Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library/Archive-Pre-April-06
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This sub-page archives discussions on the Information Technology Infrastructure Library Talk page that occurred before April 2006
Comment by unknown
removed: copyright violation from www.enterprisemanagement.com/online-store/ scstore/02182002%20Article.pdf
I can't find the first bit on the web, but just to make sure, someone should rewrite the first two paras.
To the poster: please write something original here: we can't use material copied from other websites, unless they are in the public domain, licensed under the GFDL, or explicit permission has been given by the copyright owner to use their material under the GFDL.
Structure of the article
Trying to read through the article, I found lots of useful information, which was presented in a manner that newcomers might find confusing. If I was confused, others might be as well....
So I'm working to improve things. I'm hardly an expert on ITIL--maybe after I've revised the wording, I'll be closer. :-) If there are experts out there who think I'm getting it wrong, please help me get it right.
Here's my plan of action: What I have done, and what I'll be doing in the short term.
- Re-worked the intro to conform more closely to standard Wiki practices (much more needs to be done).
- Moved various sentences around, again for clarity, focus, and flow.
- Moved the 'Process' section to the bottom. This was mostly to get it out of the way for a while. A new reader wants to know what ITIL is right away. I need to figure out where this very important Process stuff belongs.
- I want to describe the eight 'sets' in the framework, and each of the disciplines within them.
- And of course there are various small repairs to spelling, grammar, and language.
When all of that is finished, I'll probably make the next pass at a plan of action.
Just to re-enforce, I'm not at all an expert on the subject, so if you have the knowledge, I need the help. If I'm going down the wrong path, please help me to get back on. [ But, be gentle. :-) ]
DanielVonEhren 20:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've made various improvements for about a week. My thoughts are moving in the direction of splitting up the article into about 10 different article. I'm envisioning
-
-
- A main article with overall descriptions of ITIL
- Eight separate article, one for each of the sets
- An ITIL Glossary
-
- I'm noticing that the article is already quite long, and the material so far only covers two of the eight sets.
- There's a lot of work left to do even in the simple 'small repairs' on what's already in place: Lots of spelling, and grammar, and prose, and organization issue. I'm looking at that as on-going. For the short-term, I'm going to create the separate ITIL Glossary article. One of the most important benefits of ITIL is the definition of common vocabulary, which allows people to communicate in a shared language. I've noticed the problem that the article talks, for example, about an incident several times before having the opportunity to define it. A Glossary in a separate article with linkable words ought to solve that chicken-and-egg problem nicely.
DanielVonEhren 15:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is IT Service Management a separate layer
Looking at OGC's web site and various other sources, I'm not seeing IT Service Management as a separate layer, with Service Delivery and Service Support as sub-specialties, so I'm going to take it out. However, I'm happy to put it back if it turns out that I'm missing something.
It's looking like it will be most clear to organize the article around the the eight physical books. That provides a natural hierarchy for structuring the presentation as well as a reader's thoughts.
DanielVonEhren 14:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Images and comments
I think the flow of the existing document is good-- I like the focus on presenting the information similar to the base ITIL books.
I do think that the choice of JPEG compression for the line drawings was poor-- JPEG blurs the text badly since it was designed for photographs instead of drawings. A better choice would be PNG since this uses a lossless compression which squeezes large areas of the same color down nicely. The image size would be comparable and a whole lot sharper.
Sbonds 20:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
In one of the images, "deplanning" should be "deplaning" x2
~anonymous 16 May 2005
I agree re "In one of the images, "deplanning" should be "deplaning" x2 " Mind you, wonderful image of people being rushed off a plan (yes, we've all had daft managers telling us to forget about the plan...)
Content of Article
Hi Daniel,
I am an ITIL consultant and a qualified and accredited trainer, but new to the Wikipedia.
If you Wikify this article I will happily keep an eye on the content for you.
Lynn Jackson 5 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some references to ISO20000, BS15000 etc.?
ITIL
I think that this should most likely be reorganised. I have some experience in ITIL (though I'm by no means an expert!). I migth give it a shot some time later. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I would be inclined to hang on. ISO 20000 is due to be published: but we all know ISO and dates. It should be in a week or so, but I guess longer. Creating something now which will need re-working so soon is probably not a good investment of time.BinaryGal
ITIL uses "process" loosely
In BPM terms, ITIL's use of process is loose. A process is a repeatable series of events resulting in a value-add outcome for an identifiable stakeholder. This applies to Incident, Problem, Change, and Release. Configuration Management is in a gray area, and the "tactical" Service Delivery areas of Capacity, Availability, Finance, and Continuity are clearly closer to functional areas as defined by classical BPM - they are made up of many processes, some of which may cross boundaries.
The ITIL author's insistence that Service Desk is a function not a process is further indication of their lack of clarity in this matter. A Service Request is also a crisp, event-driven repeatable process.
For further information see Hammer or (especially) Rummler & Brache.
65.25.216.35 04:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Charlie Betz (charb@visi.com), www.erp4it.com.
Objective point of view, real world experiences
The handling of this subject is excellent, better than I've seen almost anywhere else. I note (regret) the absence of two things, firstly some context and reference to equivalent standards or attempts at standards, and secondly some observations on the issues around successfully implementing. This is not to distract focus from ITIL, or belittle it, but to avoid the impression that one might othervise get that it is purely theoretical and idealistic. I appreciate that the authors KNOW that it is not, it is just an observation about how well the article conveys that. I'll pull together some studies and post in the next week or so. Tban 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Pronunciation
Could someone knowledgeable please provide pronunciation guide- "Long I or Short I", Eye-til or it-il??? I have been hearing both ways.
Pronunciation update
As I understand it 'eye-til' is the US pronunciation whereas 'it-il' is the UK.
Added some information on Infrastructure Management
Found an excellent summary on the Service Management disciplines but very little on the Infrastructure or Application Management elements. I've added some initial thoughts under Infrastructure Management and hope that people will be happy with the tone and structure.
Mark G 23:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Incident Management Definition
The Incident Management definition includes the phrase : "... .The definition means that an incident is a problem but without a root or cause. If the incident has a root cause, the incident becomes a problem or a known error...."
I'm not so sure that this is helpful to those new to the ITIL framework and even less sure that it is accurate. As ITIL is quite clear that Problems are distinct from incidents it would seem unhelpful to say that and 'incident becomes a problem or a known error'. Neither that an 'incident is a problem but without a root or cause', the ITIL books seem to suggest that a known error has a root cause, but a problem need not have a root cause this would suggest that this also needs updating.
Does anyone else have any views? --Mark G 01:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
---01 April 2006---
Incident is a service call which demands immediate attention for closure or a workaround. If a number of incidents are logged by various users with a similar fault description, then the incident becomes a problem. In that case, as per incident management, closure of the incident through workaround is done as quickly as possible. Problem is handled as per problem management. Every problem has a root cause. Till the time, root cause is unknown, the problem remains and is called an unkown error. When the root cause is found out through root cause analysis, the problem becomes a known error.
--- Contributed by Ganaraj Pawaskar---01 April 2006
---02 April 2006---
I've updated the relationship to problem management section in Incident Management, I'd appreciate any feedback. I hope it's a little clearer.
Mark G 22:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Spellings US v UK
I've just seen an edit on this page: someone has changed every spelling of 'organisation' to 'organization'. It raises the issue: which spelling should be used, US or UK? Most of the Wiki seems to be in US (should it?), but ITIL was born in the UK (does that make a difference?).
Is there any formal policy on this? --Binarygal 1 March 2006
I would think that since ITIL is a UK developed library then 'organisation' is more appropriate - but then I would i'm in the UK!
--Mark G 01:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
External Links to Blogs on the ITIL page
I have redefined the conversation that appeared to be going on between ITServiceGuy and 80.47.x.x so that it doesn't consume high level headings and discourage others from reading or contributing to the other discussions on this page. Discussion is below.
Mark G 14:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Why the ITIL V3 Overview External Link Should Stay on Wikipedia
I am writing this to kindly request that editor 80.47.XX.XX stops deleting the external link to the ITIL V3 Overview article and slide deck that I believe should be in here.
I wish to objectively provide my case.
To provide the core facts:-
- Yes, it links to a Blog page - Yes, I own the Blog - Yes, the Blog has Adsense on it
However:-
- The Blog exists to provide free information about ITIL - not for self promotion. - The Blog does not sell anything - nor is it commercial. - The Blog provides valuable infomation and places it in the public domain. - No copyright is broken - everything is my own work.
In terms of the actual article:-
- The article is informative and accurate. - The article is an introduction about ITIL V3. - The article contains a FREE download of a valuable pack I personaly put together for the benefit of ITIL V3 interested parties. - There is no-where else on the internet that you can read the FAQ's that Sharon Taylor (Chief Artictect for Version 3) answered. - Sharon Taylor herself left a positive post on the site - expressing how pleased she was that were postively covering ITIL V3.
The precident:-
Two of the other external links contain a lot of advertising and sponsor links. One contains 6 sponsor links and 10 advetisements, along with links selling a toolkit. I do not object to these links. Therefore the 'made for Adsense' comment is a non-issue.
The quality of the article and slide deck within it are superior. I have received a lot of feedback telling me so from ITIL practitioners around the world.
That's my case stated - openly, honestly and fairly.
I look forward to reading your reply.
(missing a signature)
Why You Should Stop Spamming the Wiki with your Adsense Site
In your desperation to add a link to your 'Made for Adsense' site and thus grab a few pennies, you miss the key points entirely.
The page you point to is almost worthless. It is lightweight, with the content covered in MUCH more depth on the official OGC site, and many others. It simply does not justify being linked to in any sense.
The wiki is NOT a link list. Simple. Repeatedly Visiting here explicitely to add your OWN site, with minimal useful content, and Adsense all over it, is unnacceptable and unethical.
Ask yourself: if that page was elsewhere and NOT owned by you, would you repeatedly spam the link to it here? Of course you wouldn't. Case proven. Your motivation is clicks on the Adsense box, not the good of this wiki. Please refrain from doing it.
(missing a signature)
Why Are You Preventing ITIL Practitioners from learning about ITIL V3?
Thank You for leaving your comments. I wish to respond as follows:-
I am certainly not desperate to add a link and 'grab a few pennies'. The Adsense on my site offers ITIL Practitioners the chance to access free reports and other information from a variety of vendors - without having to spend valuable time looking elsewhere around the web. It's just a service I provide, along with the other quality information on the site.
For your information - the small amount of 'pennies' I do receive from Adsense each month goes straight back into buying reports and other items (such as the $200 ISO 20000 standard that I'm currently writing articles about - most of which I forked out for myself) to help educate visitors to my site.
You seem to have me down as a ruthless entrepreneur who is trying to turn a fast book out of a single Wiki link. Not exactly the master business plan is it?
If I was trying make some money - then I would be trying to post affiliate links to actually sell a product (such as a 'toolkit' - which funnily enough - IS featured on some of the other external links that you do not seem to have a problem with).
Double standards?
No, I actually think there's more to this...
Overall - I do not believe that Adsense is your major concern here. Just a way of cleverly painting a dark picture - which is totally innaccurate.
My track record and reputation is being questioned here - and I intend to professionally continue to present my case.
Here's the thing...
I honestly believe (having absorbed the content and context of your objections) that you have some 'other' reason for not wanting the information to appear.
I thought that purposely preventing information for others to learn from is actually NOT what the Wiki is about?
Let's resolve this 'censorship' issue once and for all.
You mention (above) that the article is 'lightweight' - then please do all the visitors to Wiki a BIG favour and add some external links to where the information CAN be found on an alternative site.
For example the answers to the important questions about ITIL V3, as provided by Sharon Taylor, are - to my knowledge - available NO WHERE ELSE on the web. Not even the OGC site.
I challenge you to find this same information (answers to the FAQ's) and provide an external link to it on the ITIL wiki page.
Now, if you can do that, then I will see no alterantive but to not post the external link - since you have found a suitable alternative for eveyone to benefit from.
If you cannot I will seek further guidance from Wiki on ensuring that the Link is posted and remains posted.
I am only interested in ensuring that all interested ITIL parties have access to all the relevant facts and information to help them in their advance planning and preparation for ITIL V3.
There should be no censorship on Wiki.
Do you accept the challenge?
(missing a signature)
Because You Are a Link Spammer
It is staggering that you still persist with this vandalism. You just don't get it do you?
The real challenge was the question of whether you would post the link again and again and again if the site didn't belong to you. In other words, if it didn't make you money. Funny that you didn't answer that isn't it?
We have been here before on topic after topic all over the wiki. People persisting in posting their own site blindly because they cannot grasp what everyone else can.
Desperately slagging off other links in defense is also common. FWIW the other links are justified because they offer genuinely unique or original content. That is why they have been left in place for years. The issue isn't the odd link to commercial areas on the sites the wiki links to, it is the content on them and the whole value of the site (or lack of it).
