Talk:Six Sigma/Archive 1

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.

Six Sigma: gotta vent

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

Six Sigma stands for 3.66 defects per one million opportunities.

• 3 Sigma 66,8 defects per one million opportunities
• 4 Sigma 6,210 defects per one million opportunities
• 5 Sigma 233 defects per one million opportunities
• 6 Sigma 3.4 defects per one million opportunities

Good companies are 3-4 sigma, but good is not good enough in healthcare. We believe that the healthcare industry must strive for perfection.

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)

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?)

"Defect distributions" in probability approxmately follow Normal distribution. However, it has been observed that there are many scenarios where a random sample of defects do not fall under the normal distribution. In quality processes, we sometimes need to "force-fit" the normal distribution on to the sample graph, thereby introducing "statistical noise". Motorola apparently decided that one needs to set a "tolerance range" of 1.5 sigma(Standard deviation) for such graphs. So, the 3.4 per million you see, is actually "4.5 Sigma (standard deviation)" :-)

This step of "introducing tolerance" makes a lot of sense in manufacturing processes, where you need to assemble 1000 different parts, each with a preset accuracy. For want of a better example, assume we have a process A which yields 99.4% precision and a process B which also yields 99.4% precision. Each on their own, stand the test of 2 - Sigma. But when process B has to operate on the output of process A, we get an overall precision of 98.8% which is inferior to 2-Sigma. So, even when all processes taken individually seem to conform to the standards set, there is no asserting that the end product will stand the test. In terms of pure practical measurability, this is a distinct disadvantage - not the least because of the dynamic nature of the process itself. One way to eliminate such "marginal problems" is to offset the resultant accuracy expectation to a respectable distance away from "borderline cases" (in this case, offset it by 1.5 sigma). This does not eliminate the headache, but st least statistically tackles the majority case. This step is sometimes necessary, also in the sense that consistently detecting any less is may not be possible. Whether this step is "equally relevant" to all kinds of software processes is very debatable, indeed. chance 08:26, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this last entry should be moved to the Six Sigma talk page.

Dpbsmith seems to be taking out his or her Angst against 6s on the article itself. Skepticism about the value of the methodology is legitimate and should be reflected in the article. (I haven't read the whole thing to tell if it is.) But I take, "I'm not sure Six Sigma belongs here at all," to imply that this article is illegitimate. For good or ill, 6s is at very least a well-known methdology fad. It may be more than that, but it's certainly that, and as such belongs in Wikipedia. [EDIT: On further review it's not clear to me whether Dpbsmith's comment is referring to the Six Sigma article or to some part of Software Engineering that was moved here. ] - PhilipR 14:21, 3 Jun 2005 (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 ...

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."

More Comments

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.

Why Six?

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)

hmmm

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.

capitalization / punctuation

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)

Why six sigma, again

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:

When many parts have to fit together, tolerances actually work in the favor of the manufacturer. It is quite possible to make six sigma assemblies out of three sigma parts, since it is highly unlikely that all parts will simultaneously be at one extreme of the tolerance range. Intelligently allocating variation is called "Statistical Tolerancing", and is a useful part of Design for Six Sigma.

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)

Things To Keep in mind

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)

Good advice. In fact, it's precisely my agenda for the "Why six?" section. Now if anyone responds to my request for peer review with some useful and technically savvy review of the section, things will be improving. --Dandrake 00:48, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Forgive the "Amen" comment, but I just wanted to say that I'm glad Dandrake is taking steps to move it in an NPOV/more accurate direction. - PhilipR 13:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

External links

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 agree with you, Spangineer, that there should be some links, and that this constant flip-flopping between none and too many is very pointless, annoying, and very wasteful of Wikipedia resources. The policy link you wisely inserted is obviously what should guide our resolution.

I think the top few search engine links plus any other that have something unique would be best, while trying to avoid any blatantly commercial ones that seek to promote themselves as opposed to providing detailed and useful general Six Sigma information. This can be a difficult line to draw, but I suggest that we accept the search engine results as the judge of usefulness. iSixSigma and GE are the top two Google hits. GE is the best-known user, so they are notable. Motorola of course as the originating company would be acceptable. I think iSixSigma does a decent job of providing good info, which I assume is why it is the top Google hit. My biggest objection to them is that their website doesn't have an "About" section, which makes it fairly obscure as to what their business is, but as far as I can tell, they are a publisher of Six Sigma books and materials. A few revisions ago there were links to Google and Yahoo searches, but I find them in raw form to be in an inappropriate format for Wikipedia, so my opinion is to extract the top few. I'll hold off for a few days so that hopefully there can be some productive discussion before any action is taken. Spalding 18:11, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. Those three are probably the best sites to include. I was thinking that ASQ would also be worth including, but it doesn't appear that any of their articles are freely available. However, their status as a leading six sigma training provider might make them notable enough to include on the page. It is primarily commercial, however. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:02, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed too that someone is playing around with the links, my website is not commercial and looks to promote six sigma, so I keep putting it back on the list everytime somone deletes it.

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

Generally, it's a bad idea to add links to your own website, because it's essentially spamming. If others think that it's notable enough for the wikipedia article, it will get included. It works that way for people writing articles about themselves -- it's frowned upon, because if the person is notable enough, an article will get written about him or her by someone else. Treqna.com does look like an informative site, however, it requires registration to actually get to that information, and it's not particularly notable (it's not on the first 5 pages of the Six Sigma google search). So I'm not sure that it should be included. --Spangineer (háblame) 16:42, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I essentially agree with this. How about since there seems to be such contention over links to Six Sigma, we just take the top two Google hits for now? I say two because less is more - when the list was long it all just blended together into a big unreadable mess in my opinion. Here's the appropriate policy: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution We have just started discussing and I think it is going well, and it definitely beats back and forth reverting with no comments. Spalding 16:52, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that we use more than what google throws up. Google only really throws up isixsigma, which limits any users options. Also, google hardly seems to be an 'intelligent' criteria for determining what shows up. I believe a user comes to Wikipedia for well informed article, not for search results. Also, I don't agree with the idea that if you add one link to a relevant website in a relevant article it should be considered spamming. Atleast by definition it isn't that. Your thoughts gentleman? Posted by 203.101.6.86 --Spangineer (háblame) 19:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Somebody just removed the links again! Posted by User:FeralTitan --Spangineer (háblame) 19:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Rome is burning while we are fiddling, and I wish that person would stop it and join this discussion! On the previous discussion, I think Google is used because the Page Rank system does more than just "throw up", it supposedly turns up the best links, or technically the most visited, and I have found it to work well. I am new to Six Sigma and have found the iSixSigma site to be very informative, so I am assuming that is why it is the top Google hit. The GE site adds less info and more marketing hype, so I could do without it. If there is a site with more quality content than iSixSigma, please link it here for review. Thanks, Spalding 17:23, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

lol :) Yes Rome did burn, the arsonist was 'adsl-69-220-195-238.dsl.spfdil.ameritech.net'. Anyway, isixsigma is a good site but not always accurate about six sigma. Page rank does justice only to sites which have been around for a long while and haven't exploited page rank. isixsigma has exploited page rank by placing links to its site at dummy pages and irrelevant websites. I am not saying isixsigma shouldnt be here. But this should really be more than isxisigma, dont you think? Also, this system implies that new websites are not welcome on wikipedia. Lastly, since when is an engine by google criteria for judging a good website. So, I suggest we go with a more secular list.

PS: How do we catch the arsonist? Posted by User:FeralTitan --Spangineer (háblame) 19:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, we just did. He broke the three revert rule, so I blocked him. I don't think anyone else in this discussion did that. FeralTitan, if you continue to add the Treqna website (which you admitted is your own), you will be blocked for spamming, in accordance to the guideline Wikipedia:External links (see the bottom of the page). You may continue to argue that it should be included, but you should not add it yourself. It would also be much appreciated if you would sign your comments by typing ~~~~. I am adding the two links suggested by Spalding, so we'll see what happens. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I quote from the external link guideline: "Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged." and "Persistently linking to one's own site is considered Vandalism and can result in sanctions." --Spangineer (háblame) 19:24, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

