Jump to content

Talk:Labshare

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moneyfizza (talk | contribs) at 06:02, 28 August 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAustralia B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconLabshare 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Referencing issues

This article may need more references (esp non-primary source), or there may be WP:POV issues. Love43554ever (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of information in the page was/is wrong (especially the older versions which it keeps getting revered to) and attacks Labshare and a number of Australian Universities. Alex Gibson Alxxthegeek (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The older versions which are being reverted to are because they are not the versions that are being section blanked. How is the article attacking Labshare, and which Australian Universities does it attack? If you delineate what the issues are, maybe they can be solved. ID092833535 (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original page alleges nepotism , financial and technical mismanagement but provides no evidence to support these claims. Alxxthegeek (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is why there is a "citation needed" tag there. You should be reminded of Australia's freedom of political communication under the court case Lange v ABC. Taxpayers are paying $3,800,000 of money towards this project, and it is only fair that the Universities are kept accountable. As you are a team member, maybe you can answer the following: (1) are all technical engineering staff you work with from UTS? (2) are 6/7 management committee from UTS? If these facts are true, and they have been referenced, then the deduction is only fair. As you may see below, a comment that the University of South Australia was only paid $55,000 of the $3,800,000 funds has already been removed until it can be sourced. Although WP:NOR on Wikipedia, maybe you can comment. ID092833535 (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the citation required tag I addedAlxxthegeek (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main LabShare website is http://www.labshare.edu.au/ Alxxthegeek (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A link has already been included at the bottom. ID092833535 (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our software has been released under an open source license and is available from source forge at http://sourceforge.net/projects/labshare-sahara/files/ Alex Gibson Alxxthegeek (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks, I have added this official link. I note your name, "Alex Gibson", is apart of the Project Staff from UTS. I would remind you of WP:NPOV, and that you are not supposed to edit these articles because it is a WP:COI. You can however, delineate your issues here on the talk page. I have thoroughly read the article, and I cannot see how it is defamatory. ID092833535 (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Technology, Sydney criticism

Before removing any criticism, please consider WP:RS (reliable sources), WP:COI (conflict of interest), WP:NPOV (neutral points of view), WP:V (verifiability), WP:NOR (no original research). Before making any changes to include recent updates, consider WP:RECENT. Please do not include a WP:LAUNDRY list of UTS achievements. If in doubt, please gain WP:CONSENSUS before making any changes. Love43554ever (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: I removed the report that stated the University of South Australia reported it was only allocated $55,000 of the $3,800,000 funds, or 1.45% of the total grant, until it can be sourced. ID98237578923 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed After being rejected by the commercialization center at the University of South Australia for want of new and distinct functionality that would make it patentable, UniSA and UTS joined forces to share labs through the project Labshare. Netlab is nevertheless exploring other intellectual property options including copyright, industrial design rights and confidential information, after being awarded a spectacular $3.8 by the Federal Commonwealth Australian government. until sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ID98237578923 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest edits by UTS

UTS has inappropriately made the following changes:

They have been warned about WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Pick101355 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An ISP from Melbourne and AARNET are trying to blank sections of Labshare. If this continues, I may need to contact the media; interesting what the University of Technology Sydney is trying to cover up. ID092833535 (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UTS is now making multiple accounts, an attempt to sock puppet and edit the page. I have commented to User_talk:Alxxthegeek it is inappropriate to make edits without WP:CONSENSUS, which are in WP:COI and withou WP:NPOV. Nevertheless, I have taken in his suggestion to:
Thanks. ID092833535 (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UTS sockpuppets

There are two issues with this:

  1. You may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization.
  2. Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.

Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guideline to avoid editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations.The article in question is Labshare. Thank you. Labshare appears to represent an organization rather than yourself Fæ (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the possibility for a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations on several accounts. Please stop an edit war and gain WP:CONSENSUS. ID908237835 (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading facts

