Talk:Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Education (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (marked as Top-importance).
 
Note icon
This article is not assigned to a WikiProject or workgroup. Please help with your suggestions.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.

This article has comments here.

Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease[edit]

I am looking for some reviews for the article rabbit haemorrhagic disease. Thank you!

Warning[edit]

There is something basically wrong with this entry. Brya 16:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate? What changes would make the article better?

Divisions[edit]

The list of divisions is incomplete and incorrect... however the whole list [1] is rather long! I will leave it up to someone else to decide what to do about it.--Russell E 21:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is the divisions are constantly being changed, reading through I can see there are divisions (such as the ICT centre) that no longer exist and have been formed into different divisions. There is an inside joke that CSIRO stands for Constant State of Internal Reorginisation. aliasd·U·T 07:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV alertness[edit]

I notice on first reading this article is overwhelmingly positive... which is fine, but makes alarm bells ring for me because it makes me think someone biased towards the institution wrote much of the initial content or it was derived almost exclusively from an official website.

Specifically I noticed how the "highlights" of CSIRO have been listed near the start of the article and that these included "the successful introduction of biological controls"... such as Myxamatosis and the Calicivirus. I am not sure that either of these can be automatically termed "successful" or a "highlight". I just removed the word successful but more changes could be warranted. — Donama 05:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the research contributions of CSIRO are very important; more important than its structure, for example. I support them appearing at the start of the article. Of course you are right that NPOV wording needs to be used, and any important "lowlights" need to be given equal footing with the "highlights". Snottygobble 05:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

CSIRO diet[edit]

There is a thing I've heard people mention called the "CSIRO diet" which I assume is a diet designed by CSIRO that's optimal according to Australian nutritional guidelines. Mention of this ought to be included if it is indeed a project of the CSIRO. — Donama 05:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"The CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet" was published last year by a group of CSIRO scientists. It was a national bestseller, but it was panned by Nature for an alleged conflict of interest in that it was funded by the Australian livestock industry, and recommends eating larger quantities of red meat that most dieticians would support. Snottygobble 05:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It's encouragement of red was also specifically criticised by some for increasing the risk of bowel cancer, or so they claim. --cj | talk 05:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


Move 'recent controversies'[edit]

I think the recent controversies section would fit the flow of the article better if it was moved below flagship initiatives, as it doesn't seem to fit well under 2 historical lists. Any objections? Colonel Tom 00:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I've changed my mind. My proposed move would not benefit the article. Colonel Tom 03:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Former ACOTF[edit]

Flag of Australia.svg Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation was the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight on 23 April, 2006.
For details on how the article improved, see the ACOTF history

802.11 settlement[edit]

The lawsuits have very recently been settled http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/04/23/2550483.htm, multiple places need to be edited (intro paragraph + section on lawsuit). Please remove this message when it has been adequately edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.183.129 (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A source of sources...and other things[edit]

First off I have to admit that I will not make any substantial additions to this document as I currently work there. However, I will make small edits and points out mistakes when they appear.

I suggest that people wanting to write more about CSIRO, get their hands on a book called 'Fields of Discovery'. The [ASAP website] at University of Melbourne is a good site for information about the history of Australian science.

Spindocbob 13:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Acronym[edit]

Is CSIRO pronounced as if you spelled each letter out, or as "see-ess-eye-row," or some other way I'm not thinking about? (I assume Australians refer to the organization by its acronym, than its full name.) Just wondering. -HiFiGuy 03:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Usually "see-ess-eye-are-owe" (said quickly, run together), sometimes "sighrow". --Scott Davis Talk 03:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
ScottDavis is on the money. The shortened form of 'Sigh-Row' is used internally or by those in the science field. The public typically use the longer form. Spindocbob 02:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It used to be the other way around: "Sighrow" was frowned on internally. SCHolar44 (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Is that so! Any idea what periods which pronunciations were popular / acceptable? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CSIRO.png[edit]

Image:CSIRO.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Domain name[edit]

IIRC CSIRO's first email adddresses ended in csiro.oz, not csiro.au . But I have no proper source. Grassynoel (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.199.70 (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Invention of Wi-Fi[edit]

