Talk:Labshare/Archive 1

Referencing issues
This article may need more references (esp non-primary source), or there may be WP:POV issues. Love43554ever (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A lot of information in the page was/is wrong (especially the older versions which it keeps getting revered to) and attacks Labshare and a number of Australian Universities. Alex Gibson Alxxthegeek (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The older versions which are being reverted to are because they are not the versions that are being section blanked. How is the article attacking Labshare, and which Australian Universities does it attack? If you delineate what the issues are, maybe they can be solved. ID092833535 (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The original page alleges nepotism, financial and technical mismanagement but provides no evidence to support these claims. Alxxthegeek (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is why there is a "citation needed" tag there. You should be reminded of Australia's freedom of political communication under the court case Lange v ABC. Taxpayers are paying $3,800,000 of money towards this project, and it is only fair that the Universities are kept accountable. As you are a team member, maybe you can answer the following: (1) are all technical engineering staff you work with from UTS? (2) are 6/7 management committee from UTS? If these facts are true, and they have been referenced, then the deduction is only fair. As you may see below, a comment that the University of South Australia was only paid $55,000 of the $3,800,000 funds has already been removed until it can be sourced. Although WP:NOR on Wikipedia, maybe you can comment. ID092833535 (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You deleted the citation required tag I addedAlxxthegeek (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The main LabShare website is http://www.labshare.edu.au/ Alxxthegeek (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A link has already been included at the bottom. ID092833535 (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Our software has been released under an open source license and is available from source forge at http://sourceforge.net/projects/labshare-sahara/files/ Alex Gibson Alxxthegeek (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks, I have added this official link. I note your name, "Alex Gibson", is apart of the Project Staff from UTS. I would remind you of WP:NPOV, and that you are not supposed to edit these articles because it is a WP:COI. You can however, delineate your issues here on the talk page. I have thoroughly read the article, and I cannot see how it is defamatory. ID092833535 (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

University of Technology, Sydney criticism
Before removing any criticism, please consider WP:RS (reliable sources), WP:COI (conflict of interest), WP:NPOV (neutral points of view), WP:V (verifiability), WP:NOR (no original research). Before making any changes to include recent updates, consider WP:RECENT. Please do not include a WP:LAUNDRY list of UTS achievements. If in doubt, please gain WP:CONSENSUS before making any changes. Love43554ever (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Claims UniSA was only allocated 1.45% of grant, after contributing 20% to project

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I removed the report that stated the University of South Australia reported it was only allocated $55,000 of the $3,800,000 funds, or 1.45% of the total grant, until it can be sourced. ID98237578923 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed After being rejected by the commercialization center at the University of South Australia for want of new and distinct functionality that would make it patentable, UniSA and UTS joined forces to share labs through the project Labshare. Netlab is nevertheless exploring other intellectual property options including copyright, industrial design rights and confidential information, after being awarded a spectacular $3.8 by the Federal Commonwealth Australian government. until sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ID98237578923 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been advised a Today Tonight journalist will be following this in the next few days :) A WP:SPI is also underway :) Hardrockfan203 (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest edits by UTS
UTS has inappropriately made the following changes: They have been warned about WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Pick101355 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed references to QES Rankings
 * Removed official reference
 * Removed technical information
 * Removed progress report
 * Removed historical information
 * An ISP from Melbourne and AARNET are trying to blank sections of Labshare. If this continues, I may need to contact the media; interesting what the University of Technology Sydney is trying to cover up. ID092833535 (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * UTS is now making multiple accounts, an attempt to sock puppet and edit the page. I have commented to User_talk:Alxxthegeek it is inappropriate to make edits without WP:CONSENSUS, which are in WP:COI and withou WP:NPOV. Nevertheless, I have taken in his suggestion to:
 * include Software has been released under an open source license and is available for download at http://sourceforge.net/projects/labshare-sahara/
 * Thanks. ID092833535 (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

UTS sockpuppets
There are two issues with this :
 * 1) You may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization.
 * 2) Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.

Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guideline to avoid editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations.The article in question is Labshare. Thank you. Labshare appears to represent an organization rather than yourself Fæ (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note the possibility for a Sockpuppet investigations on several accounts. Please stop an edit war and gain WP:CONSENSUS. ID908237835 (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis problem
The objectives section appears to fail SYNTH. I suggest that it is changed to merely state original objectives and then, separately, the reliably sourced facts about what has been done can be stated. Contentious and potentially defamatory statements about what has not been done can be avoided by only including published criticism and reviews of the organization and its projects in quality reliable sources (as per the guidance of WP:BLP).

I shall shortly be editing the objectives section on this basis. I have no association whatsoever with this organization (I happen to live on the other side of the planet) but I have been contacted with a request for help by Alxxthegeek after leaving a standard welcome on his talk page. Fæ (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with UTS staff members objecting to the article as it does seem to indicate lack of progress, but their blanking of the page and sections is contradictory to the policy on WP:COI. I would suggest gaining WP:CONSENSUS before User:Labsdir continues to make reversions. The reversions are not helping gain a NPOV. ID908237835 (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the removal has been fair, and will be kept as status quo until WP:CONSENSUS is gained. Thank you User:Fæ for doing this. ID908237835 (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Labsdir (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It also looks to be a breach of copyright from the Sydney Morning Herald. ID908237835 (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please verify this blog source. I cannot find the article using a full LexisNexis search. Fæ (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is clearly now a malicious attack. This content has not previously been seen, is highly inflammatory, only exists on the Wordpress site and was not created by Labshare or anyone involved in it, and does not exist on the Sydney Morning Herald website archives, despite purporting to have been published there only a week ago. Labsdir (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You sound a little paranoid, I'm sure no one is out there to "attack" you. The website isn't even listed on Alexa see here, and it looks to be registered to UTS by Michel de la Villefromoy as here. Had the government not injected $3.8m of taxpayer funds, I doubt it would even be notable (minus of course the published journals, which seem to be more so to do with remote labs in general rather than this UTS project). Moneyfizza (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a reason why its UTS not USyd, take a look at Michel's page, gee one publication. Moneyfizza (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Moneyfizza, you are missing the point. The site in question is http://labshare.wordpress.com not http://labshare.edu.au. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm missing something, but I don't see where the Wordpress page has been embedded in article??? Moneyfizza (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that this highly critical wordpress page is being used in support of an argument, and the wordpress page claims to be from a reputable newspaper to give it credibility, but there is no evidence that it actually came from that newspaper.
 * Still to be proven that it is an article from the SMH.Please provide a publicly accessible link.Alxxthegeek (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) I agree that acting in COI has been an issue. I have added warnings to some accounts with apparent COI. Should these edits persist then they will be reported on WP:COIN or WP:AIV. Hopefully engagement though discussion will be sufficient here. I suggest that where there is doubt, a calming approach is to remove any contested material whilst under discussion. This fits the guidance of WP:BLP which is appropriate for this article. Fæ (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your hard work Fæ, I have no problem with UTS but couldn't seem to convince them of WP:COI. I would suggest an Administrator require "review" permission so a reviewer must accept changes if an edit war continues. ID908237835 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The early life section as it is currently is still incorrect. UTS has had remote laboratories since 2001.Alxxthegeek (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Read above, UniSA had theirs since 2000. Moneyfizza (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Full protection
Please note I requested that this page be fully protected at requests for page protection on a temporary basis to stop the current edit war. –Grondemar 05:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, UTS members continue to edit despite WP:COI issues.
 * Agreed! Alxxthegeek (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done by User:Amatulic
 * Thanks Amatulic. This means that only Administrators can make changes to the article until 4 September 2010. This is intended to ensure that all interested parties can enjoy a week of calm discussion on proposals for additions and corrections. Fæ (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If the community here wants the protection extended, let me know. Also, an admin can perform reasonable edit requests while the article is protected. Just create a section on this talk page with the editrequest tag, explaining what you want done, and an admin will come along and either make the edit or decline it. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments regarding inappropriate censorship by User:Fæ
I would like to raise that the user User:Fæ has inappropriately censoring my posted content. This user should cease and desist these removals and I also raise WP:COI. Please adopt a NPOV on the talk page, and stop removing other users' suggestions. Hardrockfan203 (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please follow a wp:Dispute resolution process if you have a complaint of censorship. Fæ (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Petition asking UTS to share funds
I came across this, interesting read, should be included. http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/uts Dear Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister of Australia: We hereby ask David Lowe, Lothar Weber, Bridgette Dang, Euan Lindsay, Steve Murray, Michel de la Villefromoy, to: "End the waste, pay back the debt, stop the sockpuppets, stop the vandalism, and pay a fair share of funds to the other ATN unis" It is time to stop the wasteful spending of UTS, pay back the right due and fair share of funds to othe ATN universities, and stop the sock puppetting and vandalism of the Labshare website. Thanks, ATN (UniSA, RMIT, Curtin, Queensland)

