Talk:RM Education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Regarding December 2007 edits[edit]

Recently the Criticism and Security sections were removed by User:Rmedit, with the edit summary "Not NPOV, not appropriate material for an encyclopedia article, no references or citations given". I am concerned about this edit, because I believe it is a clear and severe conflict of interest edit.

Firstly, I will agree that the sections were uncited, though given how the entire article has no citations or references, this is perhaps a weak reason to remove those particular sections.

I do not believe discussing security flaws or criticisms is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article about software, as these can be important information. Some examples of Wikipedia articles that include such sections are ZoneAlarm, Windows Me, OpenOffice.org, and Pidgin. Windows XP and Vista have their own articles dedicated to criticisms here and here.

I also do not believe the sections violate NPOV, as it is natural for criticism sections to be critical.

However, all these are minor issues compared to the fact that the removals all appear to have come from within the RM companies itself. This edit [1] comes from an IP which refers to RM in the first person, very strongly suggesting it's someone from RM. The most recent edits are from an account called Rmedit, also very strongly suggesting it's someone from RM. For someone within the company to be editing their own company article is a clear conflict of interest, something severely frowned upon on Wikipedia. Thus, I do not believe that it is appropriate for these removals to remain, and that the sections should be restored (and, hopefully, cleaned up and sourced).

In the interests of avoiding an edit war, I have not reverted the removals yet. I would like to invite Rmedit and the aforementioned anonymous IP to discuss this issue here. Bhamv (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Bhamv - first of all, thank you for the considered and well-reasoned response. Secondly, as a naive Wikipedian, I find myself in a genuinely difficult position - with a potential conflict of interest, but a genuine desire to provide a useful article.

My concern with the article as it stands (and the changes have now been reverted again) is with the section headed criticisms. It is entirely appropriate for criticisms to be included and, as you say, it is in the nature of criticisms that they are critical. However, the criticisms included (monopoly, excessive cost and inadequate solutions) are strong and are not backed up by any source. My argument is that they are sufficiently strong as to require some kind of citation to justify them. Without some kind of independent verification, they are no more than personal opinions and could represent an equally conflicted (and not NPOV) view.

I have not removed the criticism section - both to avoid an edit war and because of my conflict. However, it does seem reasonable that if these criticisms are real, there should be external verification of them available.

I would value suggestions from anyone as to how to resolve this.

--Rmedit (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

First, apologies for the late response. Stupid real life and all that.
Now, let me start with some good news, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is a guideline and not a policy, which means that it can be ignored for the sake of improving articles. Since you, Rmedit, appear to be part of the RM organization, and more importantly since you seem to be a reasonable and approachable person, I'm willing to believe the best about you and assume that you're here to make the article better. I hope that you also believe that I'm not just here to give you a hard time about the conflict of interest, and also want to improve Wikipedia.
Since WP:COI can be ignored and you can edit the article, how should this article be improved? The first thing that comes to mind is sourcing. If the information currently in the article, the encyclopedic and appropriate stuff, can be sourced and cited, then that makes it much easier to justify removing unsourced information. It is my hope that you have access to or knowledge of good reliable sources that can be used in the article, given your closeness to RM.
Second thing that comes to mind is a neutral point of view. In this scenario, the Criticism and Security sections would be allowed to remain, but countered by cited information regarding RM's reaction to these criticisms or security holes, such as patches. For example, something like:
Students could use version 3.1 of RM software to gain access to the network without logging on. However, this vulnerability was patched in version 3.2. And then a citation would go here
Someone from RM editing the Research Machines article does not have to be a conflict of interest, it can also be a boon. It all comes down to providing the sources necessary to make this article a good one, and I sincerely hope someone close to RM will be able to provide them. Bhamv (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OK - I'll start work on identifying citations that improve the article - always difficult to find good, verifiable sources though! I have added some tags to some of the more contentious statements. --Rmedit (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my thoughts to this as someone who has edited this a few times now. It seems as though one of the edits made after me tried to imply that I was trying to twist the article in RM's favour. Despite being a former RM employee, I am now in a unique situation of being on the other side of the fence, now being a primary school teacher now! I will try to continue cleaning up the article and adding references as well as trying to balance the article out a little bit! Corky1979 (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Research Machines Data logger - RM101 & RM102[edit]