iSixSigma has more ads than Spangineer used as an initial criteria to remove some links. iSixSigma is nothing more than a marketing company and does NOT belong in such a list. Their site is full of incorrect information and dead links due to the fact that advertisers and unreviewed sources are used to create content. This leads to incorrect information. Furthermore, when you see a link to iSixSigma, you can bet that one of their advertisers will also be posted. Therefore, I would submit that ONLY fortune 500 companies that use six sigma be listed. This will eliminate all possible attempts to corrupt Wikipedia. I have seen many many people ask for such a list. Based on what I have seen marketing companies due in the past, I believe that they should not be included or the same thing that happen to DMOZ will happen to Wikipedia. It could be conceived that Spangineer is using a double standard. If ppl want additional information, then create a list to all known ‘free’ search engines, (No Directories), to eliminate abuse. Anyone that can’t see this, I would have to question his or her sincerity in the matter. Posted by UtterUser (this is this user's first edit) --Spangineer (háblame) 10:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the anon. comment just above this one. There are clearly double standards by Spangineer. I believe the list should be more secular. FeralTitan 02:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we should add all the sites. Seems the only way to resolve this issue.I am going to wait for a response for 24 hrs, if anyone has an objection, we should discuss it - otherwise, I am putting everything back in. FeralTitan 09:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Adding all the sites is not an acceptable solution. If you add treqna, you will be blocked. I repeat that commercial sites that are good resources of information are acceptable according to Wikipedia:External links. iSixSigma is not an advertising only site; rather, it is a valuable Six Sigma resource (as much as you might deny it, websites don't just appear at the top of google search). Also, the use of sock puppets to advance your opinion is also against policy. --Spangineer (háblame) 10:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

GOD has spoken. I’ll file a spam complaint with higher authorizes. Also, the use of sock puppets to advance your opinion is NOT against policy. It says ‘ Jimbo Wales has said, "There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason." Before you start accusing people of violating policy, you should get your facts straight. They made you an admin? Posted by 69.220.194.41 --Spangineer (háblame) 11:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, wow, thanks for finally speaking to us. As for sockpuppets, you did a great job of reading the first paragraph, but if you'll notice, under the heading "Prohibited uses of sock puppets", you'll find "Deception and impersonation", and a description what is going on on this talk page ("sock puppets should not be used for purposes of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position."). Regarding spam, have you read Wikipedia:External links, as it defines what is acceptable for the external links section and what is not? Since I'm assuming good faith, I would venture to say that you haven't, based on your edits. Take a look at that and come back when you're willing to respect wikipedia guidelines. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Here’s a concept. Maybe what you are calling a sockpuppet is just someone forgetting to log in and a dynamic IP can change for a vast number of reasons? Maybe all of your assumptions are just that, assumptions? What exactly are you implying? isixsigma offers nothing but a services to sub-contractors and advertisers as far as I can see. So you pointing at Wikipedia:External links, is a moot point too. Posted by 69.220.194.41 --Spangineer (háblame) 12:15, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I wasn't referring to any changing IP addresses, I was referring to User:UtterUser and User:FeralTitan, since the former posted his first comment ever and the latter immediately agreed. I understand the concept of dynamic IPs, though all of our lives would be easier if everyone involved would log in. Also, I find that iSixSigma sites like [2], [3], [4], and [5] to be helpful and informative. Yes there are ads, but there is also easily accessible Six Sigma info. If you know of a better, noncommercial Six Sigma resource site, by all means, suggest it here. --Spangineer (háblame) 12:15, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Number 4 has been around before six sigma, so does not belong in topic. Number 3 relates back to the 1970 and Juran’s theories in a book titled ‘Quality Planning and Analysis’ before six sigma once again, off topic. And the Dictionaries at [6], are just as helpful. And User:UtterUser and User:FeralTitan, are NOT the same people. Posted by 69.220.194.41 --Spangineer (háblame) 13:16, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

There's also [7], which I found helpful when I rewrote the main section of the article. That site you mention is a good one, though I'm not sure it's much better than iSixSigma. The problem I have with it is that the top of the front page is an ad (it has both google ads and a sales pitch to buy their software), whereas the iSixSigma homepage has several links to articles and discussions, and on the ads are mostly limited to the periphery. Re sock puppets, how do you know that they aren't the same user? It's tough to be sure, but when there is doubt, it is generally assumed that they are the same (see the sock puppet page). --Spangineer (háblame) 13:16, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Whereas the site mentioned has one ad at the top, isixsigma has 3 ads at the top, 10 ads at the bottom, and their ads down the side has a link to what they sell, marketing. So isixsigma should go. Re sock puppets, How do I know, well I just do, and so will the people at the top of Wikipedia when they read the logs. Posted by 69.220.194.41 --Spangineer (háblame) 13:43, August 2, 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)

