Jump to content

Talk:RepRap

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bluerasberry (talk | contribs) at 18:33, 23 March 2016 (add media...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconTechnology Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Draconian Cut

Someone rather slashed the content of the page to two paragraphs, with key facts in both remaining paragraphs wrong. The tone of the cut version suggests some kind of grudge. I apologise for fixing these as I am a member of the RepRap Project but hope the edits come under the "common sense" clause. I'm refraining from re-instating the copy myself for that reason, but I would strongly urge that a more precise edit of the previous content is made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VikOlliver (talk • contribs) 05:54, 5 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the error. The article was a nightmare of content that violated WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SELFCITE, WP:CRYSTALBALL, and as they say on TV, "so much more!" Way too much hype around this had been pressed into WP. I'm not a crazy person and would be open to re-expansion but it needs to be enduring, encyclopedic content cited to secondary sources..... Jytdog (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of addressing specific issues you cite with specific changes, you deleted almost everything ("throwing the baby out with the bath water"). Now you've created unneeded worked for people to try and add that relevant content back in, knowing that someone is hovering over the revert button. Poor form. Mburns —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to reinstate content with external references (and highly relevant internal ones such as Makerbot and Adrian Bowyer), but the problem is that I was one of the original researchers. If there is some multi-lateral agreement and cross-checking I'd be delighted to participate. Would it be possible for me to at least reinstate the key, pre-commercial, timeline of the project? Bear in mind that at the creation of the page and content the Wikipedia rules governing such violations were not in place, and Wikipedia itself was used as the historical archive by the team in complete ignorance of the impending rules. Prior to 2008 there was also no commercial RepRap.VikOlliver —Preceding undated comment added 07:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for acknowledging that - it was obvious from the content that Wikipedia was being abused as a team website. This is not an uncommon error - representatives from companies come here and do the exact same thing. So do activists of various stripes. Thanks too (and really) for minding the integrity of Wikipedia this time around! I mean that. What we ask editors with a COI to do is work with a kind of peer review. instead of editing the article directly, propose the content here on the article Talk page, for others to review for NPOV and sourcing, and only after it has been reviewed by independent editors, does it get added to the article. It would be amazing if you would propose content here to work on, to add flesh to the article. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article did need a 'bit' of work, but this cut is close to vandalism. I am now trying to tell quite a few people to put the pitchforks away and tell them we are not evil and are bought by someone to destroy the 3d printing movement. thanks a lot, i had something else to do today. Elvis untot (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted Dr Bower and he has tidied up the article (minor contributions by me) with references and links to the relevant Wikipedia pages. It is available for feedback, modification, comment and possible inclusion by interested parties here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adrianreprap/sandbox Vik :v) (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that was super nice of him, but like many articles created by people too close to something, there is a ton of unsourced content in that draft; it fails WP:VERIFY by miles and miles. It is also still full of the "revolutionary" rhetoric and WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions that the former, bloated version was full of. This too is a product of the bias that comes from people too close to a project. That kind of content is great on a lab website or website of a company, but it is not encyclopedic. Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind terribly marking up a few so we can have some concrete examples as reference points for our fixes? Vik :v) (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. Just read it. So many unsourced things! "14 April 2008. Possibly the first end-user item is made by a RepRap: a clamp to hold an iPod securely to the dashboard of a Ford Fiesta." That is just one, but you know how to look for citations. The entire section on "Commercial applications" is unsourced. Promotionally... the whole thing about the goal of " asymptotically approach 100% replication over a series of evolutionary generations" which has not happened at all, and appears unlikely to. The promotional "revolution in STEM education" bit, sourced to a conference abstrat. This is very far from WP:NPOV. Again it is great content for a lab website. Jytdog (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that first reference (Financial Times as it happens), added a few citations to the "Commercial Applications" section - will get more. You may not agree with the RepRap Project's goals, but that does not change what they are. Please explain why an in-context conference abstract is not admissible as a citation given that Wikipedia supports {{Cite conference}}.Vik :v) (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The goal is great. It is just that it was set 10 years ago and reality has not turned out that way. See here for example. There was little about real world impact - how it is going, how it is not going, in the article was and in that draft article. 3D printing remains niche-y. I know lots of people and maybe one has a 3D printer. This is what happens when people who have conflicts of interest write Wikipedia articles. Too close to the vision. Passion is a double-edged sword that way. It drives people to contribute but you only get the fans or the haters, and encyclopedic content goes out the window. I would love to see a good, well-sourced, NPOV article on RepRap. Jytdog (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I pare down that page until every statement is cited? At the moment the article is a bit far from encyclopaedic! Still not sure why the conference abstract was a bad citation.Vik :v) (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
please do read WP:RS. conference abstracts are not peer reviewed, generally. They are just an SPS. And yes per WP:VERIFY anything that is not on the level of the "the sky is blue" needs to be cited. That is a Wikipedia fundamental policy and one of the things that help us prevent this place from being a slag heap (although it is in places) Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the claim being made with only a conference abstract as the source is not strong, I disagree with your response though Jytdog, indicating that the reason it is not strong is because it is not peer-reviewed. Many/Most of the sources cited in Wikipedia articles are not peer-reviewed. (newspaper/magazine articles, websites, etc..). And conference abstracts sometimes ARE peer-reviewed. FYI: I'm a librarian. 166.66.18.85 (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Sorry, should have logged in, before commenting.Gregatmu (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are pretty new here. The distinction here is that an article in a newspaper that is a reliable source is written by some reporter, and then gone over by editors, and then published by the newspaper. There is a whole set of editorial controls and fact-checking between the writing of the thing, and its publication. In scientific publishing, "peer reviewed" is short hand for the whole process of getting a scientific article published (which includes copy review by editors at the journal, as well as peer-review for the claims that are made). Conference abstracts are basically self-published sources - that whole series of editorial control is absent. A conference abstract is an extremely weak source for the very stong and promotional claim that "RepRap is revolutionizing education." That is just promotionalism, along the lines of Ginzu knives sold on TV. If folks want to make the extraordinarily strong claim in this article that RepRap has actually has "revolutionized" education, then they need to bring a correspondingly extraordinarily strong source supporting that. Heck, if folks want to make the claim that RepRap has had even significant impact on education, they would need a strong source actually showing that, not just some guy talking at a conference about how cool his work is. Please do read WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV and you will see what that I am saying here matches both the letter and most importantly the spirit of those policies and guidelines. Please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia - a serious attempt to provide the public with accepted knowledge. It is not a lab website or a group blog or a fan site. Promotionalism is the opposite of what we are doing here - we want carefully written, well-sourced content that reflects the real world as well as we can. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, It is true that I don't have a lot of Wikipedia edits, but I've been a librarian for 16 years. I don't disagree with anything you've said about newspapers having editorial controls. But I stick to my original objection. You said that "conference abstracts are not peer reviewed, generally" and used that as the reason for not using it as source. I only pointed out that lots of things that are considered reliable sources are not peer-reviewed in the very specific sense. Editorial review IS NOT the same as peer review. Yes, editorial review may help to make a source more reliable to some degree, but lots of things go through editorial review that I wouldn't consider reliable. Gregatmu (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine. This does not make the source any more useful to support this content. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry about today's events RepRap folks. That seems to be someone unrelated who came here only to make trouble. I'll be happy to work with anyone who wants to build a good, policy-compliant Wikipedia article about RepRap. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for sources

