Talk:Schools Interoperability Framework

Article Edit Comments From Contributing Editor
Adding this new section to house comments describing editors' motivations behind specific edits. Spectre9 (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reversion
I want to be clear that my reversion was not intended as a hostile act or as attempting to disregard the intention behind the changes but the radical changes to the article without discussion first left me challenged to re-incorporate a lot of the stuff that I thought important to the article. I reverted to the last version before the big change and then incorporated some changes in reaction to the comments here. My specific comments embedded herein. I DO appreciate someone paying attention to this article!!!! Thanks Spectre9! Alex Jackl (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Source Quality
This article appears to still require cleanup related to POV of sources. Looking at sources reveals some that 'self published' or come from promotional sources, or unpublished original resources. It appears almost all the citations lack references to primary sources. Conclusions are being drawn about the 'time savings' of SIF without balanced discussion of the costs (time, money, consulting) in these implementations. appropriate discussion of the costs discussion on the cost of SIF (implementation, support). Suggest that these cost savings statements be removed as they are not necessary to establish notability of SIF, and otherwise are promotional in nature. It does not appear that the cost savings is supported by primary sources at all -- need third party verification of these facts as statements of a project's "savings" by persons involved in its implementation may not be considered reliable. Spectre9 (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed that we need citations for those statements. I have references and I need to look for them but that section is important because it does establish the question of "Why?" regarding the SIF specification and starts to answer the question of why it sg rowth has been so explosive in the last few years!  I will look for citations and if I can't find notable citations I will remove each of those statements myself.  I tagged those statements with citation tags. As to the quality of Sources - as usual in a highly technical field a lot of the sources are from a small group of sources and slightly incestuous.  It is the nature of the beast I think.  Alex Jackl (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement and promotion
There is a continued flavor of promotion, and I have added inclusion of promotional or advertising links and discussions that are go beyond establishing notability of SIF. Suggest that most of this article be edited to focus on the core principles of what SIF (the standard) is, and other topics either removed or are transferred to more appropraite articles. My own edits of 8 June 2007 have some elements I did not realize are inappropriate and I plan to do some additional cleanup and move questionable items over to talk. Spectre9 (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I did a pass through looking for questionable language and phrasing that would be promotion-flavored and I saw what you meant. However, in my view it occurs like a few examples which I deleted. I noticed I had added some terms and adjectives which were subjective and "markety" like the word "seamlessly", and the "the only XML specification". I have removed those and a few other examples.

However I would like to discuss with you what the other parts you considered "promotion oriented"? There are certain issues that I think are important that SIFA is dealing with right now that I think an encyclopedia reader would be interested in and give them clarity on it. This is after all an encyclopedia - not a dictionary. Topics should be covered in depth and not treated in a minimalist fashion. That being said I concur 100% with the need to document and source any assertions except the most obvious. I will endeavor to look for more reliable third-party sources. Thanks! Alex Jackl (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

POV-check
I've nominated this article for a POV-check, I'm not that experienced a wikipedian but it looks to me like this lacks citations and aims to promote SIF rather than being the neutral article we expect. --212.85.4.158 14:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly about the article is non-POV? I did find the equivelant of an advertisement that someone added to the bottom of the page so I changed that. Except for that, I looked it over and despite being a little slim it isn't really that POV from my perspective. Also, it is always good to sign in when you leave comments on Talk pages! Thanks! Alex Jackl 00:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

POV-check removal
Since it has been some time and no further comment I have removed the POV warning. Happy to discuss it should anyone want to. Alex Jackl 06:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed old technical tag
I believe the article is still slim but in reasonable shape. Happy to discuss. Alex Jackl 05:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation Tag
Since the article does have 7 references and multiple ELs I am going to remove the citation tag. Am wide open to discussion on this...Alex Jackl 05:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Issues Tag
I took off all the issues. Even that I am not sure about but we have included a good number of references. This is not an advert, I don't understand why they think these are peacock terms, etc. Please discuss on this page so we can evaluate. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Advertising flag was added due to the nature of the sources and the apparent advocacy of the article itself.
 * The tags that I had added were rather specific, particularly those added inline. No content edits have been made, so I will proceed with my own corrections. Much of the article content will likely be removed as it is not relevant.
 * Peacock terms -- I found that to be complimentary to the Weasel Words tag, which could also apply to phrases within this article. I think these phrases are the reason the POV tag was originally added.

Issues Tags
These issues that we re added are not valid and I question as to the purpose of littering the page with them. Most of the page is narrative describing the structure and purpose of the topic of the article NOT any kind of contentious or advertising kind of material - I will remove them for now and we should discuss what is the material here that is contentious or unclear. Let's use this space to talk it through rather than littering the article. Alex Jackl (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How were they not valid, the sections marked were not sourced? I thought the unsourced tag was for sections that did not have sources attached to them. The tags are there for people to know this and hopefully add sources, if there are any. Another option would be to place the need more sources at the top of the page, that litters the page less. -- VViking Talk Edits 13:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You are responding to a comment that is FIVE YEARS old. The page was quite different then. Alex Jackl (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct it is different, however it still has many of the same issues, large sections are still unsourced. This article also needs some additional independent sourcing, currently most of the references are from primary sources. VViking Talk Edits 16:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

change of name
Is no one watching this page ready to change the name throughout Wikipedia and put in redirects? All their branding has completely changed, with SIF used only as historical link https://www.a4l.org/Pages/default.aspx Simon Grant (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This was done, and I believe the proper re-directs and name changes are in place. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did find another old link that was relying on the web page redirect and I just corrected that Alex Jackl (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

COI Link
This page has been around since 2005. Many people have edited it. The fact that I am now on the board does not invalidate the page which has been stable for years. I am now removing the COI tag on this page. Do not conflate this page with activity on the new Education Matrix page. Alex Jackl (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)