Talk:Mobile device management

Untitled

In the publication of gartner we can read: "© 2012 Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Gartner is a registered trademark of Gartner, Inc. or its affiliates. This publication may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without Gartner’s prior written permission...." So this is not the case her in WP (not repoduced and not distributed) and we don't know wheater Gartner has permitted the publishing media or not. Fact is: it is published and I made a reference to the document as required in WP. --193.138.10.41 (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

There is no copyright infringement here. The Gartner publication, like many others here on Wikipedia, is properly summarised (paraphrased) and cited. One of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia is that there is no original research (WP:OR) and that *all* content should be based on reliable (WP:RS) and verifiable (WP:V) sources. Hoelzer is behaving like someone who has a grudge against Gartner and this is not the forum to air such an opinion. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Notable providers

To acknowledge that "Gartner recognized five vendors to be in the leaders quadrant of the "Magic Quadrant for Mobile Device Management Software" Market Overview 2012." and then to list four companies out of this group of five creates a situation where it is easy to develop the position that one or more editors has a bias against the company that has been omitted.

At the same time, mobile device management is a very rapidly evolving market segment that is likely to see significant change in the near future, suggesting that the list of "Notable providers" will require active curation if it is to continue to be accurate−Gartner even alludes to this is the cited report. If this happens and the list is continually updated, it leaves open the problem of new vendors without Wikipedia entries being removed from the list as not being notable (see history for use of this "justification").

So, I'd suggest we either update the list to add the missing 5th leader, or delete the section.

Thoughts?

--SimonBramfitt (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to delete the list and replace with a link to the report as an external reference --SimonBramfitt (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:BikerBiker Doesn't seem to like my making changes to address this concern, so I've looked further.

The Gartner document is covered under Gartner's copyright, that is easily proved - it is stated on the last page of the publication. Whether it is enforceable or not is debatable, and whether Gartner would choose to enforce it is also debatable. This article takes data from the Gartner doc, specifically the notable providers and restates it in edited form. This may or may not be acceptable depending on interpretation. Wikipedia:Copyright in lists is not fully clear on this matter, but suggests that the greater the degree of reuse the grater the risk. As this list in its current form uses 4 out of the top 5 vendors, this suggests a high risk.

Further: Wikipedia:Copyright in lists does not directly address this senario, but does offer that "a list of notable residents of a town; that the individuals are residents is fact, but the selection criteria "notable" is not" [emphasis added] and cannot be used.

The notability here is Gartner's analysis, i.e. Gartner's very proprietary intellectual property.

The Wikimedia Foundation's associate counsel recommended in March 2011 that the use of even uncopyrightable lists be considered with regards to licensing agreements that may "bind the user/reader from republishing the list/survey results without permission", noting that "Absent a license agreement, you may still run afoul of state unfair competition and/or misappropriation laws if you take a substantial portion of the list or survey results."

Further - the practice listing "Notable providers" is not widely used elsewhere in Wikipedia. Search returns 2 hits, search for "Notable vendors" returns 8 hits. So there's little precedent to fall back on.

So I'm reinstating the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonBramfitt (talk • contribs) 00:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List in Implementation Section

What does this list represent?

At the very least title is required, an explanation is strongly recommended

--SimonBramfitt (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the list, it's here if anyone can work out what it is work and whats to put it back

FOTA - Firmware over the air updates
Diagnostics
Remote Configuration and Provisioning
Security
Backup/Restore
Network Usage and Support
Server Deployment
Mobile asset tracking and management
Remote Lock and Wipe
Device Provisioning
Software Installation
Troubleshooting and Diagnostic Tools
Policy Application
Logging and Reporting
Remote Control and Administration
GPS tracking and 'breadcrumb' mapping

--SimonBramfitt (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MDM for mobile security

This section, while informative, has many issues including:

No citations
Poor grammar
Poor wording (eg. " allow organizations to integrate their existing email setup to be easily integrated with the MDM environment")
Broad, unsupported generalisations (eg. "Employees frequently copy attachments downloaded from corporate email to their personal devices and then misuse it")

Overall, this section needs extensive rework by someone with expertise in this area.

--GethinLW (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]