OK, I would like to work on building this article up. Everything in WP starts with sources, as I mentioned above. I'll share the work I am doing here. Starting with mainstream, very reliable sources of information. I am looking for information about what RepRap is - not what it could be. Also sources discussing dissemination and use. How many of the machines are out there? Who uses them, and for what? What kind of RW impact does it have now? Not anecdotes, but data.

It is late and I am quitting for the night. I will hit more MSM tomorrow and head toward mainstream "geekdom" and will look in Wired and MIT Technology Review to see what I can find there. Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You pick five sources to look at, and they're all American? You've already deleted 80% of the content here. Why not just redirect the whole article to Makerbot and have done with it. Viam FerreamTalk 09:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just getting started on the reconstruction, which requires sources. If you have reliable sources per WP:RS to bring - ideally independent sources, please bring them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYSTEMICBIAS looks like a great place to have started from. Viam FerreamTalk 15:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just ignore and not respond to snark going forward, especially snark that has nothing to do with sourcing and content. Personal attacks may simply be removed per WP:TPG. I am just getting started, and everything starts somewhere. If you want to help build the article, please feel free to bring independent, reliable sources, anywhere you can find them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I've been reflecting on this and am unwatching this article. I have restored this to the version that existed before I made my cuts. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:RepRap&oldid=711576090"