The coverage of the patent wars seems to have elicited a FAR from neutral response. The coverage may need expansion to mention other points in a balanced manner. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you think it should say about the CSIRO's patent? Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Pretty much what it said before, plus mention the fact that the Americans don't like it, and are/have complained bitterly. However, the IP's propaganda is completely over the top, not to mention that the IP has also broken some links and references, and has removed cited text. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
That's their problem. And the "propaganda" may be over the top. But I think you should work with the editor rather than remove all of their contributions. The CSIRO can now claim the Wi-Fi patent. Timeshift (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The text was removed not for lack of citation but because it did not belong there. Contested assertions should not be put in the article header as unqualified facts; this is misleading. (WP:YESPOV) The, ahem, "propaganda" added to the controversy section consists of references to mainstream (at least in tech circles) news sources with facts presented as facts and opinions presented as opinions (and not all of those opinions are expressed by Americans). The section contains a large amount of information on favourable settlements that CSIRO has achieved. A controversy section is not fit for purpose if it fails to report on why there is a controversy. [It is correct that there was one broken citation caused by someone else's edit, but I have repaired it.] --24.186.1.173 (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The article should be clear on what is factual surrounding CSIRO's patent. It is factual that CSIRO has a patent on one of the techniques underlying wi-fi. It is also factual that CSIRO did not "invent wi-fi," the same way that the inventor of the wheel did not invent the motor vehicle. The disputed space is in between, consisting of two topics: (1) How substantial was CSIRO's contribution to the development of Wireless LAN technology, if any?, and (2) Is the patent that CSIRO holds justified?, based on (a) whether the technique itself is patentable and (b) whether CSIRO can claim inventorship or the patent consists of prior art. The most neutral, purely factual statement would probably be: "CSIRO holds a patent on one of the core technologies behind wi-fi."--24.186.1.173 (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
It's a bit deeper and has more ramifications than that.

A HANDFUL of clever mathematic algorithms dreamed up by stargazers 20 years ago has netted Australia's top science agency a handsome windfall nearing half a billion dollars. At the time, the boffins in the CSIRO's Radio Physics division -- primarily radio astronomers -- couldn't possibly have known that they were cracking a physics problem that would make possible wireless connections that would be used in billions of devices by consumers throughout the world. They had developed technology, known today as WiFi, which makes the wireless connections in around 3 billion mobile phones, laptops and home network devices possible. Their scientific achievement was cemented as one of Australia's greatest during the early hours of last Saturday morning. Lawyers for CSIRO's commercialisation arm worked furiously to settle litigation in the US with about seven WiFi equipment makers that would net the agency $220 million in royalties. It brought about 10 years of complex litigation in the US to an end and the CSIRO's total royalty tally for the unique patent up to $430m. Half the settlement will go straight to consolidated revenue.[2]

The CSIRO now has licence agreements with companies representing about 90 per cent of the industry, with total revenue earned from the technology more than $430 million.[3]

