Talk:System/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

(Moved from User talk:Lexor on 2003-10-16 by Lexor):

Lexor, why not use headings sections as a disambiguate means? reddi

Because it looks like they are sections within an article, rather than separate meanings of single word. I don't think that there's specific policy here, but I think my approach is consistent with the current conventions. It also means that the article starts with a section, rather than a definition paragraph, which is not wikipedia format. If the article is getting long enough that you feel you need to include section headers, it's probably time to split off each individual section into a separate (disambiguated) article. My feeling is to keep the "science" section the main one, and move the other meanings to system (disambiguation). Alternatively, since the meanings aren't really that distinctive to a particular discipline (there's lots of overlap, perhaps we should make it a single article, in which case section headers are appropriate, but only after an intro paragraph.

What do you think, should we make a single article or a disambiguation page? --Lexor 13:06, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Since the meanings aren't really that distinctive to a particular discipline (there's lots of overlap, i'd would lean to t a single article), I guess it needs an intro paragraph and forward section (more than anything). Are the subsection too big to split off each individual section into a separate (disambiguated) article? Disambigs usually are short one sentences (for each item). Move the other meanings to system (disambiguation)? Make a note to see the disambiguation? If it's possible to keep the info [not slim it down (the others entries are relevant)]. I'd like a single article [just becuase there is alot of interdependence in the differing concepts], though a disambiguation page would be good too [if not slimmed down and there is an appropriate link page to goto]. I'll see if I can find the goto pages [I'll post them in the discussion on the article page, if I get some). I'd agree to keep the "science" section the main one (either way; it's the most general in it's use IMO). reddi 23:38, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'd vote to make this a single article and merge the existing text into several sections with an overall intro. It needs rewriting anyway. --Lexor 00:28, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Systems theory

I think that the notion of organizations as systems has been there long time before Peter Senge. I.e., Ludwig von Bertalanffy published General Systems Theory around 1937! In short, he introduced the revolutionary concept that there are "systems laws", i.e., laws which stand whichever the system (as a large organization of many entities) is: biological, social, mechanical or whatever. A short description of his life and works is given in http://www.psy.pdx.edu/PsiCafe/KeyTheorists/vonBertalanffy.htm, and even when most of his work is devoted to biological systems his name is worth mentioning in an article about "systems". See also Systems theory. --Jorge

Moved a section

I removed a section from a previous version of this article, "Elements which can also be called systems," because it does not match the given definition of a system: "an assemblage of inter-related elements comprising a unified whole." However, perhaps a list of sports scoring systems deserves a place somewhere else in this encyclopedia. Wiccan Quagga 21:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

block quote

I removed this block quote from the top of the article for stylistic purposes, but I wasnt sure where it should go precisely:

A number of material points considered simultaneously is called a system of material points, or briefly a system

(H.Hertz 1956, p. 46, § 6)

Thanks, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

block quote: Response

I do agree with you! I left it unchanged after my edit because (1) it certainly seems true (but very abstract); and (2) I also didn't know where to put it! I just now added it to the end of Background as a parenthetical statement. See if you agree. If not, we can just delete it; I don't know whether it comes from set theory or some other such 'specialized' source.

normxxx 19:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Chris cardillo: I,P, & O

I expanded your IPO to a sentence and moved it up. ⇒ _normxxx| ^talk ⇒ email 01:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Good article status

Hi, I have removed this article from the good articles list because:

It did not go through the nomination procedure.
It has limited references.
Both the article and the lead are choppy.
The topic is a wideranging one but the article lacks coherency. Try focusing on what all systems have in common and then building on the definition from there.
That's what the intro does: focuses on what all systems have in common. It doesn't articulate different systems, it articulates what a system is from different philosophical points of view. Like "Top, left, and front".