Gave me a chuckle too. Hardrockfan203 (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I note that http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/uts "quoted" above was created 45 minutes ago, evidently by the same person as is posting the same text here. It is obvious that this talk page is being manipulated by new Single-purpose accounts such as established for that purpose. I have collapsed the above text for that reason. Fæ (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Misleading facts
This page contains numerous errors and blatant attempts to mislead regarding the Labshare project. There is no substance, nor supporting evidence at all, for the assertions regarding mismanagement of the project, lack of progress, or other problems. To the contrary, the project has been highly successful and is widely lauded. Whilst the information on the project website, like many websites for active development projects, is several months behind the actual state of the project, it still reflects the outstanding progress being made in the project, the strong engagement by many institutions, and the numerous successes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labsdir (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are issues with errors then you need to raise them on the talk page before making any edits. What is it that has no substance? I can see 57 supporting references on the article.
 * These supporting references are generic references (to publications about the work, and to individuals homepages). They do not support the libellous assertions being made.
 * You talk like you are from the project, so note WP:COI. You say that the project has been "highly successfull" and "widely lauded". Is this just your POV or have you got WP:V sources.
 * Yes, I am from the project. We have numerous requests for, and emerging involvements in the project. There are trials running this current semester involving approximately 2500 students and a dozen Universities. We had 6 publications (more than 10% of the total) at the most recent REV conference (the primary international venue for publishing work on remote laboratories). We have publicly released the software for the system. We are currently finalising information with the ALTC to demonstrate thye remote lab project as a major national success. Yes, it is widely lauded, and we do have clear evidence.
 * It is obvious you are from the project, and you do not understand WP:COI. There is a rule on Wikipedia against editing your own Wikipedia page. Please do NOT do any further edits to the page. You can only raise points on the Talk Page and wait for an editor to clear it up. ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or maybe you don't understand the COI provisions. This is not my page! Nor do the COI provision stop me from correcting factual errors or malicious content.
 * Please gain WP:CONSENSUS first. ID908237835 (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As you say, the project website that is launched on an edu.au domain is reflective of the project, again you use the word "outstanding progress". Furthermore, how can you claim "strong engagement" when 5/6 of management committee are from UTS
 * This is because UTS is responsible for managing the project. It however has very strong involvement from numerous other Universities.

Is project funded by UTS or the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations's Diversity and Structural Adjustment Fund
This is because the project funding was made to UTS, and the project is being coordinated by UTS on behalf of the sector. The management committee does day to day coordination, whereas the steering committee (which has very broad representation) provides overall guidance for the project.