This page contains numerous errors and blatant attempts to mislead regarding the Labshare project. There is no substance, nor supporting evidence at all, for the assertions regarding mismanagement of the project, lack of progress, or other problems. To the contrary, the project has been highly successful and is widely lauded. Whilst the information on the project website, like many websites for active development projects, is several months behind the actual state of the project, it still reflects the outstanding progress being made in the project, the strong engagement by many institutions, and the numerous successes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labsdir (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are issues with errors then you need to raise them on the talk page before making any edits. What is it that has no substance? I can see 57 supporting references on the article.
These supporting references are generic references (to publications about the work, and to individuals homepages). They do not support the libellous assertions being made.
You talk like you are from the project, so note WP:COI. You say that the project has been "highly successfull" and "widely lauded". Is this just your POV or have you got WP:V sources.
Yes, I am from the project. We have numerous requests for, and emerging involvements in the project. There are trials running this current semester involving approximately 2500 students and a dozen Universities. We had 6 publications (more than 10% of the total) at the most recent REV conference (the primary international venue for publishing work on remote laboratories). We have publicly released the software for the system. We are currently finalising information with the ALTC to demonstrate thye remote lab project as a major national success. Yes, it is widely lauded, and we do have clear evidence.
It is obvious you are from the project, and you do not understand WP:COI. There is a rule on Wikipedia against editing your own Wikipedia page. Please do NOT do any further edits to the page. You can only raise points on the Talk Page and wait for an editor to clear it up. ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe you don't understand the COI provisions. This is not my page! Nor do the COI provision stop me from correcting factual errors or malicious content.
Please gain WP:CONSENSUS first. ID908237835 (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, the project website that is launched on an edu.au domain is reflective of the project, again you use the word "outstanding progress". Furthermore, how can you claim "strong engagement" when 5/6 of management committee are from UTS
This is because UTS is responsible for managing the project. It however has very strong involvement from numerous other Universities.

Is project funded by UTS or the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations's Diversity and Structural Adjustment Fund

This is because the project funding was made to UTS, and the project is being coordinated by UTS on behalf of the sector. The management committee does day to day coordination, whereas the steering committee (which has very broad representation) provides overall guidance for the project.

and all employed project staff are from UTS?
They are not from UTS. The majority of the people employed on the project had no prior involvement in the project. Yes, they have been employed by UTS, but that is simply because the funds were awarded to UTS, and so are disbursed from there. The contributions they are making are to the project overall, including the numerous non-UTS participants in the project.
You just contradicted yourself with the statement "They are not from UTS", then "they have been employed by UTS". ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a contradiction. The were not from UTS prior to be being employed to work on the project.

"Labshare consortium (known as Labshare) is a laboratory sharing initiative established by the Federal Commonwealth of Australia Government..." Read below, you admit there was funding by the federal government ID908237835 (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: A reliable IEEE source quotes that the Australian Government has funded $3.8m, via their Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations's Diversity and Structural Adjustment Fund. ID908237835 (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a definitive source. It is an individual academic reporting of their involvement in projects. The definitive source is the Federal Government website for the funding scheme (www.deewr.gov.au/dsa) which clearly states that the projects was funded $2.1M from DEEWR, that the lead institution is UTS, and the conditions of grant on the same website state that the lead institution is the grant holder and is responsible for managing and coordinating the project.

Amount of funding by the Federal Government

The project wasn't established by the Commonwealth. It was established by UTS in partnership with the other ATN Universities, but funding was partially provided by the Federal Goverment ($2.1m, not the $3.8m repeatedly referred to).

Read [4], it says $3.8m NOT $2.1m. Where did you get $2.1m from? Please use a verified source per WP:V. Clearly, your source is wrong. ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The definitive source is the funding bodies website (www.deewr.gov.au/dsa). This clearly states that the project was funded $2.1M from DEEWR, that the lead institution is UTS, and the conditions of grant on the same website state that the lead institution is the grant holder and is responsible for managing and coordinating the project. The references you are citing do NOT state that the Federal Government provided $3.8m. They state that the project is worth $3.8m - and this is because there is substantial additional contributions from the project partners (with more than half of this coming from UTS). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labsdir (talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where on that website does it state the project was funded $2.1m? I am not related to project so I am unsure, if Government injection is $2.1, it may be accepted. More info please. ID908237835 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the PDF outlining the list of 2008 funded projects, and then search of "sharing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labsdir (talk • contribs) 05:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"... Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations by their Diversity and Structural Adjustment Fund[10] awarded the five Australian Technology Network Universities..." The grant was not made to the ATN Universities. The terms of the grant were clearly that it was made to UTS, though UTS has partnered with the other Universities involved as participants in the project.