The dictionary does not have that, ("You no longer have to spend...")? We were not talking about the home page, we were talking about the dictionary. What’s your point? It’s personal preference, and is that allowed over everbody else? Posted by 69.220.194.41 --Spangineer (háblame) 14:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was referring to the home page. Generally I think it makes more sense to link directly to the home page and then if users want to look for the other info they can. That's how a good reference site should work. In this case, however, it might be good to add a direct link to that dictionary, since it includes things that the iSixSigma one doesn't. But the iSixSigma one also has things that the other doesn't. And since it's still the best source of free six sigma information that I've seen, I think it should stay on the page. And finally, no, my opinion isn't any more valuable than that of any other person, but User:Spalding also finds iSixSigma very helpful (see above discussion). I can put in a request for comment to see what others think, but I would certainly be surprised if others supported removing the iSixSigma link. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

First to clear up some things. User 69.220.194.41, UtterUser, and 69.220.192.25 are all the same user. My computer went down and when I got it back up and running, my ISP gave me another IP number. I created an account, made a comment, and then logged out and did not log back in to make additional comments. I don’t believe that there are any ‘rules’ about needing to log in to talk. I could be wrong, if I am, please enlighten me.

--Spangineer (háblame) said >>Yeah, I was referring to the home page. …

We were talking about a dictionary information page. Trying to compare something else to justify your point of view could be conceived as at least trolling, and trolling, in my opinion, would not be very becoming of an ‘administrator’

>>Generally I think it makes more sense to link directly to the home page and then if users want to look for the other info they can.

What? If a user is looking for information on adomain.com about six sigma, don’t you think that it is ludicrous to go to the Wikipedia home page instead of to the six sigma page? In all most every case I have seen, like the six sigma Wikipedia page, you can search for other topics from that page. This statement, at least to me, makes absolutely no sense at all.

>>And since it's still the best source of free six sigma information that I've seen …

In your opinion.

>>but User:Spalding also finds iSixSigma very helpful (see above discussion). I can put in a request for comment …

And I can get 10 friends to sign up and say something different. I know that this is the way Wikipedia works, my only point is that anything is susceptible to fraud.

Why do you refuse to compromise on this? I have made several suggestions, (3), and you refuse to compromise. There were 2 links, removing one would be a compromise. It looks to me like there weren’t any problems until your 12:19, 30 June 2005 edit. Don’t you think an ‘administrator’ should solve problems, not create them? (More about the edit later) I am personally glad that Khaosworks locked the topic, but I believe that he should have removed all links to err on the side of insuring that no marketing corruption could occur while the discussion goes on. The last thing Wikipedia needs is to get a reputation of being scammed by marketers. I’m not saying that is happening, I’m saying removing the links is insurance.

I still believe the best solution is only links to Fortune 1000 companies that use six sigma. You can be assured they don’t employ spamming techniques.

My response is at the bottom of this section. --Spangineer (háblame) 12:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I need to say some stuff

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, thanks for bringing up these points. In response:

• I did not mean to imply that I was certain that FeralTitan and UtterUser are the same person; I thought that it was highly likely, and I still am not convinced. Quite frankly, it looks bad to just show up on a discussion page and join an argument without having been involved in the wikipedia previously.
• Second, thank you for not adding treqna.com. The user who did add it did not comment on this page (as requested in a comment in the external link section), and did so anonymously, so it is impossible for me to verify who it was. I reverted for both reasons. I am an administrator, which gives me the ability to block users, among other things, if they are in breach of policy. It does not give me the right to force my opinion down the throats of others, nor does it make my opinion more valuable, or anything of the sort. I have the same right as you to discuss and argue over what should be done with this page.
• Third, you are absolutely right, this is a wiki, which is why we are all here discussing this. If I wanted to be unilateral, I could block all of you and do what I wanted (until another administrator blocked me). But that's stupid, wrong, and never going to happen. The idea of this is to get all of us to compromise. I am doing my very best to follow relevant wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:External links). Because that policy is essentially non-negotiable, and all articles ought to follow it, it would be extremely helpful if you would mention parts of that page that support your arguments. So far I haven't seen much of that. As for my knowledge of six sigma, I'll happily admit that I'm no expert. I've signed up for treqna.com and have found it quite informative, though I wonder why you don't make the files available to all people to download, not just members. It makes sense to have just members edit them, but it would be great if anyone could read them. I'm somewhat open to the idea of putting a link to it on this article, though it probably should have a comment like "free registration required" or something along those lines. I'd like it a ton more if one could read the info without signing up (wouldn't that make sense for an "open" six sigma project?).
• Commercial or not is a debate, but hey, maybe in this case I'm splitting hairs.
• I understand that pagerank is flawed, but I also understand that it is the technology that made Google the most popular search engine in the world. If it were as bad as you suggest, google would not be dominating the search engine industry.
• User:Spalding wrote above that he has "found the iSixSigma site to be very informative". Did I misrepresent him?
• Allowing all sites to remain isn't a feasible solution, because it would allow me or anyone to go to geocities or any other free web host, create a page that has the content "Six Sigma ROCKS!!!" and put a link to it on this page. Somewhere a line must be drawn, and that line is drawn in Wikipedia's external link policy. Let's continue this discussion in light of that policy. --Spangineer (háblame) 15:59, August 2, 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)