 * and all employed project staff are from UTS?
 * They are not from UTS. The majority of the people employed on the project had no prior involvement in the project. Yes, they have been employed by UTS, but that is simply because the funds were awarded to UTS, and so are disbursed from there. The contributions they are making are to the project overall, including the numerous non-UTS participants in the project.
 * You just contradicted yourself with the statement "They are not from UTS", then "they have been employed by UTS". ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a contradiction. The were not from UTS prior to be being employed to work on the project.
 * There is no statement that the project is by former UTS students. The issue is the people employed are 99% from UTS, meaning UTS is hogging funds. Moneyfizza (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does having the majority of people employed by UTS mean that UTS is hogging the funds. The project is developing systems and services for the whole sector. The work being done on the project (by people employed at UTS, because UTS was the responsible grant holder) is not being done for UTS, but rather for all participants. The software that has been developed is available for everyone. The project staff have been heavily involved in developing labs at other Universities (both ATN partners, and elsewhere), and the project outcomes (survey reports, etc.) are resources for the whole sector.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labsdir (talk • contribs) 06:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to watch it on Today Tonight when they ask UniSA whether they were only awarded $0.05m of the $3.8m awarded by the Government, despite they were 20% of the project - and thus UniSA only received 1.45% of funds for providing 20% of workmanship. Interesting... Hardrockfan203 (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I would welcome any media interest in the Labshare project - it can only serve to highlight what an excellent project it is and the enormous value it represents. Labsdir (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess this is where the nepotism allegations arose, because 5/6 management committee are from UTS, which means UTS used the other 4 ATN universities to get awarded $3.8m, but spent all the money themselves. That's why, they employed 10 staff members, all of whom are UTS staff members (i.e. contribute to the UTS image). Hardrockfan203 (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Labshare consortium (known as Labshare) is a laboratory sharing initiative established by the Federal Commonwealth of Australia Government..." Read below, you admit there was funding by the federal government ID908237835 (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: A reliable IEEE source quotes that the Australian Government has funded $3.8m, via their Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations's Diversity and Structural Adjustment Fund. ID908237835 (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a definitive source. It is an individual academic reporting of their involvement in projects. The definitive source is the Federal Government website for the funding scheme (www.deewr.gov.au/dsa) which clearly states that the projects was funded $2.1M from DEEWR, that the lead institution is UTS, and the conditions of grant on the same website state that the lead institution is the grant holder and is responsible for managing and coordinating the project.

Amount of funding by the Federal Government
The project wasn't established by the Commonwealth. It was established by UTS in partnership with the other ATN Universities, but funding was partially provided by the Federal Goverment ($2.1m, not the $3.8m repeatedly referred to).
 * Read, it says $3.8m NOT $2.1m. Where did you get $2.1m from? Please use a verified source per WP:V. Clearly, your source is wrong. ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The definitive source is the funding bodies website (www.deewr.gov.au/dsa). This clearly states that the project was funded $2.1M from DEEWR, that the lead institution is UTS, and the conditions of grant on the same website state that the lead institution is the grant holder and is responsible for managing and coordinating the project. The references you are citing do NOT state that the Federal Government provided $3.8m. They state that the project is worth $3.8m - and this is because there is substantial additional contributions from the project partners (with more than half of this coming from UTS). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labsdir (talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where on that website does it state the project was funded $2.1m? I am not related to project so I am unsure, if Government injection is $2.1, it may be accepted. More info please. ID908237835 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the PDF outlining the list of 2008 funded projects, and then search of "sharing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labsdir (talk • contribs) 05:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"... Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations by their Diversity and Structural Adjustment Fund[10] awarded the five Australian Technology Network Universities..." The grant was not made to the ATN Universities. The terms of the grant were clearly that it was made to UTS, though UTS has partnered with the other Universities involved as participants in the project.
 * Clearly, you need to read which enlists the statement. ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: A reliable IEEE source quotes the Government funding of $3.8m, not $2.1m. ID908237835 (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether UTS or UniSA system was developed earlier
"Early life. The original remote laboratory from the University of South Australia which initiated the inter-University competition". There is no competition. The work that has been carried out to date has occurred in a highly collaborative manner. "The Labshare consortium was established as a government-granted monopoly". It was not established by the government, but rather was initiated by UTS in order to establish strengthened collaboration. It has not, and has never been described as a monopoly. Participation is, and has always been, welcome from any institutions, and this has been widely communicated within the sector.

