Talk:Research Machines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Nimbus/PC compatibility

Does anyone know how to get RM Nimbus software to run on regular IBM PC clones? Bastie 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to RM

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. A different target name, as suggested below, might be appropriate, but this is not a primary topic for RM. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As the company is no longer called Research Machines, and has been known as RM for quite a long time, I propose that we move this page to RM, and move RM to RM (disambiguation) 137.222.112.165 11:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I'd strongly challenge the assertion that most Wikipedians typing in "RM" will be looking for this company. Looking at what links to the RM disambiguation page, either RealMedia or Ringgit is the most common. The current RM page should remain the disambiguation page, while if Research Machines is unsuitable, something like RM (Research Machines) or similar can be created. --DeLarge 15:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not the primary use by a long shot. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 06:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Cleanup

I added the cleanup tag, because it seems too chatty, not quite an advertisement, but close. I'm not familiar enough with the industry to do a good job on editing it. Bearian 14:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Agreed. Also the Criticism and Security sections have a derisive tone and are not NPOV. JimiQ 16:04, 29 Nov 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.241.248.37 (talk)

[edit] Regarding recent edits

Recently the Criticism and Security sections were removed by User:Rmedit, with the edit summary "Not NPOV, not appropriate material for an encyclopedia article, no references or citations given". I am concerned about this edit, because I believe it is a clear and severe conflict of interest edit.

Firstly, I will agree that the sections were uncited, though given how the entire article has no citations or references, this is perhaps a weak reason to remove those particular sections.

I do not believe discussing security flaws or criticisms is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article about software, as these can be important information. Some examples of Wikipedia articles that include such sections are ZoneAlarm, Windows Me, OpenOffice.org, and Pidgin. Windows XP and Vista have their own articles dedicated to criticisms here and here.

I also do not believe the sections violate NPOV, as it is natural for criticism sections to be critical.

However, all these are minor issues compared to the fact that the removals all appear to have come from within the RM companies itself. This edit [1] comes from an IP which refers to RM in the first person, very strongly suggesting it's someone from RM. The most recent edits are from an account called Rmedit, also very strongly suggesting it's someone from RM. For someone within the company to be editing their own company article is a clear conflict of interest, something severely frowned upon on Wikipedia. Thus, I do not believe that it is appropriate for these removals to remain, and that the sections should be restored (and, hopefully, cleaned up and sourced).

In the interests of avoiding an edit war, I have not reverted the removals yet. I would like to invite Rmedit and the aforementioned anonymous IP to discuss this issue here. Bhamv (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Bhamv - first of all, thank you for the considered and well-reasoned response. Secondly, as a naive Wikipedian, I find myself in a genuinely difficult position - with a potential conflict of interest, but a genuine desire to provide a useful article.

My concern with the article as it stands (and the changes have now been reverted again) is with the section headed criticisms. It is entirely appropriate for criticisms to be included and, as you say, it is in the nature of criticisms that they are critical. However, the criticisms included (monopoly, excessive cost and inadequate solutions) are strong and are not backed up by any source. My argument is that they are sufficiently strong as to require some kind of citation to justify them. Without some kind of independent verification, they are no more than personal opinions and could represent an equally conflicted (and not NPOV) view.

I have not removed the criticism section - both to avoid an edit war and because of my conflict. However, it does seem reasonable that if these criticisms are real, there should be external verification of them available.

I would value suggestions from anyone as to how to resolve this.

--Rmedit (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

First, apologies for the late response. Stupid real life and all that.
Now, let me start with some good news, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is a guideline and not a policy, which means that it can be ignored for the sake of improving articles. Since you, Rmedit, appear to be part of the RM organization, and more importantly since you seem to be a reasonable and approachable person, I'm willing to believe the best about you and assume that you're here to make the article better. I hope that you also believe that I'm not just here to give you a hard time about the conflict of interest, and also want to improve Wikipedia.
Since WP:COI can be ignored and you can edit the article, how should this article be improved? The first thing that comes to mind is sourcing. If the information currently in the article, the encyclopedic and appropriate stuff, can be sourced and cited, then that makes it much easier to justify removing unsourced information. It is my hope that you have access to or knowledge of good reliable sources that can be used in the article, given your closeness to RM.
Second thing that comes to mind is a neutral point of view. In this scenario, the Criticism and Security sections would be allowed to remain, but countered by cited information regarding RM's reaction to these criticisms or security holes, such as patches. For example, something like:
Students could use version 3.1 of RM software to gain access to the network without logging on. However, this vulnerability was patched in version 3.2. And then a citation would go here
Someone from RM editing the Research Machines article does not have to be a conflict of interest, it can also be a boon. It all comes down to providing the sources necessary to make this article a good one, and I sincerely hope someone close to RM will be able to provide them. Bhamv (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OK - I'll start work on identifying citations that improve the article - always difficult to find good, verifiable sources though! I have added some tags to some of the more contentious statements. --Rmedit (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my thoughts to this as someone who has edited this a few times now. It seems as though one of the edits made after me tried to imply that I was trying to twist the article in RM's favour. Despite being a former RM employee, I am now in a unique situation of being on the other side of the fence, now being a primary school teacher now! I will try to continue cleaning up the article and adding references as well as trying to balance the article out a little bit! Corky1979 (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move to RM (company)

Further to the discussion above, can I suggest the article is renamed 'RM (company)' - since the company's name is RM plc, and to avoid confusion with the other meanings of RM. Research Machines is simply not the name of the company; it was the historical name of a private limited company from which RM plc was formed. It is as wrong as it would be to call the Virgin Media article 'National Transmitters' (being the original name of ntl). Ben Finn (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)