First, to UtterUser/69.220.xxx.xx, thanks for clearing that up; your explanation makes sense. There are no rules about signing in to comment, but like I said, it makes following a discussion much easier.

Re the dictionary site/home page, I made a mental leap and didn't explain myself well. Normally, external links go to a general resource website when possible. The idea is not to have a dozen external links pointing to individual resources (a dictionary on xyz.com/dictionary, an article on xyz.com/article, a list of tools on xyz.com/toollist), but to have one external link to one resource site (xyz.com). From there, if it's a good reference site, there will be links to what anyone is looking for. I'm not talking about news sites or encyclopedias here; I'm referring to sites that are explicitly about six sigma. If there's a great article in the new york times or some online encyclopedia about six sigma, I would prefer to link directly to the article instead of just newyorktimes.com. But the site you mentioned was all about six sigma, so I thought you were suggesting that since it has a good dictionary, it's a good resource and we should link to the homepage. Hopefully that makes sense; I certainly wasn't trying to troll.

My first edit to clear external links came when this page had 14 external links, and most of them had advertising for captions. That, in my opinion, was a problem, which I addressed. I thought it was in violation of external link policy and that it reflected poorly on wikipedia (Wikipedia is not a web directory). I'll suggest a compromise in another section.

Now, to Feral Titan—for what it's worth, sorry to accuse you of being a sock puppeteer. Wikipedia is full of vandals and trolls, and as an administrator, I run into them all the time. I generally look for a pattern of constructive edits in new users, and if I don't see one, I get suspicious. But it looks like I misjudged this time around.

You're right, wikipedia has the ability to be much better than google or any other search engine in providing links to the best content available, since real people do the selecting. That's an important benefit, and one that we should take advantage of. I think treqna.com has alot of potential, but at this point I don't think there's enough information available to warrant a place here. Somehow allowing people to read the material found in the download section would be great, but in any case, after a month or two, once there are more articles and other resources, I'll suggest adding it again and see what happens. I'll write out a full compromise proposal below.

Both of you, thanks for the input; I think once we're done we'll have a good looking external link section and all of us will understand wikipedia better. I hope you both weren't scared off by a perhaps over zealous administrator and continue contributing to this article and others. --Spangineer (háblame) 12:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

>>The idea is not to have a dozen external links pointing to individual resources …

Says who? First off, I don’t think any dictionary belongs there if there is any part of it that deals with anything except terms ONLY used in six sigma. If it contains terms like SPC, etc. it should be put on a quality control page. Just as ISO does not refer to six sigma in their documentation.

>>My first edit to clear external links …

On your 12:19, 30 June 2005 edits, you did more than just remove external links. You removed an entire section about the original concepts of six sigma. (this could be viewed as a justification to remove one of the external links, because I don’t see any other reason to do it.) These concepts are fundamental in six sigma methodologies. You left the section about what Donald J. Wheeler said. While Wheeler could be considered an expert in SPC, perhaps even the same caliber as Deming, he is not a six sigma expert, and if you are going to leave in that comment, then the original concepts should be left in for peers to make their own judgment on if they agree or disagree with Wheeler. I disagree with some of the stuff Juran says because what I have seen in the real world wasn’t the same as his 30-year-old writings.