"The University of South Australia was first to establish its NetLab remote lab in 2008". Netlab was originally created in the early 2000's. "Subsequently, the University of Technology, Sydney established its untitled remote lab to compete with the University of South Australia". Work at UTS predates that at UniSA, and neither was intended to be a competitor. The laboratories focus in quite different discipline areas. Indeed colleagues at UniSA and UTS have been strong collaborators, with multiple jointly authored publications and involvement in joint research and teaching grants.
 * This page states the project was granted $3.8m by the Australian Government Department. Please only mention verifiable sources per WP:V. ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * UniSA established their laboratory in 2003 (http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/FIE.2003.1263343) under the Head of School Prof Andrew Nafalski, as in published journals. Stop your blatant promotion of UTS. ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This article  shows references by UniSA made in 2000. Does one of your sources pre-date this? ID908237835 (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: UniSA was the earlier establisher in 2001, as supported by reliable sources . ID908237835 (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

On the Uni SA website http://www.unisa.edu.au/eresearch/unisa/showcase.asp "NetLab is the UniSA remote laboratory developed by staff and students in the School of Electrical and Information Engineering. The development was financially supported by the school and by the UniSA Teaching and Learning Grant in 2002. "http://www.unisa.edu.au/eresearch/unisa/showcase.asp Alxxthegeek (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You still haven't shown that the UTS system was developed any earlier, Alex. ID908237835 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/papers/2005/Paper/Paper208.pdf - which clearly refers to developments at UTS in 2001. Labsdir (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The early life section as it is currently is still incorrect. UTS has had remote laboratories since 2001.Alxxthegeek (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * UniSA had remote laboratories since 2000. Uts is the world (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I find this argument intriguing given none of the ATN universities are even in the top 100. Whatever happened to the Group of Eight (Australian universities)? The sandstone ANU, USyd, UMelb, UQld, Monash, UNSW, UofA, UWA aren't even apart of this project. Moneyfizza (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this is showing a deep misunderstanding of the project. The ATN Universities were the original partners in the project because they were already active in this area and formed a group that had national coverage. The project however has always aimed to include, and already has significant involvement from, other institutions. Of the Universities you mention, UofA, Monash and Sydney are already participating in the project as trial users or developing their own labs, with strong interest from UQ, UNSW. Labsdir (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am from the University of Adelaide, which person has it included? Are you telling me University of Sydney is helping UTS? I have had my laugh today. What is this "significant involvement" exactly? Do you mean moderating your journals and rejecting them? Hardrockfan203 (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not involved with project, looks like the $3,800,000 UTS has spent has just gone into the hole? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, or via your website, you're miscommunicating? Hardrockfan203 (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Funding by ARC
"Because the Australian Research Council funding for both the University of South Australia and University of Technology, Sydney was exhausted as of 2010". Neither UniSA nor UTS have ever had ARC funding for the remote laboratory initiatives.
 * The funding was only from 2008-2010: ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I can find no reference to support there was ever funding by ARC so I have removed this until later date. ID908237835 (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions of whether Labshare is a cartel
"As a project of the Australian Technology Network elite five universities, non-members have criticized the government-subsidized monopoly, ...". There has no evidence of any criticism of the project either online, in the media, or from other institutions. All feedback to the team has been highly positive.


 * In the Sydney Morning Herald, an article dating August 20, 2010, raised these issues on page 67. ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the article if it actually exists. Alxxthegeek (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have an account on SMH, and so access to archived content, and have done a search, but could not find any reference in the last year to Labshare

"...creating unfair competition via a cartel to manipulate pricing and distribution". The project has an clearly stated explicit objective to promote sharing. No inter-University sharing of laboratories have involved any funding transfers, nor has there been any pricing models established by or for Labshare at this stage.
 * You should look at the definition of monopoly and cartel. National Instruments has developed a LabView lab (http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/3301), and this project undermines that commercial institution. ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As the above examples from the introductory paragraphs illustrate, almost every comment is false or misleading, directly contradicted by the available information on the project, and unsubstantiated by any publicly available supporting information.
 * Where is this contradictory evidence you speak of? ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Status of source code as open source
There is a claim that our software is closed source and hasn't been developed. That is false it has been released and is all available as open source software under a BSD license on source forge http://sourceforge.net/projects/labshare-sahara/ Alxxthegeek (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The UTS source code for their remote lab is open source? Or is this only for the group project? ID908237835 (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See sourceforge.net/projects/labshare-sahara/ where the code has been publicly released under a BSD open source license.

