Talk:RM plc/Archives/2016

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100526220017/http://rmap.highway1.com.au:80/web/This-is-RM/History/ to http://rmap.highway1.com.au/web/This-is-RM/History

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding December 2007 edits

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)

70 Jobs Redundant Announced 24-Nov-2017

• Kunert, Paul (November 24, 2016). "Jingle bells, RM tells, some staff to go away... via Skype". The Register. Retrieved November 26, 2016.

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