Talk:Two-Photon 3-D Optical Data Storage

message: It seems that there are repeated attempts to use this page as an advertising platform for Call/Recall. Could anyone with experience in such matters advise on appropriate action to take? TheBendster 20:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

message: Well I’m not sure why you think I am using this entry to intentionally misinform. To be honest, I don't even know whose nefarious purposes you think I’m working for! Surely if that were the case then I would be shooting myself in the foot by tagging the article as having a neutrality problem? All the same, if my edit appeared to be biased then I apologize for that – it was not my intention. I have worked in this field in the past, but my editing did not relate directly to the particular research that I took part in. My knowledge is based almost entirely on academic publications and information from the internet so I will freely admit that I do not have full knowledge of your company’s results. However my edit was made in good faith and in an attempt to improve the article, and I don’t appreciate your immediate assumption that any perceived inaccuracies are an attempt to slander you.
 
I would suggest that you carefully read the conflict of interest and NPOV pages (as well as pages linked from them) and try to follow these policies on your future edits. At the moment, for instance, we seem to have problems with excessive citation and vanity (e.g. “Call/Recall … is the research and development and industry leader that everyone is trying to catch up with”). If haste in editing is your problem, then why not work with your edit offline and only submit it only after you have had a chance to proof-read?
 
My opinion is that the best approach from here might be to change this page so that it focuses only on the technology and mentions specific companies and researchers to a minimum amount. Separate linked entries could cover any of the researchers or companies that warrant special interest (i.e. you can create a whole page about Call/Recall). I think that this way this page could most easily reach a high-quality consensus. Please comment on this proposal.
TheBendster 17:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's try to calm down here! 

message: Dear Bendster,
Your research skills are unfortunately lacking as shown in the original creation of this page where it was very unprofessionally done without regard to the full body of art in this technology sector.  I do appreciate your attempt to include some historical facts, but I'm afraid that is not even complete.  It's fairly obvious that your working with the one of the university research groups or one of the other companies listed in the original document in light of the timing of some announcements on websites yesterday, where are their publications to back up their claims? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ewalker2007 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  due diligence on your own research 

message: I am in a bit of a hurry, but a few important things you should think about include:
1) I was not the original creator of this page. I am not sure why you think that I was. There have been several active editors of which I am only one.
2) Personal insults are neither helpful nor tolerated by the WIkipedia community. Even your rudeness on this page is shadowed by your messages on the user pages. I hope that you realize that those posts are also publicly viewable. You need to understand that while bullying may be an effective tactic for you in the material world, it will not work so easily on the internet.
3) The point of WIkipedia is that many people will contribute what little they know so that the the whole will benefit. Discouraging people from editing on the grounds that their knowledge is incomplete is diametrically opposed to this principle.
4) You conclude that my knowledge arises from involvement in either an academic group or a commercial enterprise. The fact that you are unable to be any more specific than that demonstrates quite clearly that I have provided extremely unbiased editing.
5) If you believe that there has been an important announcement recently, then why don't you add it to the page?
6) If you believe that there are statements in the article that require references then you should feel free to add them. If you do not know an appropriate reference then you should flag the relevant statement as requiring a reference, so that another member of the community can add one. This is the standard process used to resolve such issues.
7) Up to this point you have probably done considerably more harm than good to Call/Recall's public image and general credibility. I believe that you still have a chance to reverse the trend. You might be well advised to consult with your head of PR before you make your next post or edit.
8) I still believe that there is a fundamental flaw in the style of the article in that it is based around a discussion of the various contributions of specific research groups and companies, rather than on the technology itself. This is an encyclopedia article, not an academic review, and people who arrive here are more likely looking for a description of the technology than for a discussion of the relative merits of its developers. In-depth coverage of specific people and companies can appear in linked articles on those developers. If you examine other Wikipedia articles you will see that they seem to follow this model.
9) Please re-read my previous post!
10) I will shortly be off for for a family Easter vacation and so I will not be logging on for some considerable time. You therefore have a good opportunity to think carefully about the situation and how to resolve it. I would appreciate it if you could use your next comment to give your opinion about how we can move forward to improve the article to everyboby's benefit. Thanks.  
TheBendster 20:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please re-read my previous post. 