Wideranging might be a subtle misnomer. It is simultaneously general and precise. "System" is an abstract philosophical concept, but not a fuzzy one. The concept may have wideranging applications, but epistemologically, that is, in a proper description of "system", its scope is very narrow. Perhaps it reads well for a person already familiar with the philosophical concept, but not for a layman.

Cedars 00:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

WHAT DO YOU THINK

Hi Wikipedia contributors... I tried to add this but Absolute Dan removed it (said it was promotional material).
I was not promoting anything (the referred to web isn't is not mine). See what you think and leave comments.

Thanks

Using Systems to Improve Performance

Systems can also refer to a specific consistent method to perform a task. Once a successful way to accomplish a task is perfected, that method can be repeated over and over again establishing a "systematic process" for performing the work. The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award describes systematic as: "approaches that are repeatable and use data and information so that improvement and learning are possible."

These types of systems of performing work are used to improve human performance and equipment reliability. They are often written - in the form of a procedure - and then a workforce can be trained to use the system. In that way others may also use the same system to perform the work.

Thus systems can be used to improve performance. This has been done in several performance improvement systems including Six Sigma, Total Quality Management, root cause analysis, and statistical process control. Thus performance improvement itself can be systematized and systems can be applied to the improvement process.

Please comment...

Thanks

Hi, I'm new in wikipedia but if greatsystems.com sells system improvement, then his view about the importance of systems can be biased. For the text itself, stressing about the possibility of system improvement and finally give a link to a society who can commercially do it, I think this can be view as promotionnal advertising. If greatsystems.com wasn't your only reference, maybe remove the link and try again... --alink 15:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias - an interesting concept...

Doesn't everyone have a bias? Isn't every opinion based on bias? That makes allmost all written work biased.

Wouldn't people who sell knowledge (how to improve systems) have good ideas that are, of course, biased just like everyone elses?

If someone started a not-for-profit foundation on improving systems, wouldn't that make them biased?

If only "unbiased" information can be posted, wouldn't all information have to be deleated?

I looked at the greatsysms.com site and there seems to be a lot of free information. Does this make that information less biased because it is free?

One more note, if a new person post multiple links to multiple web sites, you will be targeted as a SPAMER by Wikipedia. So posting a single link is the only way to start. Others should add their information.

There are already a great number of links on this article. None seem to deal with systematic improvement. Think the link is a good reference even if the owner sells intelectual property. Perhaps the articles page would be a better place for the link to go. See: Articles. This page doesn't seem very commercial...

--User:Samhere

:greatsystems.com

greatsystems.com was removed because it is connected with the taproot system, which has been spammed across multiple articles here recently. I suspect it is part of a promotional campaign of some kind for taproot, which is prohibited here. On such a broad topic as this, surely we can find other sources of information, preferrably ones that meet WP:RS standards. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Danny

It looks like this article has been here quite a while (2003) and no one has added a good link on systems for improvement. Do you know where to find these great links that you suggest that don't mention taproot? I went to Alexa and put www.greatsystems.com in and there weren't any related sites. So I'm not sure where to find these great systems sites.

I didn't see any obvious taproot link on the page that I saw as applicable ( Articles ). But there were lots of articles on ways to use systems for improvement. Maybe if they added the modified link to the page that I thought was good, would that be OK???

With the System article being removed from the "good article" status, isn't it worth allowing people to add content? Cutting an author some slack when they add new material seem like the right answer. Is the mention of a taproot or a taproot site automatic blocking of any page that mentions it? Certainly will be bad news for the Taproot band.

--User:Samhere

It's simply the taproot system that I take issue with. Specifically, spamming of it and mentions of it across multiple articles. Quite obviously the band Taproot and the biology term taproot are unrelated, I'm not sure why you think I'd take issue with those.

The main page of greatsystems.com is littered with mentions of the taproot system. Not only that, but it's a website of one guy who is trying to sell his services. Not exactly what we'd call a reliable source (WP:RS) --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 15:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

AbsoluteDan - Since I posted this addition to the System article and the link contained in it, I suppose I should defend it as a reliable source.

