User talk:Jæs/Archives/2011/September

Desktop virtualization

Wondering why the removal of some very valid and important concepts around Desktop Virtualization?

In general, the whole section surrounding IT requirements for VDI (as it is commonly known) are not well explained, documented or understood. IT professionals doing research in this area need to know some of the topics to investigate further, along with the resources and tools to help them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfellows (talk • contribs) 01:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an instructional manual for information technology professionals. It's an encyclopedia. A very basic, very general overview of infrastructure sizing is all that would reasonably be considered appropriate for this project. Getting into lists of vendors or specific tools is unnecessary and inappropriate for Wikipedia, and such lists inevitably become spam magnets. It doesn't benefit the project, and our readers can readily find the information on other, authoritative sources. Simply put, your additions may be "valid" in the realm of virtualization infrastructure planning, but they content is far too specialized and instructional to be appropriate for Wikipedia. jæs (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Jaes,

Your points sound valid, until you realize that there are literally 1,000's of examples to the contrary. In fact, these contrary examples help to give Wikipedia much of its value. I won't bother to list the thousands of examples, but I will give you just a few so you understand my point.

Here is one such example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software

As you can see, the entire article is a comparison. The companion article, "remote desktop software" outlines the technologies, a ::few architectural choices and mentions vendors.

So, my point being that in developing a complete article, before a full blown "companion" extensively comparing features is required, the originating article should contain some portion of the comparison. That is exactly the intent of the content here.

Again, I can point to literally thousands of similar examples on Wikipedia with extensive listings and comparisons.

So, can you please explain how this content differs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfellows (talk • contribs) 05:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. "Comparison" and "list" articles (like the one you cited) have often been controversial on the project, especially since Wikipedia is not a directory. Regardless of the existence of other stuff, the article we are discussing here need not catalog an exhaustive list of vendors and software. That content is simply not encyclopedic (and, outside of specific "list" articles, is not generally accepted on the project). jæs (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Jaes:

In fact, looking at the reference you provided, it explicitly states "This guidance essay contains comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may be consulted for assistance." So your own reference states this is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline.

I understand your intent, but dogmatic over zealousness creates a climate of intimidation for those without as firm a conviction as I have. If the content I added crossed into advertising for a vendor, that is certainly content that should be removed. BUT (and this is the crux of my disagreement), listing the most prominent products in a specific category is highly relevant.

What we are discussing is whether adding a few examples helps general understanding, or not. This article should provide a list of the most prominent products in the relevant category. There is a big difference between an exhaustive list and mentioning the industry leaders who have over 80% of the VDI market. Currently Citrix and VMware have over 90% of VDI environments. Thus, without reference to these two, the article becomes somewhat useless at best.

Once again I refer you to a wiki article, this time to Virtual_machine . You will notice there is a list of vendors there, which is appropriate since any discussion of virtualization without this listing is irrelevant, useless and generally not interesting.

So, explain to me again how this article is different????

Rfellows (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Russ

"Dogmatic overzealousness"? You're trying to get Wikipedia to include a list of vendors for a specific niche of a specific niche of software. Wikipedia is, simply, not a directory. Encyclopædia Britannica would not be printing a list of vendors for these sorts of things. While we have greater flexibility than Britannica, we are not a directory. It is not necessary to list specific vendors to adequate discuss the technology. Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual or a buyer's guide. I don't believe it's fair to say that our article on this topic has been "irrelevant, useless, and generally not interesting" for years because we've avoided becoming an advertisement for a handful of vendors. I'm sorry, but I'm simply not going to come around to your point of view on this. You can see from my talk page archives that I've been petitioned by other folks who have taken specific interest in including specific vendors in the past. It's simply not Wikipedia's purpose. You can try discussing it further on the article's talk page or head to one of the various noticeboards, but I don't think you're going to gain any traction for turning these articles into listings of software (aka spam honeypots). jæs (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You failed to answer my question. I'll simplify and repeat the essence.

Once again I refer you to a wiki article, this time to Virtual_machine . You will notice there is a list of vendors there. So, explain WHY this article should be different?

Rfellows (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Russ

(←) I received your email. I really have nothing further to add from what I've said above. If you feel as though I have harmed the project through my efforts to clean up these articles and help ensure they don't revert to their former state (as one big giant directory of spam and artspam), then I encourage you to take your concerns to WP:AN/I. Take care. jæs (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, as I suspected. My email asked if you ever added content, or is your primary "contribution" take the form of disruptive edits. As evident from your lack of a listing of contributions, and from checking your past edits, nearly every action you take is a deletion. I would challenge you to actually add content to articles you feel compelled to disruptively edit. As a personal goal, maybe try adding one word for every one word you delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfellows (talk • contribs) 05:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If you believe I have been editing "disruptively," then once again I encourage you to bring your concerns WP:AN/I. While I feel no need to justify my content contributions to you, in an effort to prevent you from continuing to make poor assumptions, you should know that I have created a number of articles on Wikipedia. I have significantly less time to edit the project these days, and my "role" has shifted to projecting a number of articles that are particularly vulnerable to WP:SPAM and WP:ARTSPAM.

Having looked over your contributions in the past, I noticed that almost all of your editing has been tied to attempting (usually unsuccessfully) to include companies, vendors, and particular software titles in Wikipedia articles in a single subject area. Your content contributions strongly suggest a conflict of interest. I hope that you intend to disclose these details when you bring your concerns to the noticeboard.

All of this being said, I really will not debate this further with you on my talk page. Your motives are, in my opinion, not beneficial to the project and your tactics are not conducive to a collaborative project. Please go on about your campaign elsewhere. Thanks. jæs (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I have gone ahead and brought this issue up at the appropriate noticeboard. Please direct any further comments there. Thanks. jæs (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rfellows. The lack of a PCoIP article is only half the issue, the quality of Desktop_virtualization is extremely poor. If you have issues with citing any actual technologies then you have a problem with half of Wikipedia. This is not about providing instruction manuals to technical professionals, it's about providing comprehensive and relevant coverage of the field, something which your efforts towards these articles has completely lacked. PCoIP and the relevant desktop virtualization information should be treated similarly to a technology such as TN3270, which yes, is commercial, but highly relevant to the industry, its past, and so far as we can tell, its future. If you insist on deleting edits related to PCoIP because of a poor understanding of how it relates to the industry then at least briefly mention it in Desktop Virtualization because people are obviously looking for it, being redirected there, and then looking there and then realising its your poor "contributions" that are the reason there is no information on it.

--122.49.203.89 (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"If you insist on deleting edits related to PCoIP because of a poor understanding of how it relates tot he industry then at least briefly mention it..." I have not "insisted" on anything -- the community reached a decision, not me. If you can provide a number of sources that indicate that the PCoIP platform is a significant force in desktop virtualization, then you have an argument. Just trying to make it a personal issue, or trying to attack my "understanding" of the subject will get you nowhere. jæs (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)