UTS Remote Labs remote lab uses the labshare source code which is open source under a BSD license. The old UTS source code has been replaced except for on one legacy experiment (coldfire) which is in the process of being phased out and replaced over the next six months.Alxxthegeek (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where can I download the source code for the UTS remote lab then? I can't find it, thus, its closed source. Moneyfizza (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For current experiments that are part of labshare all source code is at http://sourceforge.net/projects/labshare-sahara/ Alxxthegeek (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please answer my question: I didn't ask you about the source code for Sahara. I said, is the source code for the UTS Remote Labs publicly available? I don't know if you understand whether, if it isn't, then its identified as closed source. Please stop with your spin tactics. I have notified the media, and The Advertiser in Adelaide will be doing a report on UTS' sock puppet, editing their own Wikipedia articles, and lack of progress and wastage of tax dollars in the next week, and nepotism an attempt to grant oneself all of the funds - if not otherwise covered by the Sydney Morning Herald as another user delineated. Furthermore, the lies that are being spread around that UTS developed their system earlier than UniSA (I have no relation whatsoever except the institution is in Adelaide, I am a proud member of the University of Adelaide). I think it will be interesting to see how UniSA responds to leaked claims they have only been awarded $0.05m of the $3.8m in funds. Moneyfizza (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I would welcome any media interest in the Labshare project - it can only serve to highlight what an excellent project it is and the enormous value it represents. Labsdir (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether Labshare is a Government-granted monopoly and cartel
I ask that the controversial material in the early life section be removed(at least be removed to this talk page). Especially the section referring to cartels ,monopolys and unfair competition. No evidence has been provided for these claims.Alxxthegeek (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Further content removed:
 * The Labshare consortium was established as a government-granted monopoly to provide Australian educators with a sustainable competitive advantage.
 * The team of five elite Australian Technology Network universities formed a cartel to seek funding, which it did so successfully to form Labshare. A high profile team was assembled including former Head of School Prof Andrew Nafalski from the University of South Australia, Head of School Bas Baskaran from Deakin University, Prof David Lowe, Emeritus Prof Alan Bradley from Engineers Australia, Emeritus Prof Archie Johnston from University of Technology, Sydney, and Assoc Prof Ozdemir Gol from the University of South Australia.
 * As a project of the Australian Technology Network elite five universities, non-members have criticized the government-subsidized monopoly, creating unfair competition via a cartel to manipulate pricing and distribution. However, given the embryonic stage of remote labs, the Government has defended its actions for the purpose of stimulating research and development in Australia. The project was granted during the Global Financial Crisis by the Rudd Government's budget deficit, and is dubious as to whether it will be matched by the incoming Abbott Government.