First, because it is "one guy" does not by itself make it unreliable. Aren't you just one guy?

Also, because he "sells his services" does not make him unreliable. Don't all of us who earn a living sell our services to someone? I suspect that you have a job outside of Wiki. Does that make you unreliable?

What makes him reliable is his background, his integrity, and the sources he quotes and refers to.

If you go to the "About Us" on the web site (http://www.greatsystems.com/about.htm ) you will see that the author was an "Examiner (1998), Senior Examiner (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003), and Alumni Examiner (2005) for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award", and a "national Board President and Executive Director of the Association for Quality and Participation." He is also an author for Industrial Engineer magazine.

Seems like he might know what he is talking about when it comes to systematic improvement.

I also believe that his writing - although sometimes original - uses some good references including Deming, Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award criteria, Covey, and information about improvement ideas from FedEx. Thus he passes the Wiki reliable source test.

I belive that your main bone to pick is with me because I posted several links to sites that you deem too commercial and because I posted the links at pages that I thought they belonged on.

Yes, I am new and did not know that posting four links on the same day is against Wiki rules.

Yes, I am learning about Wiki style and content.

But I'm not posting multiple links today and this is a reliable source by Wiki rules and I challenge you to show me the site that has more free stuff about improving systems that is applicable to this topic. And if you find it, or anyone else does, then THEY should post it too!

Links have a legitimate place in Wiki. Since you can't post original material and since you have to respect copyrights and intellectual property, links serve the purpose of making valuable amplifying information available to those interested in the topic of an article. And one reason this article was removed from the "good article" list is that it has "limited references".

I understand that your mission is to enforce Wiki rules on SPAM and I can see why random links that aren't related to a topic need to be cleared. But this site and my posting do apply to the System article.

My only mistake on this posting was to link to the entrance or index page of the site. I should have picked a more "applicable" page. That is something that would be nice if you took the time to correct or at least point out.

After thinking about it some more, I think I have an even better page than the one Sam suggested (see comment posted above). See the "Systems" page: http://www.greatsystems.com/systems.htm .

For "sources" that make this page reliable, he uses the Baldrige National Quality Award criteria. Is that unbiased enough?

Are you planning to revert evert posting I make if it has a link? If so, let me know. I really think that Wiki needs some work in the areas of: improvement; systems; root cause analysis; performance improvement; and human factors. But if you are going to ban my postings by continually reverting them, I guess I should stop wasting my time and let you improve these articles.

If I'm allowed to post I think I will try it again with the "Systems" page link.

Let me know what you think (and others please chime in too...)

--24.183.226.168 19:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)A Frustrated Wiki Author

I'm not doubting that the fellow is intelligent and probably knows what he's talking about on the subject you're referring to. The problem is that the website that you're linking to is his own, and the material published on it is unlikely to be fact-checked and reviewed by teams of editors, managers, lawyers, etc. the way that newspapers, magazines, journals, etc are. Please review WP:RS; personal websites should generally be avoided.

I'm going to follow-up shortly on your talk page regarding external links in general --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Frustrated Author

I think that you and I got off to an unfortunate start. Perhaps we can do better if I compltely explain myself.

You are just trying to enforce the rules - especially the SPAM rules - and I am just trying to post material that people should be interested in on particular topics that I am interested in.

I started off breaking the rules. It was unintentional - Wikipedia has a formidable set of rules to learn - and I did break them unintentionally.

I posted more than 3 links on a particular day. They were also commercial links. I did not post them for SPAM reasons but you can't tell that. They looked like SPAM to you (and I can understand that) but I saw them as links to valuable information. No matter if they were valuable or not, I broke the rules and I'm sorry. I'll stop breaking the rules as soon as I can figure them all out (there does seem to be quite a labyrinth of rules to negotiate for a new user and reading hundreds of pages is tedious at best).

