Talk:ISO/IEC 29119

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article now reads like a sales pitch from ISO. I note that two of the most recent contributors, Jon D Hagar and Reidsc, were leading contributors to the creation of this standard, and therefore may have a conflict of interest.

It is also interesting to note that there is apparent controvesy regarding this standard, but that is now being drowned out by everything that Jon D Hagar and Reidsc have added in recent months.

Is wikipedia now a promotional tool for products?

– I agree with the above suggestion that there is a conflict of interest. The other concerns that have been flagged up (notability, primary sources, and lack of links to other Wikipedia articles) all appear to be well founded. Jean de Luz (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


I have added substantial Linking to other Wiki articles and removed the corresponding warning 09:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)OMPwiki (talk)


OK, I accept that I am associated with this Standard as a participant... but I have no conflict of interest!

  • I've made some substantial changes, and improvements which I hope can assuage some of the concerns raised above.
  • Likewise, there are Wiki pages for many other standards (not just ISO, IEEE etc) so that (IMHO) justifies this page.
  • Notability is tricky, as it is a new standard, but given that 29119 supersedes IEEE 829 which has a massive page and following, I'm sure that 29119 will become as well noted in due course.
  • And finally, the objection to this standard was (a) from a small but vocal group and (b) died down - the ballots of member National Bodies were unanimous in favour of publication. Furthermore, the same group objected to IEEE 829 as well

I'd like to respectfully request the other flags are removed, and we can all work together in improving this page. Andrew D Banks (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The opponents of 29119 are hardly a small group, and certainly larger than the ISO working group. Opposition has not died down. The reason that there has been little obvious opposition over the last couple of years is that the supporters of 29119 have failed to mount a serious defence of a flawed standard. They simply tried to ride out the controversy. The opponents of 29119 made serious arguments against the standard and these have not been addressed. The standard has no credible basis and ISO cannot evade that charge by ignoring it. Jean de Luz (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

- ISO/IEEE 29119 parts 1, 2 and 3 are currently (July 2018) undergoing periodic review. This will require them to be confirmed by the various National Bodies, prior to confirmation by ISO, IEC and IEEE. I suggest opponents submit appropriate comments to their National Body, and (if appropriate) recommend a "No" vote. Andrew D Banks (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Major revision to address all concerns[edit]

I have fully revised the article The three concerns on the page were:

  • The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (September 2014)
  • This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (September 2014)
  • A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (November 2015)

Regarding the first, I think the 20 citations (which include books, journals, and news articles) I used with this revision are more than enough to show notability in 2018. Second, again, I've diversified the sources considerably from the original, which largely depended on the original standard, by quoting books, journals, etc. Finally, as seen in this talk page, there was some close connection to the topic by the original contributor(s); I have no connections whatsoever to the topic or the individuals, and I removed all of the irrelevant and biased text, sticking to the facts.

I believe all these issues are taken care of with my revision, and I'm removing the warning templates. Lostraven (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)