(1) Explain your problem, don't simply post "This isn't working". What were you doing when you faced the problem? What have you tried to resolve - did you look for a solution using "Search" ? Has it happened just once or several times?
(2) It's also good to get feedback when a solution is found, return to the original post to explain how it was resolved so that more people can also use the results.
Dear all,
I wanted to try to write a Wikipedia article for quite a while, and I decided to start with Spider Project.
It took me 2 months to have it reviewed and approved, but now it is finally formally published.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_Project_(software)
This is a bit shorter version, than the original submitted for approval, but the 1st one has been rejected with the statement "it reads more like an advertisement".
Any way, now anybody is welcome to improve it. I also plan to do this.
Note, that wikipedia article shall follow certain content rules. The most important ones are:
Neutral point of viewhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
No original researchhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
Verifiability
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Evgeny, if the police come for me, I will respond. :-) It seems to me that I have described the situation accurately: Spider DOES compute the full range of CPM metrics, including critical path drag, which IS new.
So we'll see.
Fraternally in project management,
Steve the Bajan
Steve,
thanks!
The reference to your article in the Defense AT&L Magazine is a very good secondary source indeed!
I must say I am not quite sure though that "Wikipedia police" will like exact words you have chosen to describe Spider Spider functionality. They may call them peackock or weasel ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch
Can you may be see if you can look at this?
Evgeny, check the Wikipedia page. I edited the Introduction paragraph to:
Fraternally in project management,
Steve the Bajan
Vladimir,
RE "But why Russ Archibald book published in 2003 is not reliable source and what does it mean "PRIMARY as it is Russ Archibald's product"?"
As I said, I do not quite agree with all the conclusions of Technical 13 and will challenge hiim on some of them. But probably he has drawn this conclusion, because Archibald Associates is a partner of Spider Project Team. But if in Y2003 it was not a case yet (and we can have some proof of this), then probably I can challenge Technical 13 on this.
But why Russ Archibald book published in 2003 is not reliable source and what does it mean "PRIMARY as it is Russ Archibald's product"?
Vladimir,
please keep in mind, that this is also a bit of a learning curve for me.
This is a Wikipedia's description on primary / secondary sources
Wikipedia mainly relies in reliable secondary sources.
All these judgement about the primary / non-primary sources have been done by a Wikipedia user Technical 13, who, as I understand, has a qualification and / or Wikipedia rank to make such jugements. I also have some questions to his jugements.
In any case as far as I understand any information coming from yourself, from your company, from your partners about Spider is considered to be primary sources.
As you can see, the only source Technical 13 really sort of accepted was the article in the Project Manager Today. This is because it is not written by yourself and it is published in a reliable source (magazine). I think references to Olimpstroy are also reliable (he di dnot djudge them, because they are in Russian)
Regards.
Evgeny
Evgeny,
I don't understand what is Primary.
Why Marcus Possi book is primary, why Russ Archibald book is primary and it is written "PRIMARY as it is Russ Archibald's product"?
Most references lead to papers and presentations at different PMI and IPMA conferences and congresses. Do I understand correctly that if I am one of the authors then the paper is "primary" even if it does not mention Spider Project at all?
Dear all,
I need your help here. There have several issues raised against my article in Wikipedia. Mainly the issues are that I refer to primarily sources in my article.
Can you may be give me references to some other non-primary sources about Spider. It is OK, if the references are not English, but then I need to know approximately what they are talking about.
Under good non-primarily source I would mean for instance an article in the independent magazine etc (there is a good one in the "Project Manager Today"), but do we have more like this?
You can look at the nature of the issues raised at the talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spider_Project_(software)
P.S. Strange thing is that Microsoft Project article has NO non-primary source, all of the references go to company web site, but somehow it does not have so many issues raized. Pretty much the same story goes about Primavera.
Thank you Evgeny!
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies