Talk:Construction Research and Innovation Strategy Panel

Copyright

Okay, third attempt at creating this page. Radically simplified to avoid any duplication of the contents of my own review report on CRISP since it led to deletion of the page on the grounds of copyright violation. Just to declare an interest, I had some minor involvement in CRISP. I attended some of the Awaydays, supported two of the 13 task groups, collated task group recommendations, and wrote the review of its achievements up to 2003 referenced above. If there are concerns about copyright, please do a copyright violation check again before deleting this page since this is a new edit and a very much shorter account. Sebastian Macmillan (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

References

@Sebastian Macmillan: there is still a substantial amount of overlap. Don't you think it would be easier to just write this in your own words? The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

References

@The Mighty Glen: I have the check comparison in front of me with the matched phrases in bold. They are things like: the name of the panel (which is inevitable I think), 'the research priorities identified by the task groups', 'between 1998 and 2002 thirteen task groups', 'the chair of the task group', 'published on the crisp website', 'for the built environment', 'the management support unit', 'the design task group report', 'time limited task groups', 'at the same time', 'sustainable construction performance', 'produced 233 recommendations', 'the research needs', 'and innovation', 'is difficult to', 'sectors such as', 'were passed to', 'for trade and'. These are very short phrases indeed and the sentences in which they appear are otherwise completely different. There is not a single complete sentence that is duplicated. Forgive me questioning your judgment, but in my view there is not 'a substantial amount of overlap' as you claim. The real challenge is for me is that this is a technical topic and the sense of it will be lost if vocabulary like the phrases above are completely eliminated. Please do this check for yourself and then decide. Sebastian Macmillan (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:Close paraphrasing is also not allowed on Wikipedia. I've begun fixing this. Preserving the sense of original documents is not the goal of an encyclopaedia, especially as the document which is paraphrased here is still available. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

ncrisp.org.uk

I see you have linked to the ncrisp.org.uk website. However, I think you'll find this is not at all the official website. The front page may look like it at first glance, but the links don't work and some of the content, including the categories on the right, are clearly odd - World Politics, Nature-Africa, Supercool and others. Before constructing the Wikipedia page, I did a fair amount of due diligence including checking the ownership of the ncrisp website using 'whois'. It's in private hands of some kind. Forgive me again, but only tinker with this stuff if you are diligent and really understand it. Sebastian Macmillan (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"Official" template removed. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Following recent edits (thanks) have the 'multiple issues' been dealt with? If so, would someone like to remove the masthead? Sebastian Macmillan (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I've removed two templates, as those issues have largely been fixed: thanks User:Paul W. More references are still needed though - for example, the section "New CRISP (nCRISP) from 2002-3" has only one source, and that's from the ncrisp.org.uk website which, as you note above, is possibly unreliable (though it was added by you, in this first edit) and much of what's in that section isn't mentioned in the reference. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:The Might Glen. Yes the ncrisp website is a curiosity, and your other observations are correct. Sebastian Macmillan (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)