Labshare and the lack of progress
Done It has been removed to this talk page for further discussion
 * This has been removed, for reference, in case it wishes to be disputed :
 * An empirical study has not been conducted, though it is necessary to conduct a focus group and longitudinal survey study of Australian primary, secondary, tertiary (including both TAFE and University), and professional education, in order to understand spending patterns, as well as technological and pedagogical requirements. It seems intuitive schools desire the technology to teach and because of the more complex level of University education, require supplementary learning materials, which will include documentation, work sheets, and video lectures. Current extensive use of the java technology has proven to be slow and not readily accessible by most user browsers, meaning decreased accessibility. However, development in the alternative Flash technology popularized by YouTube proves to be technologically challenging. The key driver has been determined as the quality of (1) lab; and (2) remote technology.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Trials with students using initial labs followed by experience survey and feasibility evaluation
 * No trials with schools have been completed, meaning a feasibility empirical study has not been possible. It is ambiguous as to whether consortium members are unable to partner with local schools, or whether mismanagement has delayed fulfilling this goal.
 * The Labshare model has been refined by ditto (by way of corporate espionage or otherwise) of current competitive techniques, including environmental design, schedule, tutor, library system, 3D environment , increased experiment options , improved sharing ability and auto-restart
 * Though a basic website has been setup, no guidelines have been provided for the selection, design, utilization of remote labs
 * No technical specifications or documentations has been produced of commercial grade as a result of complications in coordination.
 * Starter pack for Universities and schools not completed.
 * Though basic website setup, newsletters, workshops, not provided for.
 * No software library has been developed for inter-University use, because of the game theory principle that unless quid pro quo each member can obtain benefit from another party, their closed source is hard to disclose
 * Due to unequal distribution of funding by the University of Technology, Sydney, allegedly due to nepotism, the other four consortium members have been unable to obtain funding for developing their remote labs. The University of Technology, Sydney have been criticized by fellow Labshare consortium members for micromanaging the project, as evident by all but one member of management committee as faculty members of UTS, with no representation from the University of South Australia, Queensland University of Technology and Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. Furthermore, all technical engineering staff employed were by the University of Technology, Sydney. The University of Technology, Sydney has been criticized by academics as lacking project management ability, having achieved very little progress despite 50% of the allocated time has already elapsed; and cherry picking facts to showcase to government, using non-denial denial when responding to budget inquiries, and using euphemisms to bury bad news
 * Lack of legal understanding, especially in the area of mediation has prevented further development in this area. Furthermore, an appropriate financial model is still being considered, though there is consensus parties should have free access to each partner's remote labs. The contentious issue is how much third party users should be charged, and what economic modelling should predict this. In order to develop an economic pricing model, further market research in the education sector needs to be conducted, and subsequently analyzed in statistical software. Subsequently, the appropriate contract needs to be drafted so the technology can be adapted to various commercial and non-commercial organizations, which will require similar analysis of human resource needs

Status of Labshare as attack article
Please explain why seeking the speedy deletion of an article that set out solely to disparage its subject is vandalism. The Labshare article was only created today, with a complete lack of neutrality. db-attack is appropriate in this case. 86.156.221.141 (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. *Hello, i have already told you on my talk page that its not an attack page. -  Dwayne   was here!   &#9835;  03:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree, I don't see how the page is attacking, as I have raised above, I have delineated the sections which are in dispute. I have raised the need for WP:CONSENSUS of issues, particularly given there is WP:COI of people involved in the project editing their own page. Clearly, this is an attempt to adopt their own WP:POV which is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. ID908237835 (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please delineate how article is attacking, seems to be non-issue prima facie. ID908237835 (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said on User talk:Dwayne, my reasoning for assessing the article as an attack article was due to it being littered with "Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:" and unreferenced allegations of financial mismanagement and nepotism. While using db-attack was perhaps too strong a move, many Wikipedia policies make it quite clear article should have a neutral point of view.  86.156.221.141 (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup
I'm looking to undertake a cleanup of this article; some preliminary points:  "Subsequently, the University of Technology, Sydney established its remote lab to compete with the University of South Australia." - can anyone reference that, particularly the competing element? Ironholds (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Remove as the above statement is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netdir (talk • contribs) 05:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Is it really important to have the university rankings? Are they at all relevant? Ironholds (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC) What do people think about removing the "Objectives" bit and turning it into prose rather than a list? Ironholds (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Do we really need to list all project staff? Ironholds (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not relevant at all.Alxxthegeek (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove as WP:PEACOCKish fluff that would have to be updated every year and does not have any relevance to the topic at hand. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it reads rather to much like advertising at the moment. Fæ (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why have it at all ?, its not necessary here.Alxxthegeek (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with prosifying it. If this thing (Labshare) has no purpose, then why bother having it at all? Seriously though, obviously it was created for a reason, and that reason or at least the general goals of the project, can be written objectively to explain the purposes or aims or "what niche does this fill?" of it. Definitely not just parrotting the bullet-points from the official statement. "Develop at least 4 remote labs in different engineering disciplines capable of supporting a minimum of 1000 students each" is not encyclopedic in content (actually many of the points are same problem), but a few sentences, like "The project aims to develop standards and specifications for XXX. In addition to publishing the technical details, assistance (such as grants supporting implementation and educational materials to aid users) is planned." Note, that's just pulled out of my $wherever, not based on the facts of the situation, to illustrate potential style. DMacks (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Agree' To removing it.Its not that labshare has no purpose but that it is not necessary to list Labshare objectives here. Labshare as a consortium is up and running with lab sharing trials underway.Note I am a Labshare employee (also disclosed on my user page)Alxxthegeek (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2010
 * No, I suggest board level only to avoid the maintenance headache, if anyone is interested they can look at the current staff list on the official website. Other names may be included in the body, but these would be supported by fixed reliable sources in citations. Fæ (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No A long list of project staff (with references to their university home pages which don't verify their involvement in Labshare) is pretty pointless.  If a few of them are particularly notable and their involvement in Labshare can be verified, then perhaps they could be listed.  86.156.221.141 (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My thinking entirely - I have a basic rule on lists which is "if you were to convert the names into links and most would be red, look at how notable the list at a whole is". Ironholds (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please change link pointing to Labshare to www.labshare.edu.au not lower level pagesAlxxthegeek (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No need at all. List the partner universities and maybe a contact at each and the rigs(experiments) that are part of Labshare from each university.Alxxthegeek (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me; seems to be consensus to remove the list of participants. Anyone want to comment on the other points? Ironholds (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify? The Website field of the infobox already points there. There are lots of links in the footnotes that point to specific pages on the site. Those latter are correct because, well, they are links to the specific document being cited. If we're talking about a specific page, we link to it as directly as possible, not just a ton of links to the toplevel domain--helps maintain verifiability without wasting readers' clicking time. DMacks (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry was referring to the one in the external link sectionAlxxthegeek (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