message: Dear Bendster,
I am sorry if my constructive criticism was taken personally, I didn’t mean to offend you or anyone else.
1) I see you were not the original editor, as it appears you have only made 
typographical editorial changes and not any substantial edits as far as the subject technology is concerned.
2) as mentioned above, I was just trying to provide some constructive criticism to 
the page in general.  
3) In an emerging technology area such as this I feel it is not appropriate for amateur 
enthusiasts to be commenting on subjects that they are not trained in to talk about.  
Especially when it appears that most editors of this page have not done the basic searches 
of the PTO (Patent and Trademark Office) website or the published literature records that 
speak for themselves.
4) see 1)
5) No there hasn’t been any important announcements that I’m aware of.  
Maybe the other editors know of something?
6) This is great, I hope the other editors of this page read that suggestion too.
7) Is any publicity really bad publicity?
8) Perhaps you could arrange a forum of some kind where all of the expert researchers 
who have contributed to this technology sector from the past, present, and future, could get 
together and provide the basic chemistry/physics/optics/technologies/… generalities of this 
emerging technology and then maybe a consensus could be reached that is more democratic than 
the present situation.
9)ok
10) Please let me know if you like the above proposal in 8)  
Have a great vacation and Happy Easter!
Ewalker2007 17:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  constructive criticism 

message: Jolly good. As there is some consensus that the article needs a lot of work, I have gone ahead and made a complete rewrite designed to deal with the problems we have been facing with editor bias. As with any quick first draft, there is still plenty of work to be done (expansion in particular), but I feel that this draft is already a great improvement on the current mash-up. In the new version, almost no mention is made of any specific researcher or company in most of the article. This is as it should be for an encyclopedic article about the technology. There are specific sections where individual people or companies of particular importance are listed with very brief and dry descriptions of their contributions, and links (if necessary) to the other articles dealing with them. I have also been careful not to favor any technology over another (e.g. by suggesting that 2-photon absorbance measurement is an inferior readout method to 2-photon fluorescence). Please make every effort to retain this impartiality.
I have taken this opportunity to reorganize the entire article more logically and to change the name to 3D optical data storage. I feel that this title describes the field more accurately, since with '2-photon' in the title one might question the inclusion of e.g. the FMD or even Landauer. These technologies certainly belong in the same article as Call/Recall, Mempile, etc. Finally, I have begun the process of properly referencing the article, which for an encyclopedia means a small number of particularly important references rather than long lists of academic publications.
I see no reason to discourage anyone from editing (even amateurs), or to attempt to circumvent the Wikipedia method by setting up a private forum. In fact I believe that to do either of these things would be a gross misuse of Wikipedia according to its own guidelines. 
Please edit the new article only thoughtfully and impartially. In particular, if you insist on making edits concerning the company you work for, I would urge you to discuss your changes first in the associated talk page in order to ensure a neutral point of view.
TheBendster 16:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Rewrite Done 

message: Dear Bendster,
Why are you so interested in this, while taking a big effort to hide behind your anonymous name?  
Your title 3D Optical data storage is misleading and would need to include holographic data storage too as this is 3d, and other 3D technologies such as Spectral Hole Burning etc.... many others too that you're not aware of.  To me this indicates that you have some other purpose yourself that is self-motivating.
Perhaps the title "3D Bit-Wise Volumetric Data Storage" would be better as this is distinct from Holographic.
Amatures do not belong writing a page such as this, and I strongly disagree with you.  
I think we'll need to go to arbitration sometime in the near future with this.
(Ewalker2007 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article rewrite 

message: Dear Bendster,
You have forgotten to cite the important works of Professor Daniel Day and Ming Gu from the Swinburne University (Australia), which shows that you too should slow down before you post a brand new page.
Most of the Optical Data Storage community considers Holographic to be a volumetric technology and is very much 3D in nature.
Since when is Google used as a reference on proper subject terminology?  That is preposterous!
FMD doesn't belong here as it's just an extension of 2-layer dvd and 2 layer Blu-Ray, nothing uniquely 3d about it at all.
The references are few in your new rewrite and are not comprehensive enough, and leave a false impression to the casual reader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.242.166.13 (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite is a little pathetic