User talk:Nhbaldwin

Welcome!

Hello, Nhbaldwin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article User:Nhbaldwin/Apollo Systems, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nhbaldwin/Apollo Systems[edit]

Wikification: "Web" for example is a very ambiguous term; wikilink any technical terminology used in an article, for the non-professional reader. Patents: these are not a major issue for this article. References: you've provided nothing in the way of external references attesting to the notability of this firm. Where are the trade press and the press articles? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

See, for example, Albright Group where the refs include Business Week and the LA Times as a way fo demonstrating independent 3rd party coverage. This addresses the notability requirement. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrew, but how does this get addressed relative to previously unreleased and non-commercialized technologies? (Non-commercial in the sense that it has not been "productized.") Prior to commercial print our market was tiny, but having introduced it into commercial print recently it is quickly gaining traction. Granted our view is subjective, and I understand Wikipedia's mandate to take and educational tone, but this technology continues to be searched by commercial and government firms. I have to believe, as stated in the last global trade news publication, that [inspection in general] is an up and coming and viable technology to watch. Nhbaldwin (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that goes to what Wikipedia is and is not; it's not a place for new news. It's for a distillation of that which has already shown itself to be of lasting relevance and, that word again, notability. Said another way, if it's still struggling to get wide notice, then it doesn't yet belong here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I struggle with that... The classic use of an encyclopedia is as you've described, but as it turns out, the internet provides this tool, Wikipedia, that provides a central bank of verifiable and late information. I use it constantly for business when I am unclear on a topic and need a synopsis of resources. An example is Comparison of platform virtual machines. As far as my immediate industry goes I feel very strongly that our history in development is enough, for now, to justify our posting. There are those out there that ask "what happened to Ektron" or "what happened to Eikonix?" Likewise, our current development is rooted in our history and the current technologies we are developing. A tremendous problem I have with the net in general is the difficulty in searching and finding new and competent technologies. Wikipedia should take advantage of its immediacy and provide that resource; otherwise it's no better than a book on the shelf. Apologies if that sounded a bit strong but I take exception to the possible consideration that "business" is not relevant. Nhbaldwin (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the long-running discussions here is about scope, and what Wikipedia should or shouldn't be. The risk is that it tries to be everything it could possibly be, and then it's just a copy of everything online. So the notability rule is considered a basic defining principle. You can obviously choose to disagree with that, but I don't think that the majority of editors here would agree with you if you did. I guess my point is that you need to address that requirement if you want the page to survive in the mainspace. Are there any links to coverage in the press? I didn't find any, but I didn't look terribly hard. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are documents written in the past and in our previous forms (examples referenced in the article) but as Apollo Systems has only gone commercial with the new technology in the past few months it's really only been in trade journals that are regurgitated versions of our press release. So yes, we've appeared in publications, but what I understand Wikipedia is looking for is third party and peer review. Barring that, is acceptance within a notable agency (i.e. The U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing) a next best alternative? I think so. Also, scope, I agree, is critical to what is posted and why... And I see where my article needs to address our capabilities and educate. Validating this approach, though, is complicated by conflict of interest and the availability of third-party resources and review. What I am going to do at this point is step back, approach my PHDs on staff and dig deeper for those documents. (By the way, I've gained a tremendous confidence in Wikipedia since starting this process.) Nhbaldwin (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wish I could say the entire encyclopedia is reviewed as rigorously as this page, but we all do what we can ... I look forward to seeing what you can find. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]