 In related pages could a link to GOLC and Lila_Project be added.Alxxthegeek (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)



Edit request
Consensus for point 4 above has been reached. Request is to remove Membership section. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  08:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Dabomb87 (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Point 5 (link in External Links section) seems uncontroversial (and agreed-to by previously-uninvolved editor--me:). DMacks (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅, and wrapped in official for good measure. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether UTS is capable of being defamed on Wikipedia
On my talk page, I said:
 * I am removing information that is false. Utwaffe (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not on Talk pages, you don't. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Labshare, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Controversial material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". It makes UTS look bad so it should be removed. Utwaffe (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * UTS is not a peson. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, your User name could leave someone to think that you have a conflict of interest on this subject. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The phrase DOES "Controversial material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately" refer to UTS as a corporate person? Utwaffe (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Controversial material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately
 * "living people". Corporations are legal entities, but not living ones. Ironholds (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling User:Ironholds, User:Everard Proudfoot, User:Gogo Dodo, and User:Fæ are just anti-UTS and want to destroy our good name university! This is CONFLICT OF INTEREST! Trying to ban me from removing libelous content! And they were traced to the University of Melbourne.
 * I'd say RMIT, Curtin, QUT, UniSA, and Vladimir Lasky the "person" who took UTS to the IR Commission are just trying to "get back" at UTS for telling the world the truth of ! Utwaffe (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I never heard of this organization nor of UTS until you started blanking material. I'm not anti-anything.  I'm only trying to explain to you that repeated behavior such as you were performing will get you blocked.  Follow appropriate Wikipedia procedures, and you won't be blocked, although your conflict of interest is obvious, and you have yet to appropriately disclose it.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You, on the other hand, are violating WP:BLP with your comments concerning a living person. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Lies! I have never heard of UTS myself until today! You are all out to get UTS! 4 uni's against 1 is unfair! Everyone knows RMIT, Curtin, QUT, UniSA is jealous a good university like UTS is getting SO MUCH incredible funding! They are trying to stab UTS in the media because they have highest ranking! Utwaffe (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I got involved in editing this article because I read an OTRS ticket from people involved in the project. I got involved to make it a more neutral place. If you think that anything will get done by defaming the people trying to fix the problem, then mister you can get right back up on the horse you rode in on and leave. Ironholds (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not neutral! ! He did not invent anything! He invented how to backstab UTS is what he did! :# Utwaffe (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Final warning. Any further attacks will lead to your being blocked. I will redact the above comments.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: he has continued his personal attacks, and so I've reverted, had him blocked, and pointed him towards the appropriate things to read before he requests an unblock. Ironholds (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)