Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   FIRST and Wikipedia (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55813)

MikeDubreuil 18-03-2007 16:35

Re: FIRST and Wikipedia
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik (Post 599160)
Mike,

I think summing up the whole student/engineer centric discussion and coming down on either side of the debate is just asking for trouble. Your wording made it sound like the majority were in favor of engineer-centric teams. Near as I could tell from any of the numerous threads on the subject, there simply wasn't any consensus on the issue whatsoever. I think, instead, that most everyone agreed that the entire discussion was insignificant to the mission of FIRST and that teams should go with what works well for them and what they feel comfortable with.

I think we're in agreement on the topic at hand but differ on the purpose of my post. My post served to remind the poster that his point is moot. FIRST is about inspiration and it doesn't matter if you only have students on your team or a league of engineers. The students are inspired, mission accomplished.

I'm with Cory on the fact that the Criticism section should not be in the Wiki article because it makes FIRST look bad. Essentially what we have is negative publicity over a debate that is ridiculous to the point of not mattering. The Criticism section should not be there.

JaneYoung 18-03-2007 17:02

Re: FIRST and Wikipedia
 
I would like to think that interested readers would use Wikipedia as a resource for information regarding FIRST, not for opinions.

Bongle 18-03-2007 17:15

Re: FIRST and Wikipedia
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JaneYoung (Post 600111)
I would like to think that interested readers would use Wikipedia as a resource for information regarding FIRST, not for opinions.

Which is why I think we should change it to artdutra suggested. It doesn't air dirty laundry, it acknowledges the existence of the debate as a part of team organization (which is a fact: it exists), and does it in a very good way. It also contains the fact that FIRST more or less leaves the 'inspiring' up to us. The only problem is that I haven't found a direct quote from FIRST to that effect.

meatmanek 18-03-2007 17:21

Re: FIRST and Wikipedia
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil (Post 600093)
I'm with Cory on the fact that the Criticism section should not be in the Wiki article because it makes FIRST look bad.

The Criticism section should be there, but it should have genuine criticisms of FIRST (too expensive, etc), not an internal debate where each side is critical of teams rather than of FIRST itself.

Deleting criticism because it makes FIRST look bad would make the article biased.

JaneYoung 18-03-2007 17:55

Re: FIRST and Wikipedia
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bongle (Post 600123)
Which is why I think we should change it to artdutra suggested. It doesn't air dirty laundry, it acknowledges the existence of the debate as a part of team organization (which is a fact: it exists), and does it in a very good way. It also contains the fact that FIRST more or less leaves the 'inspiring' up to us. The only problem is that I haven't found a direct quote from FIRST to that effect.

In a way this can be looked at as a research project. You may have considered this or done this. What about contacting FIRST, explaining what you are attempting to do, and ask for a quote? Nothing like going to the source.

My thinking is that Wikipedia can be a valuable tool and the marketing potential for FIRST is incredible as far as helping get the word out. Your interest in presenting the different facets of FIRST's make-up/dynamics has potential and I think FIRST would be interested in learning about your efforts.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:59.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi