User talk:Glenryman

Discussion of Standard Methodology for Analytical Models (SMAM)

Hi,

Thank you for making my page so visible! It has gotten a lot of attention and it is hot to become a controversial topic. I describe the standard methodology that we use in IBM and I believe it is good to donate that to Wiki, so other people can benefit as well.

Can I advise you: rather than removing my contribution, please contribute something yourself. Be valuable to the world!

Thank you,

Olav

@Olavlaudy: - please see my comments on your talk page. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. I will flag your entry for removal. Glen - Glenryman (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Glenryman:, please do; I'll add it back. Contribute yourself instead of removing something valuable that was created by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olavlaudy (talk • contribs) 06:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Olavlaudy: Please do not misunderstand my representation on this article. I think your ideas are very worthy of discussion and this has been something I have been grappling with for some years. My main contention is that in its current form it does not meet Wikipedia standards. I'd be happy to work with you to make sure the article is acceptable for Wikipedia. Please be assured that I do not have any issues with the content of your article, but the way it is written makes it open to challenge. I am by no means a Wikipedia pro but I have had some experience in contributing (based on my postgrad research), having that work challenged and removed and then having it counter-challenged and reinstated. There are I believe three issues which leaves your entry open to challenge and removal. The way to overcome this is to seek help from the Wikipedia community and not to simply undo edits. Nothing raises the ire here more than making edits with no comments or not answering questions. The three issues are:

1) no Wikipedia article should have as its reference another Wikipedia article - it is important that you reference other non-Wikipedia published works. Often those references can simply get deleted. I decided to add a banner so you would have the chance to reedit before removing the banner.

2) Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Ideally, work should be published elsewhere and debated and the Wikipedia entry can then reference those as primary sources. Your LinkedIn article is a good start as you could now reference that (although as a single source it will still be open to challenge). My advice is to publish elsewhere or better still have some of your colleagues publish as well. Even better get the discussion introduced into the wider data science community (e.g. KDNuggets, Data Science Central, Predictive Analytics World, Health Datapalooza, etc.). Your page can then describe SMAM with neutrality using the primary sources as references. If they are all IBM references that's fine - just say so in the Wikipedia entry.

3) The comments above and elsewhere have opened another front unfortunately - namely that of ownership of SMAM. If it is IBM IP and IBM wishes to donate it to Wikipedia then there are processes to make that happen - it can't happen through a Wikipedia entry. If you wish to donate it you will need to make sure you have authority to do so. It would be better if the methodology was published by IBM on one of their websites with GPL or other open source licences specifically mentioned.

As I said I am more than happy to help (or help you find someone in the community who can) - Glenryman (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Standard Methodology for Analytical Models for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Standard Methodology for Analytical Models is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard_Methodology_for_Analytical_Models until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)