The CSIRO was able to put the pieces together and make workable wi-fi. Should the company who creates the first component of a car, or the one who manages to produce an entire working model, get the credit for the invention? Hmm. Timeshift (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's an extremely simplified version of the story for non-technical audiences; CSIRO in its owns statements is careful to say their "patent lies at the heart" etc, not that they patented the technology itself. While the patent is named "wireless LAN", what it actually patents inside the documentation is "a wireless LAN" (emphasis added) using a technique for managing multipath communication which is novel; the patent acknowledges that it is one of many wireless LAN technologies around column 1 line 50. The wireless LAN that is patented is not the same as modern 802.11 wi-fi; however, 802.11 uses the same technique for managing multipath communication that is used by the patented wireless LAN. What the patent really covers is the use of that technique in a wireless LAN implementation, not the 802.11 WLAN implementation itself. (WLAN is much broader than just wi-fi and 802.11: in a technical sense, Bluetooth and IR connections are wireless LANs. WLAN has become synonymous with wi-fi in many consumer contexts as it is by far the most common WLAN and probably the only one most people will ever encounter, especially since Bluetooth is usually used for short, ad hoc sessions.)
The arguments against the patent claim that it is obvious (obvious combinations can't be patented: for example, you can patent the invention of the tyre, but not the "innovation" of putting a tyre on a wheel), was insufficiently novel, was prior art (as modems using that combination or similar combinations had reached market in the late 1980s) or that it consists of a mathematical formula (even The Australian calls it "a handful of clever mathematic algorithms"; unfortunately, in the United States, mathematical algorithms are not considered patentable).
My wheel-in-a-car analogy was too simple earlier: a better analogy would be a driveshaft in a car. It's something that is fundamental to the current way that cars are made, but there are ways of making cars without it, and it is not what makes a car a car. The main arguments over the patent are similar to saying "Is putting a driveshaft in a car an obvious use of a driveshaft?" and "Had others already put a driveshaft in a car?" (Personally, while I have the technical and legal knowledge to understand the questions surrounding the patent dispute, what I lack is the contemporary knowledge: I wasn't an electrical engineer working on wireless communications in the late 1980s and early 1990s, so I have to rely on others' determinations of how obvious the implementation was or if the implementation was already being used, as I simply wasn't around. I can't really answer the question myself—which is fine, of course, as Wikipedia isn't a place for original claims or research anyway!) --24.186.1.173 (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Then what wording do you propose that would satisfy everyone's view, some who have taken theirs from WP:RS? Timeshift (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I think this whole section needs a rethink. It relies too much on the claims of the journalist "Joe Mullin" (such as the claim that all the technologies described in the patent were "decades old" even though the patent has been re-examined multiple times with extensive prior art searches and yet still stands). Also this sentence "CSIRO has aggressively pursued settlements with technology companies, while the only case that it ever successfully litigated was overturned and remanded" is misleading (only the summary judgement was stayed to force a proper trial - the wikipedia article itself indicates this in the next paragraph). The last sentence is also not relevant as the patent issues were with 802.11a/g which the CSIRO told IEEE in could be licensed on FRAND terms [4] many years earlier (just like many other patents related to standards are licensed). More accurate information on the history of the CSIRO patents is here by an expert in the field who is also a patent attorney [5], [6], [7]. Another article with a different opinion is here [8]. It would probably be better to change the focus of this section to tie this issue in with the tech communities general concern about overtly broad patents - Gcollins2012 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, whilst CSIRO was not involved directly with the creation of the 802.11 standard, they were involved indirectly via the company Radiata which was formed to commercialize the CSIRO technology (later bought by CISCO). One of the co-founders of Radiata, Professor David Skelland was the secretary of the 802.11 working group during the creation of the standard as can be shown here from the IEEE minutes [9] - Gcollins2012 (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I saw that Gcollins2012 mentioned my blog posts in the comments above. I was therefore encouraged to have a go at a more neutral re-write (of course not referencing my own articles, but going back to earlier sources). I have endeavoured to give some factual background, before going in to the controversy over the WLAN patent. It is a fact that the patent has been controversial, and it therefore seems appropriate that the controversy should be covered, but NPOV demands that reference be made to both sides of the debate. This is my first attempt at Wikipedia editing, so please try to be kind! I have done my best to read up on acceptable practice, before deciding to just Be Bold and jump in! Mark A Summerfield (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Bullying, Harassment, and Victimisation[edit]

I cannot accept a heading of "Alleged Bullying, Harassment, and Victimisation". Bullying, Harassment, and Victimisation has already been established on various fronts such as by Comcare investigations, AAT decisions, court decisions, etc. What is unknown is the extent of the problem, but these are not allegations and the problem exists. The CSIRO has commissioned an investigation for this reason. At this point in time we are only aware of the tip of the iceberg. It is for this reason that I remove the word 'Allegations' from the heading. The Bullying, Harassment, and Victimisation has been established to exist. The extent is unknown. Hoffmanj (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You have a clear POV and conflict of interest regarding this topic, Please follow WP:NPOV. Also the media and ComCare (which are sourced in the very section) always states that it's "allegations". Bidgee (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories[edit]

Why is this page dominated by dubious conspiracy theories, and the use of questionable sources (and calling them questionable is giving them a lot of credit)? It looks as if the Australian anti-science fiends have been at work. Magpieram (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)