Clearly, you need to read [5] which enlists the statement. ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: A reliable IEEE source quotes the Government funding of $3.8m, not $2.1m. ID908237835 (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether UTS or UniSA system was developed earlier

"Early life. The original remote laboratory from the University of South Australia which initiated the inter-University competition". There is no competition. The work that has been carried out to date has occurred in a highly collaborative manner. "The Labshare consortium was established as a government-granted monopoly". It was not established by the government, but rather was initiated by UTS in order to establish strengthened collaboration. It has not, and has never been described as a monopoly. Participation is, and has always been, welcome from any institutions, and this has been widely communicated within the sector.

"The University of South Australia was first to establish its NetLab remote lab in 2008". Netlab was originally created in the early 2000's. "Subsequently, the University of Technology, Sydney established its untitled remote lab to compete with the University of South Australia". Work at UTS predates that at UniSA, and neither was intended to be a competitor. The laboratories focus in quite different discipline areas. Indeed colleagues at UniSA and UTS have been strong collaborators, with multiple jointly authored publications and involvement in joint research and teaching grants.

UniSA established their laboratory in 2003 (http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/FIE.2003.1263343) under the Head of School Prof Andrew Nafalski, as in published journals. Stop your blatant promotion of UTS. ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article [7] [8] shows references by UniSA made in 2000. Does one of your sources pre-date this? ID908237835 (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: UniSA was the earlier establisher in 2001, as supported by reliable sources [9] [10]. ID908237835 (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the Uni SA website http://www.unisa.edu.au/eresearch/unisa/showcase.asp "NetLab is the UniSA remote laboratory developed by staff and students in the School of Electrical and Information Engineering. The development was financially supported by the school and by the UniSA Teaching and Learning Grant in 2002. "http://www.unisa.edu.au/eresearch/unisa/showcase.asp Alxxthegeek (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't shown that the UTS system was developed any earlier, Alex. ID908237835 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.aaee.com.au/conferences/papers/2005/Paper/Paper208.pdf - which clearly refers to developments at UTS in 2001. Labsdir (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The early life section as it is currently is still incorrect. UTS has had remote laboratories since 2001.Alxxthegeek (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UniSA had remote laboratories since 2000. Uts is the world (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defection of Vladimir Lasky

"... though its founder Vladimir Lasky". Vladimir Lasky was not a founder of the the UTS remote Labs. He was involved as a project student in the very early development and participated positively as a employee of UTS in the evolution of the initial architecture and associated systems, some small aspects of which are still retained in the current systems. The current project, which is focused on laboratory sharing has however a very different focus than this early work. "... a former Australian Idol joke contestant[17] soon defected and went on to start his own business[18]". He did not defect. His employment on the project was not continued by UTS.

 Done I have removed this reference. ID908237835 (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funding by ARC

"Because the Australian Research Council funding for both the University of South Australia and University of Technology, Sydney was exhausted as of 2010". Neither UniSA nor UTS have ever had ARC funding for the remote laboratory initiatives.

The funding was only from 2008-2010: [11] ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I can find no reference to support there was ever funding by ARC so I have removed this until later date. ID908237835 (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions of whether Labshare is a cartel

"As a project of the Australian Technology Network elite five universities, non-members have criticized the government-subsidized monopoly, ...". There has no evidence of any criticism of the project either online, in the media, or from other institutions. All feedback to the team has been highly positive.

In the Sydney Morning Herald, an article dating August 20, 2010, raised these issues on page 67. ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the article if it actually exists. Alxxthegeek (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have an account on SMH, and so access to archived content, and have done a search, but could not find any reference in the last year to Labshare

"...creating unfair competition via a cartel to manipulate pricing and distribution". The project has an clearly stated explicit objective to promote sharing. No inter-University sharing of laboratories have involved any funding transfers, nor has there been any pricing models established by or for Labshare at this stage.

You should look at the definition of monopoly and cartel. National Instruments has developed a LabView lab (http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/3301), and this project undermines that commercial institution. ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the above examples from the introductory paragraphs illustrate, almost every comment is false or misleading, directly contradicted by the available information on the project, and unsubstantiated by any publicly available supporting information.

Where is this contradictory evidence you speak of? ID908237835 (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status of source code as open source

There is a claim that our software is closed source and hasn't been developed. That is false it has been released and is all available as open source software under a BSD license on source forge http://sourceforge.net/projects/labshare-sahara/ Alxxthegeek (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UTS source code for their remote lab is open source? Or is this only for the group project? ID908237835 (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See sourceforge.net/projects/labshare-sahara/ where the code has been publicly released under a BSD open source license.