>>in my opinion, was a problem, which I addressed. I thought it was in violation of external link policy …

In your opinion, and you thought? Did you create a discussion of the matter? Isn’t that what you were preaching?

You need to be consistent in your judgment on the number of ads. You should not say that based on your opinion some ads on any given site are acceptable and ads on another site are not. Either ads on an external link is acceptable, or they are not. Not doing so could result in the proverbial door being left open to wide spread corruption.

Can I ask a question? What makes you such an expert in six sigma? I’ve been doing six sigma since 1985. Yea, I was one of the 1st 500 people to be trained in it and I was 4 levels below Bill Smith, and worked with him on more than one occasion. Posted by 69.220.194.41

I'm definitely not an expert at Six Sigma; I'm a college student studying industrial engineering (a fact which is mentioned on my userpage) and I simply enjoy reading up on stuff related to quality engineering, because I find it interesting. I am much more of an expert on how Wikipedia works (6000 edits so far), so between the two of us, we should be able to put together a fantastic article.

Re external link policy: In general, wikipedia guidelines are not specific, so as to avoid instruction creep. That's why there's no rule "All external link sections must be between 4 and 6 links" and that's also why there's no specific guideline for what constitutes commercial and what constitutes noncommercial. It comes down to the individual cases. That may leave the door open for corruption, but that's the whole point of wikipedia: leaving doors open for pretty much anything. There are few hard and fast rules but many guidelines, so much of it is left to the editors. Hopefully, in the long run, more good stuff will get in than bad stuff. I think the success of the project demonstrates that it's working.

Re the number of links. A few quotes from the external link policy page ("adding a certain number of external links" and "a small section containing a few external links") suggest that fewer is better. Wikipedia isn't a web directory, but adding some links is helpful for readers. Very rarely do Wikipedia's best articles have more than 6-8 external links, and those that do are often huge topics with articles many times longer than this one. Also, the idea is to be helpful to the readers, so if a page that includes QC terms would be helpful to people interested in six sigma, then it deserves consideration.

Re my rewrite: Wikipedians are encouraged to be bold. That means observing a problem and fixing it. Most of the time, no one says anything, because it was uncontroversial. Not everything needs to be discussed. At the time I made the edit, I thought the article was very poorly written, not being in accordance with style guidelines, and generally disorganized. Comments on the talk page suggested that others felt that way as well (see the comments by Dandrake above), so I went ahead and rewrote everything. I tried to remove only unnecessary information and better explain the "Why 6?" question. Since no one has made any notable edits to that section for over a month, I thought I did a good job. You apparently disagree, and you know more about it than me, so please, feel free to contribute. In fact, if you have a few good Six Sigma reference books laying around, it would be fantastic if we could make this a featured article -- I had toyed with the idea of trying to do that myself, but I don't have the foundational knowledge nor the references available to be able to pull that off. It's a grueling process, getting something featured, but if you're up for it, I'm ready to work with you on it. --Spangineer (háblame) 15:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Great idea to get working on the article again, Spangineer. Especially since we now have someone who was at Motorola under Bill Smith (69.220.194.41). As they say, write about what you want to learn about, so I fit in the same category as you, someone with an interest but little experience in Six Sigma. To tell the truth, I've been waiting for someone to have an issue with my sentence that Paul Galvin was largely responsible for Six Sigma through executive support, and argue that Bill Smith is the true father of it. I got that information from iSixSigma and no other sites, by the way, so that confirms that iSixSigma should be a link both because it supplied that information that is in the article and because it is informative. So what will it take to remove the protection on the article? The external links section controversy seems to have simmered down. Spalding 17:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

RfC

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 article is NOT as accurate as it could be and now shows signs of gross biasness as well as some immaterial information and links to marketing companies. The information provided does not reflect on anything other than a 'self admitted ignorance' of the topic by the people involved in the writing it. There is NOT enough information for people to know what six sigma is neither about nor of the original concepts as conceived by Bill Smith and Motorola. It is an insult to the late Bill Smith and all the pioneers of six sigma. As already proven, any attempt to change it to reflect more real world information will be undone by these highly biased people. Posted by 69.220.197.99 --Spangineer (háblame) 14:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I mentioned above that it would be great if we could do some work on this article to improve it. By all means, feel free to change/add information and cite your sources. If you do and you follow relevant wikipedia policy (NPOV, etc.), I won't complain. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)