Next, thanks for referring me to the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. I have read the material (pages of material).

I have a comment about the application of this rule and a comments about the rule and how it may apply if it is applicable. (And I'll post this also on your talk page.)

First comment - The Reliable Sources rule doesn't apply to the link I am proposing.

The link is not a primary or secondary source. Primary and Secondary sources deal with proving facts in an article. Rather, this link is an example. It provides examples of tools for Systematic Improvement. These are not "facts" ... they are neither right nor wrong. They are examples and thus can't be wrong (unless you say that they are NOT examples).

Thus the more I read the Reliable Sources rule, the more that I thought that it didn't apply to this link.

But even if the Reliable Sources rule does apply, read the following:

QUOTE 1:

--

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym.

However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

--

First, I think the link I am proposing meets this exception. The greatsystems.com web site is a good example of a well-known professional writing within his field of expertise. (Even if this is a very narrow field - systems to improve performance.)

However, I believe this guideline is probably outdated as on-line media becomes more popular and perhaps just as accurate (or inaccurate?) as the old traditional sources that are becoming more inaccurate to keep up with on-line sources and the 24 hour per day news cycle.

QUOTE 2:

--

Evaluating reliability

Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them.

Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources.

Note that Wikipedia itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines; however, nothing in this guideline is meant to contravene the associated guideline: Wikipedia:Build the web. Wikilink freely.

--

Newsmedia as a reliable source ... that's been a joke lately!

And the New York Times as an example? Please do some reading about Jason Blair!

At least in the US, the accuracy of the press has sunk to new low levels. That's what the Dan Rather scandal was all about.

But this isn't just a recent problem. Check out these old headlines:

http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html

Would Wikipedia be more reliable if these articles from newspapers and magazines (including the New York Times and Science) were used a sources?

And lawyers checking articles for accuracy? Someone at Wikipedia must be laughing about this.

Lawyers check for liability. They don't LET someone publish because someone may use what is publish and thereafter, sue the company. This is NOT a reliability issue - it is a liability (risk management) issue.

Besides, I bet that there isn't a single newspaper that has lawyers out checking articles to see if facts are correct. The lawyers too busy defending defamation and liable suits or prosecuting copyright infringement actions. Being from Scotland you may not know this. But being from America, I have experienced the "reliability" of lawyers - and you don't want to go there.

Wikipedia really should consider revising these outdated ideas about the reliability of sources - ideas that are reducing the accuracy of their on-line encyclopedia. The ideas seem to be from old academic research (perhaps developed in the days of hand written dissertations in early 1800's and last applicable in the 1980's or maybe even 1990's). Even previously "reliable", peer-reviewed publications now find themselves mired in controversy (for example the New England Journal of Medicine and the Merck/Vioxx publication controversy).

A recognized professional publishing under his or her own name and staking their professional reputation on their writing is much more likely to be accurate and fact-checked that a more traditional source of media (television or newspapers) in today's world of 24 hour news and instant deadlines.

Why else have dozens of "accuracy" web sites sprung up to challenge the inaccuracy of traditional print and broadcast media.

Perhaps that is why the "exception" above will need to be used more and more to promote accuracy and provide applicable, reliable content.

To conclude, I guess I can sum up my "case" as follows:

1. The link to the Systems page (http://www.greatsystems.com/systems.htm) at greatsystems.com is a good, accurate, reliable link for examples of systems to improve performance that either:

a) falls outside the realm of the Reliable Sources Rule, or

b) perfectly fits the exceptions clause in the rule.

2. Wikipedia should revise its rules to bring them in line with the ever changing world of on-line information (of which Wikipedia is a part). Otherwise they stand the chance of becoming obsolete (like old paper encyclopedias are today). Wikipedia should also recognize that some links aren't used prove facts but rather are used as examples - a horse of a completely different color!

Thanks again in your patience - I can be rather vociferous when I think I'm being treated unfairly. I will try to be less offended by your (or others) critiques and, of course, follow the rules so that I get less critiques!

