Talk:Navy/Marine Corps Intranet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military technology and engineering task force
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	United States military history task force

This article seems to me to be rather biased, with a hostile tone and derogatory links hidden by inappropriate pipes; e.g., [[Biased sample|distribution]] and [[Self-serving bias|post analysis]]. ➥the Epopt 03:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Made a bunch of changes, removed the derogatory links. Let me know what you think. -S

[edit] Original Research

Looks like the comment about Marines is original research. Although I do agree somewhat with the editor's comments, I see no sources... plus it is way too POV.

Supersquid 13:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

More original research: "NMCI is referred to by many users (tongue-in-cheek) as the 'Non Mission Capable Intranet', out of frustration with a perceived lack of performance." I'd like to see a citation for that. ➥the Epopt 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence such as the quote in question are usually acceptable as unattributable if they reflect a "general trend in thought" among the referenced audience, and is considered to be verifiable. This makes it "original source material," and as such, doesn't require a citation. It's also caveated with "many," rather than "most" or "a majority of," and so can be categorized as a selective viewpoint, but one which supports the narrative.

Also, based on my personal experience, I think that it does reflect the attitude of "many" NMCI users, myself included.

Okiberv 04:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It is an untrue statement, and will not be included in the article without a source — which of course doesn't exist, because it is untrue. ➥the Epopt 06:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Count me as another frustrated NMCI user. "Non Mission Capable Intranet" for sure. They took our hardware and won't work on it until it's been broken for a week. Not to mention they charge monthly for maintenance on hardware upgrades ($8 a month for a stick of RAM). But you're the Wiki nazi, not me. At least two references so far, by my count. --RoadDoggFL 06:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of our own personal feelings about NMCI, any statements have to come from a reliable, verifiable source. I could state that the NMCI's main server is a Commodore 64 with an acoustic coupler modem for a backbone (which it does seem like sometimes lol), but that doesn't make it true. Wikipedia isn't about personal anecdotes. Now... if you could find an article (say in "All Hands" or "Navy Times") that states that there are reports that many users are dissatisfied with the service and refer to it as "Non Mission Capable Intranet" then you have a source, and THEN it can be added into this article. I suggest that you refer to WP:OR and WP:POV, then you will understand where The Epopt is coming from (and it is NOT a matter of WikiNazism).

Supersquid 10:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, well I've got some links. Navy intranet program fails to meet goals (didn't read it), and the comments (did read it) on that story. Mentioning $3,500 a year would be nice. Also I just overheard a nice bit: we have an old fax machine that cost $1,500 somehow (it'd fetch maybe $50 on craigslist, but it might've been purchased several years ago). When a SSgt inquired as to justification of the price, he was told that it includes free maintenance. But guess who comes to work on it when it needs repairing? Marines. Are we getting reimbursed for this? Replacing this entire article with the words "RIP OFF" in bold and underlined would be accurate and 100% factual. --RoadDoggFL 19:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There was an article that I read in the Navy Times that did cite that almost all of the NMCI users out there thought it sucked. Good luck tracking it down though

Those of us who are required to use the NMCI system know more about what it doesn't do than those who don't use the system. My previous "Problems" section is MY observation as a user and developer being forced to use NMCI. If you want a "verifiable and reliable" source, then make that ME! I have the experience that perhaps you don't. If there is no place in Wikipedia for a person's experiences, then an important part of knowledge will not be learned. The NMCI system really is a bad one. This is why the US Army and Air Force have NOT gone to such a system. I agree with RoadDoggFL. NMCI is a huge colossal rip-off. Most developers in my building have had two computers on our desks for four years now because NMCI can't get their computers to do the functions and development work that our "legacy" systems do (which were supposed to be replaced by NMCI). The NMCI contract took over the Navy's legacy computers and charges the Navy for the use of the legacy computers and the NMCI computers that can't be used for most developing. How's that for government waste? The NMCI acronym I came up with years ago is, "Never Manage Computers Intelligently". -- Mikejapp 16:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I realized that some here are using the NMCI system but are any editors changing the page without direct knowledge and experience in NMCI? I'm just asking the question because I want to know. -- Mikejapp 16:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Substantive changes and many references added

In the last couple of years, a lot has been written about NMCI by independent publications—like SIGNAL and Military Technology Information magazines—and I thought it would be a service to update the NMCI article on Wikipedia to include information from those articles.

There is still a debate over the extent to which EDS has succeeded in achieving all of NMCI’s stated goals, and I do not want to shortchange (let alone short-circuit) that debate. I do, however, think that the debate is more even now, with many voices represented.

In the future, I think this article should be restructured to make it easier for people to find information about specific components of NMCI, for example, listing its basic functions (security, consolidation, application management, procurement, etc), the state of the Navy’s IT infrastructure prior to its commencement, and the steps taken to improve the network in chronological order. Likewise, headings should be added for ease of navigation.

Does anyone have suggestions for additional topics I may have left out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passat123 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a new section to highlight and contextualize criticism

Today I'm adding a new section to this article, incorporating (and expanding on) the criticisms of NMCI that an editor from 205.110.147.14 posted this week. I am also working on a larger edit to this entry, breaking the text up into logical sections and working in criticism and contextualizing EDS' decisions—showing how EDS has tried to balance the needs and expectations of the end-users against the requirements of maintaining a highly secure and stable network and managing a robust set of applications. Of course, I welcome any input on the discussion page and will try to incorporate all legitimate viewpoints into the next iteration of this article.

Passat123 (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)