In your case it is crystal clear that the so-called 'blog' is a 'Made for Adsense' entity, known as an MFA site, You have lightweight content here and there to try to provide hooks. Your growing desperation to link to it here simply re-enforces that fact, and exposes your mission.
In terms of the flimsy article you are pressing, the same information is available all over the place, including on the OGC site which is already linked to. Furthermore, there is a wiki page on v3 specifically. Even IF your MFA site jsutified a link, which it DOESN'T, that is where it should be.
If you carry on like this, the next step will be to block you from posting at all. Why don't you step back, look at what you are doing, and instead of link spamming try to add CONTENT too the wiki? But no, I guess that isn't what you are really here for is it?
(missing a signature)
Thoughts from an outsider
Gentlepeople, it does rather appear as if emotions are running high here, and while I would like to distance myself from the more personal debate that is occurring (above) I felt it might be useful to provide a view from outside the discussion.
As the initiator of the wikipedia page on ITIL v3 (early last month) I too saw a general need for more and better information on ITILv3 and the ITIL refresh project. Personally it concerns me that our unknown editor 80.47.x.x feels unable to make at least some identity visible, it is therefore not possible to identify if he/she may have an agenda – however it is a (largely) free world and so his/her prerogative.
I am however concerned that the ITIL wikipedia pages could very easily become overburdened with links to umpteen blog pages across the web. With a blog, it is often difficult to discern the agenda of the author and as such lending credibility through an ‘encyclopaedia’ entry would appear to be ill advised.
Wikipedia ‘best practice’ and ‘policy’ appear to err on the side of caution when linking away from Wikipedia:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/When_should_I_link_externally
“…Not very often. If the site you are linking to is an article, history or timeline, then wikipedia should have its own article on that subject, not just an external link. The web is already full past capacity of sites composed of links to other sites.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links
specifically adds:
“Links to normally avoid: A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.”
I am sure that everyone would appreciate any Wiki-ethos compliant content being added to the ITIL v3 page by anyone who has a contribution to make, but on balance I would be in favour of tight control over links made from these pages. If the demand is there for ‘advocacy’ style pages then perhaps an ‘ITIL Advocacy’ page would be an option as I am sure that others who have equally valid and useful ITIL commentary would like to provide access to their blogs as well.
Mark G 14:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
ITIL Version Three on Wikipedia - IT Service Guy Response
To mystery editor 80.43.XX.XX,
Thanks for providing two sets of feeback: (i) your direct comments and (ii) the comments made above to ITILuser.
Please can I kindly request that you maintain your professionalism in this discussion forum and try to avoid unkind or untrue phrases (like 'spammer' and 'lightweight'). This is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it - however - I have never questioned your anonymity, agenda or writing style once. I am trying to focus on what I see as the key issue here which is the availability of information on ITIL Version Three.
You failed to declare whether you accepted my challenge which was to add external link(s) that present the Wikipedia readers with the FAQ answers that are contained within the free download slide pack attached to the article that I am trying to post a link on Wikipedia too.
[Notice also, that whilst we are debating whether the link should be on Wikipedia, I have not tried to replace it or do anything underhand, I have been openly and honestly laying out my side of the story.]
As you know, my present concern is one of 'censorship' and freedom of information around ITIL V3.
One indivudal should not be allowed to prevent others from accessing important information.
I cannot see any links that you have provided to allow people to read the answers to the FAQs. The reason they are so important is that they provide ITIL practitioners with an advance view of what's going to happen later this year with respect to education and possible changes in the syllabus for ITIL Foundation and the Managers exam.
I have been unable to find this information on any other ITIL site, including the OGC. Therefore I suspect you are also unable to offer the ITIL community alterative links with this information on it.
To avoid us all going around in circles I believe that there are several options on how we can move forward here - but I want to do so with concensus and approval from the ITIL wikipedia guardians and other editors, as well as yourself.
Option [1] - Add the link again. (Obviously it will be removed straight away - so not a viable option)
Option [2] - I can extract the content and add it to the ITIL V3 pages. (subject to concensus and approval from others)
Options [3] - Ask the OGC to put the information on it's site somewhere and then you can provide an external link to the relevant OGC page.
Option [4] - Not put the information back on - and we all stay in the dark (not really a fair option - especially given that I know how important the information is].
At this stage - can I please ask other editors to 'come in' and provide their opinions - perhaps there are more options that I've not considered.