One last question, is their a way to pass this idea about "examples" on to more Wikipeadia editors? I think it really needs consideration for addition somewhere in the massive rules.

I know that this is a lot of material to consider so please feel free to take your time. The world won't end while we wait to improve the System article.

Thanks

--24.183.226.168 03:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your verbose and calm response above, I really do appreciate it. I'll try to reply to all of your concerns.

First, I don't believe there are any hard-and-fast rules about example links. The general rule of thumb for ELs (external links) is that they should be added sparingly, and that any questionable links should be discussed on the talk page. The talk page thus serves as a "catch all" for any borderline or questionable links -- regular editors or other experts on the topic can make the call on a case-by-case basis, providing the flexibility needed to make an article the best it can be. I think this is really what should be done with the greatsystems.com link; give it some time here to allow regular and occasional editors of the article to discuss it. Consensus determines all, so whatever the masses decide I will go with.

I think you do a good read of the reliability-related guidelines. However, regarding "Quote 1", there's one small catch: to meet the criteria, the author's work should have been "previously published by credible, third-party publications." I know he has published some material, but i'm not sure that the publisher falls under this criteria. Also I am not sure if his authorship in IE mag. lends him credibility here (as authorship at the magazine seems to be wide open: [1]). Like with the above, let's let other editors discuss and make that determination.

Lastly, I understand where you're coming from feeling that WP:RS criteria may be a little too "old-fashioned". From what I understand, Wikipedia is trying to follow the framework of a traditional paper encyclopedia, and as such is bound to "old school" citation guidelines. I personally take no position on RS guidelines - I merely go by whatever's "on the rulebooks", so to speak. If you have concerns about the appropriateness of a guideline or policy, there are ways to propose fundamental changes to Wikipedia. I've never done one myself, but I believe the best place to start is the talk page of that guideline/policy. If other editors agree, you can start a proposal. See Category:Wikipedia proposals, that should point you in the right direction. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think IIE - a major Industrial Enggineering Professional Society in the US (http://www.iienet.org/) would be pretty upset if Wikipedia decided that one of their regular invited contributors was not a qualified author and that they didn't carefully review what is written in their professional journal.

--65.243.187.101 04:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Note the wikipedia listing: Institute of Industrial Engineers. They are the worlds largest professional body for industrial engineers.

24.183.226.168 16:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: Is there anyone besides Absolut Dan who objects to the section? I'll list it again below so that everyone can review:

Using Systems to Improve Performance

Systems can also refer to a specific consistent method to perform a task. Once a successful way to accomplish a task is perfected, that method can be repeated over and over again establishing a "systematic process" for performing the work. The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award describes systematic as: "approaches that are repeatable and use data and information so that improvement and learning are possible."

These types of systems of performing work are used to improve human performance and equipment reliability. They are often written - in the form of a procedure - and then a workforce can be trained to use the system. In that way others may also use the same system to perform the work.

Thus systems can be used to improve performance. This has been done in several performance improvement systems including Six Sigma, Total Quality Management, root cause analysis, and statistical process control. Thus performance improvement itself can be systematized and can be applied to the improvement process. And example of using systems to improve performance can be seen at the Great Systems web site.

opinion

Again, lets see how many people or editors have an opinion about this addition to the systems article.

Thanks

24.183.226.168 16:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Conceptual Systems subtitle

Under Conceptual Systems subtitle I changed "Conceptual systems generally exist to aid in accomplishing certain goals or may be used to model physical systems" to the following -

"Conceptual systems generally exist to aid in envisioning and formulating goals, and may be used to model physical systems."

Conceptualizing is an act of abstractioning or taking a look at an object from a distance. That helps to see or acquire a vision of an object and its surroundings. And that helps to see the functions of each element more clearly, helping arrive to a more comprehencive, relevant or quality decision. Altyn 06:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)