Talk:Ubiquitous command and control
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Context
It would be much better if the article started with some historical context, and at least some of the material from the "History and Method of UC2 Development" section. Once the reader is informed what this is, then the article can go into the detailed tenets of the theory/doctrine. —Michael Z. 2006-08-07 19:42 Z
- Now restructured to put history/method up front. Thanks for your recommendation. 26 September 2006.
[edit] Disambiguation
It might be useful to carefully distingish this from "Unified Command and Control" in US military doctrine, which is also referred to as UC2. Radagast3 08:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tone
No offence at all meant, but given that this is essentially a proposed military doctrine, I'm not sure that the length is entirely appropriate; as well, the tone is not entirely NPOV (eg, I felt I was reading a manifesto) and sometimes not entirely encyclopedic (eg, the conclusion, parenthetical comments about wikipedia, etc.
I appreciate the effort that went into a polished page and/or the ideas that it's describing, but I think this ought to be reduced somewhat in size and reworded in places for a purely descriptive tone, so that it's in relative proportion to, for example, widely accepted and historically significant military doctrines which have fairly brief articles. 142.177.155.152 02:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. Especially that "we" is improper in an encyclopedia unless it it a citation which then lacks details. --193.56.241.75 11:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- No offence taken, thanks for all your points! Will look into revising the length. Perhaps I could break it up somehow so that some ideas go elsewhere - e.g. the part on "common as identity" and "common as consistency"?
-
- Meanwhile, have modified to improve the tone, i.e. removed references to "we", removed "conclusion", removed parenthetic comment reference to Wikipedia. 26 September 2006.
[edit] Clarification
In your discussion on "common as consistency" you mention sources of inconsistencies but what is meant by the following line:
A third origin of inconsistency is partiality. Even when individuals have the same conception toward the same spatio-temporal events, inconsistencies can arise inferentially without anyone or anything making a mistake.
- The point being made was that inconsistencies can arise not only through error, or differing conceptualisation, but also because of partiality. Partiality is most often thought about as partial awareness. Id est - we frequently need to make assumptions in order to make information more complete.
- For example: Upon receipt of a consistent report, individual X may form a consistent theory by adding assumption α to the report, while individual Y may form a consistent theory by adding assumption not(α) to the report. X and Y then have mutually inconsistent consistent theories. So, an attempt to maintain awareness in the face of partial information can lead to mutually inconsistent consistent theories.
- I have modified the text in this section accordingly. -- Scholzj2006 23:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Original research
There is some really interesting material here, but I'm not sure how much of it is original research. (Please check the Wikipedia policy on original research if you are not already familiar with it.) There is a nice picture (although it seems excessively large in my browser), but I am concerned about its copyright status and originality - has it previously been published elsewhere? I am also worried that there are no references to UC2 except by its two original authors. Has this doctrine been adopted by any active military organization, or is it still in the research stage? --RichardVeryard 10:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- According to the Wikipedia definition of "original researech" (ie unpublished etc...) it is NOT original. That is, it has all been published by a reliable source called the ICCRTS see http://www.dodccrp.org/ - who organise "the" annual International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. Links to the full texts are given at the bottom of the article. The material is highly condensed from the ICCRTS published paper in December 2005 (reference [1]).
- Regarding the image... I tried the usual "thumbnail" size, but the image was totally incomprehensible. I then experimented with the image size, settling on this size in an attempt to make it clear (there is some detail in the image), yet as small as possible. I guess it could be a bit smaller - perhaps a matter of personal preference?
- Regarding copyright... The copyright status with ICCRTS is cleared - see http://www.dodccrp.org/html3/faq.html where they state "The papers presented at the CCRTS and ICCRTS remain the intellectual property of their authors. While they may be cited, they may not be reproduced without the authors' permission. The CCRP does not hold any rights over these materials and cannot negotiate on the authors' behalfs." As I am an author I consent to use on Wikipedia.
- A lack of references to UC2 is a bit of a concern to me too. I was hoping that this "simplified" version on Wikipedia might help people to comprehend it better than the "Dialectic for NCW" paper which people tell me was too philosophically-heavy. Problem is, I believe unless you get the philosophy thought through first, the technology you will be developing may not be too sound!