I hope by presenting these options, that I am showing a genuine interest in the information being available regardless of where it is located.
Finally, for the (still) myserious editor 80.44.XX.XX - I wish to respond to your main point in your last response, "The real challenge was the question of whether you would post the link again and again and again if the site didn't belong to you. In other words, if it didn't make you money. Funny that you didn't answer that isn't it?"
I want to let you know that I was the one who placed the OGC site links on the ITIL V3 pages initially and also, in my online work particularly at the IT Service Blog, I always link out to sites that do not belong to me, to present important ITIL information. It's in the very nature of Blogging - sharing information for the good of everyone who's interested. I answered the money part in my previous response to you. (ISO 20000).
So, in summary, please can we have some additional consensus views, rather than let one anonymous individual decide.
I will honour the consensus view - as is the Wikipedia way.
Thank You.
(missing a signature)
Follow the Rules
The consensus is already evident. And as Mark G already points out, the Wikipedia itself clearly states: "“Links to normally avoid: A website that you own or maintain".
What part of that is it that you don't understand?
As for my anonymity, all that means is that I haven't created an account. I am no more anonymous than the people who have but not completed their details. I have no agenda, other than stopping link spammers and helping to protect the wiki. Why should I make myself a target for them, and paint a bulls eye on my head for them, by identifying myself? People who spam are usually capable of other despicable acts too.
Regarding your 'options', IF you have any unique content obviously you can add it to the v3 page. So obvious in fact that you could have done that originally. But you didn't want to did you? You just wanted the link to your Made for Adsense site, which is what this is all about, rather than some mythical unique content which is actually lightweight.
Finally: JUST FOLLOW THE RULES! The wiki is NOT here for self promotion of YOUR OWN sites or for link spamming.
(missing a signature)
Additional comments & thoughts
Gentlemen, I believe that the wikipedia approach is clear. "Wikipedia is not a blog and is not a directory of links" and having looked around the 'pedia for other similar issues it is not deemed appropriate to maintain links to content.
Robin, I believe that everyone would welcome your contributions to the ITIL v3 page, your challenge to our friend at 80.42.xx.xx indicates a concern on your part that ITIL v3 information that is in the public domain, and appropriate to a 'pedia style publication is missing from the v3 pages. Perhaps this section of the discussion should continue on the talk page a ITIL v3. I have reviewed your slides and believe that all of the relevant information is now included on the page, i have made a few minor updates to try to ensure this. My preferences would then be for you to follow options 2 and 3 of your selection and to persuade OGC and the Refresh project to continue the excellent project communication that I have already observed, and which I believe that Sharon was partaking in in the webcast that you initially reported.
Let's try to make these pages ITIL and ITIL v3 as comprehensive, independent, and succinct as we can so that this reference source can continue to be referred to in that light. If there is a belief that there is a deficiency in v3 information on the v3 pages, lets take the discussion to Talk on ITIL v3 and lets stick to the Wikipedia guidelines to avoid links to external sites unless the information cannot be legally duplicated in Wikipedia and unless that same information is indispensable to the aims of the encyclopedia.
Mark G 22:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Discussion carried across to ITIL V3 Discussion Page - As Requested.
Thanks Mark for providing this much needed mediation.
I will continue this discussion over on the ITIL V3 Discussion Page - as suggested.
At this stage - I'm not bothering to respond to our mysterious editor. I'm only interested in ensuring that the content is available to those that would benefit from it.
I'm keen to get back to writing about IT Service Management and ITIL - afterall I have over 1,300 global ITIL practitioners to keep happy - which is a far more meaningful experience.
Here I list eight key points - plus some other considerations for possible inclusion - subject to concensus being reached:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ITIL_v3
Thanks, Robin.
User:ITServiceGuy 08:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Where is the V3 link to ITIL on WIKI?
I have not been able to find the WIKI page link you reference in your statements below. NOR is there a specific link on the OGC site for V3.
Any help would be appreciated.
Answers for Itiluser
The wiki page for v3 is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITIL_v3
Our link spammer friend had been at that too but I cleaned it up.
For the OGC, you will find official info here: http://www.itil.co.uk/refresh.htm and a lot more if you look at news releases here: http://www.itil.co.uk/news.htm#ext
However, there is also tons of stuff on many ITIL sites out there, a lot better that the lightweight link posted by our friend above.
I hope this helps.