Around the mid 80's - RM developed and produced a Data Logger called the RM101 and 102. They were primarily designed for UK Education Markets and were a spectacular fail for the company. Only a small number were ever produced and sold. This part of RM's history seems to have been airbrushed over. Tony Scott was the project manager, later re-assigned to the Nimbus PC-186 project. Tony was the one who came up with the name Nimbus. Tony was a glider pilot and those who knew him claimed that the PC-186 was named after his favorite Glider, the Schempp-Hirth Nimbus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.229.226 (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting information. How was this "airbrushed", though? Was it deliberately removed from Wikipedia? Feel free to add it to the article, with supporting citations of course. Kind regards
Guffydrawers (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I was working at RM at the time, sales and marketing were then located at building in Between Towns Rd Oxford. The RM101/102 development team were housed next door. Nothing about the RM101/102 is contained within the RM history timeline, nor can I find anything on the web that relates to the product at all. No pictures or articles.

I’d like to think that the story about naming the Nimbus was correct, but the official marketing response was that it represented a halo around an object due to ice crystals in the atmosphere. I eventually ended up being the product manager for the Nimbus PC-186, so know a reasonable amount about the history of the system. For instance it was originally going to be DR DOS based and the switch to MS DOS was very late in the day from a release perspective. Also the Piconet serial bus, the original concept was for the system to effectively only have one port – a Piconet port. Peripherals like printer ports, keyboards etc. would all daisy chain off this one port. A sort of USB port – but years ahead of the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.229.226 (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Around the mid 80's - RM developed and produced a Multi purpose microprocessor controlled measuring instrument called the RM101 (and an upgraded version RM102). The RM101 was capable of measuring low voltages and datalogging and could be configured as a Voltmeter, Humidity Meter, ECG monitor etc depending on the probes used. They were designed by the newly formed Instrumentation Division of the company, under the leadership of Iain Duncan, to investigate non educational markets and were designed and built in record time for the company. The Instrumentation Division was discontinued to enable Iain to take over as Project Manager of the NGC ( New Generation Computer) which later became the Nimbus Computer. RM recognized the need for a 16 bit computer as a replacement for the 8-bit 480z and needed to move quickly to match the competition. The choice of Iain Duncan as the project manager, was justified as the Nimbus project came in under budget and in time to establish RM as a significant player in the educational computing market. Iain suggested the name Nimbus. and it was accepted by the board as all other suggested names hovered around fruit at the time and the board could not be sure another PC start-up would not choose the same one. Iain was a glider pilot and was hoping the success of the Nimbus would finance the purchase of a Schempp-Hirth Nimbus glider - which did in fact occur. Duncan). The RM101 was Around 240x 200x 80 high and had a small 2 x16 LCD panel and a minimal number of buttons for control. It had a dark grey Plastic front panel designed by john Twydell Associates of Tunbridge wells and only 50 were made and sold, although one was bought by the emergent National Instruments and may have influenced some of their subsequent designs. ( this paragraph updated and corrected by Iain Duncan).

I was working at RM at the time, sales and marketing were then located at building in Between Towns Rd Oxford. The RM101/102 development team were housed next door. Nothing about the RM101/102 is contained within the RM history timeline, nor can I find anything on the web that relates to the product at all. No pictures or articles. ( The Instrumenation Division and NGC team were housed in the new extension at Mill Street Oxford - iain )

I’d like to think that the story about naming the Nimbus was correct, but the official marketing response was that it represented a halo around an object due to ice crystals in the atmosphere. I eventually ended up being the product manager for the Nimbus PC-186, so know a reasonable amount about the history of the system. For instance it was originally going to be DR DOS based and the switch to MS DOS was very late in the day from a release perspective. Also the Piconet serial bus, the original concept was for the system to effectively only have one port – a Piconet port. Peripherals like printer ports, keyboards etc. would all daisy chain off this one port. A sort of USB port – but years ahead of the time. The original concept for the OS of the NGC was to be UNIX but these were changeable times with and Windows was coming so the software team under Bill Mansfield and Richard Girling rapidly reported software from origanal CPM 86 to Dos to Windows 1.0 (iain). the piconet Port was the brainchild of Mike Fisher ( co-owner of RM) and was indeed a foreunner of USB - iain was later part of the USB standard panel.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.122.109 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on RM Education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

I added the RM Education logo. Just a minor edit. DigitalFixer(64) (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@DigitalFixer(64): Where did you get the logo? It will need to be re-uploaded to the English Wikipedia with a proper license tag and non-free content criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The picture got taken away, since it was not licensed.WikiAltron64 (talk )

70 Jobs Redundant Announced 24-Nov-2017[edit]

Conrad T. Pino (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)