Talk:Schools Interoperability Framework

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: 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 Looking at sources reveals some that 'self published' or come from promotional sources, or unpublished original resources.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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Source Quality 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Advertisement and promotion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV-check

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV-check removal 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation Tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. --VVikingTalkEdits 13:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.VVikingTalkEdits 16:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues Tags 

message: 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)
thread_title:  change of name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  COI Link