UTS Remote Labs remote lab uses the labshare source code which is open source under a BSD license. The old UTS source code has been replaced except for on one legacy experiment (coldfire) which is in the process of being phased out and replaced over the next six months.Alxxthegeek (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Labshare is a Government-granted monopoly and cartel

I ask that the controversial material in the early life section be removed(at least be removed to this talk page). Especially the section referring to cartels ,monopolys and unfair competition. No evidence has been provided for these claims.Alxxthegeek (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further content removed:

Labshare and the lack of progress

 Done It has been removed to this talk page for further discussion

This has been removed, for reference, in case it wishes to be disputed [12]:

Status of Labshare as attack article

Please explain why seeking the speedy deletion of an article that set out solely to disparage its subject is vandalism. The Labshare article was only created today, with a complete lack of neutrality. {{db-attack}} is appropriate in this case. 86.156.221.141 (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. *Hello, i have already told you on my talk page that its not an attack page. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 03:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone (other than the page creator) disagrees with a db tag, you should use a WP:PROD or WP:AfD method of requesting deletion, where consensus can be reached. Regardless, I have removed the controversial section of the article. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, I don't see how the page is attacking, as I have raised above, I have delineated the sections which are in dispute. I have raised the need for WP:CONSENSUS of issues, particularly given there is WP:COI of people involved in the project editing their own page. Clearly, this is an attempt to adopt their own WP:POV which is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. ID908237835 (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Please delineate how article is attacking, seems to be non-issue prima facie. ID908237835 (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis problem

The objectives section appears to fail Wikipedia:SYNTH#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. I suggest that it is changed to merely state original objectives and then, separately, the reliably sourced facts about what has been done can be stated. Contentious and potentially defamatory statements about what has not been done can be avoided by only including published criticism and reviews of the organization and its projects in quality reliable sources (as per the guidance of WP:BLP).

I shall shortly be editing the objectives section on this basis. I have no association whatsoever with this organization (I happen to live on the other side of the planet) but I have been contacted with a request for help by Alxxthegeek after leaving a standard welcome on his talk page. Fæ (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with UTS staff members objecting to the article as it does seem to indicate lack of progress, but their blanking of the page and sections is contradictory to the policy on WP:COI. I would suggest gaining WP:CONSENSUS before User:Labsdir continues to make reversions. The reversions are not helping gain a NPOV. ID908237835 (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the removal has been fair, and will be kept as status quo until WP:CONSENSUS is gained. Thank you User:Fæ for doing this. ID908237835 (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Labsdir (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It also looks to be a breach of copyright from the Sydney Morning Herald. ID908237835 (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please verify this blog source. I cannot find the article using a full LexisNexis search. Fæ (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly now a malicious attack. This content has not previously been seen, is highly inflammatory, only exists on the Wordpress site and was not created by Labshare or anyone involved in it, and does not exist on the Sydney Morning Herald website archives, despite purporting to have been published there only a week ago. Labsdir (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You sound a little paranoid, I'm sure no one is out there to "attack" you. The website isn't even listed on Alexa see here, and it looks to be registered to UTS by Michel de la Villefromoy as here. Moneyfizza (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I agree that acting in COI has been an issue. I have added warnings to some accounts with apparent COI. Should these edits persist then they will be reported on WP:COIN or WP:AIV. Hopefully engagement though discussion will be sufficient here. I suggest that where there is doubt, a calming approach is to remove any contested material whilst under discussion. This fits the guidance of WP:BLP which is appropriate for this article. [[::User:Fæ|Fæ]] (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your hard work Fæ, I have no problem with UTS but couldn't seem to convince them of WP:COI. I would suggest an Administrator require "review" permission so a reviewer must accept changes if an edit war continues. ID908237835 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The early life section as it is currently is still incorrect. UTS has had remote laboratories since 2001.Alxxthegeek (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read above, UniSA had theirs since 2000. Moneyfizza (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection

Please note I requested that this page be fully protected at requests for page protection on a temporary basis to stop the current edit war. –Grondemar 05:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, UTS members continue to edit despite WP:COI issues.
Agreed! Alxxthegeek (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done by User:Amatulic
  1. ^ "The Telelabs Project". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateadded= ignored (help)
  2. ^ "LiLa Library of Labs". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateadded= ignored (help)
  3. ^ "Internet School Experimental System: Crossroad". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateadded= ignored (help)
  4. ^ "iLabs Dev". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateadded= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Labshare&oldid=381448740"