite no sources. I'm removing them. Deltahedron (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]