- We are actively pursuing the uptake of the doctrinal principles and some specific technologies based on this concept with the Australian Defence Forces and some National Security agencies. -- Scholzj2006 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I acknowledge that there has been some previous publication elsewhere. But are the concepts you are now expressing in Wikipedia identical with the concepts in these publications? On the contrary, it seems to me that you may still be developing and refining the concepts and material, and that your thinking may have progressed since you wrote these papers. Your willingness to clarify your thinking in response to questions from other Wikipedians reads to me very much like an ongoing research process and not just an editorial process. I think this process would be better conducted via an independent blog (with comments and trackback) so that interested parties (including myself) can engage properly with these emerging ideas rather than be constrained by the Wikipedia process. --RichardVeryard 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes the concepts are identical - the concept has NOT changed sinced publication. Look at it in detail and you will see it is so. One cannot help having their ideas grow over time - so of course my thinking has progressed since writing these papers. However, I again contend that the concepts, the tenets etcetera have NOT changed at all here. The progression involves adding Wikipedia links including links to examples that illustrate the UC2 tenets (eg eBay, Wikipedia, etc) to help people understand it better (note the following point for example!). I have NOT added to or changed this article from the prior published material. Indeed I am somewhat offended by your saying that my "willingness to clarify (my) thinking in response to questions from other Wikipedians reads ... like an ongoing research process etcetera". This is one reason why I didn't feel too compelled to respond to your question until now! Richard, if you wish to contact me email jason.scholz@defence.gov.au we can discuss further. Scholzj2006 02:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I am sorry if you were offended by my remark - that was not my intention. I have generally observed that concepts (especially widely accepted ones) evolve from their first publication. If the concepts are now expressed more clearly than they were in the papers, then that is surely progress. As author you may claim that this is what you meant all along, but of course this is impossible to verify. Having not read your original papers, I merely asked the question and stated how it appeared to me. --RichardVeryard 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The definitions need to be clearer and easier to understand.
- Tell me how and where. Be specific please. Scholzj2006 02:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- so if I have two conference papers about one of my concepts I can have a page about it? well happy days, I'll get the research students knocking them out tomorrow - there are at least 6 or 7 that would fit. More seriously, while this is still a proposed policy, I would say that the article fails on the criteria of (1), (2), (3.1),(3.2), (3.3),(3.4),(4.1),(4.2),(5) and (6). I have already Prod'ed the article and I think it's likely that if even contested that I will AFD it at the end of that period. --Fredrick day 18:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Response to Proposal for Deletion
The article was proposed for deletion for the following reasons: no evidence presented of real-world impact. A couple of conference papers are presented, who has cited this concept BESIDES the author? Deleting this prod with out providing sources or discussion on the talkpage will likely result in AFD.
- This material is to be used in the training of commanders in the Australian Defence Force in 2007. This is real-world impact that will not be found through Internet citations.
- The Wikipedia article has been examined by many Australian Defence Force people with whom I have spoken. So its presence is having real-world impact.
- It constitutes the research direction for an entire research branch in DSTO.[citation needed]
- The authors have always contended that the concept is representative of command and control systems we will have in the 2020's to 2030's. See the reference for IDC Conference publication abstract. By my reckoning this leaves quite a few years yet before will see it fully operationalised.
- An Internet citation is provided here, where North Korea states plans to adopt UC2 for the Korean People's Army. Likely due to its superiority over the US NCW concept. http://z11.invisionfree.com/QPAWN/index.php?showtopic=8094 . Note it is a role-playing game site!
Scholzj2006 02:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The thing to note about wikipedia is it's not not interested in truth but verifiability - only material that can be sourced should appear. As the article currently stands, I do not think it reaches the minimum standards. Two conference papers don't really cut it - otherwise, I'll be sticking in about 6 or 7 articles about my own academic work. --Fredrick day 10:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Being examined" doesn't really count as "real-world impact". Like Frederick, I have a lot of my own original material that is "used in training". Let me also note that a Google search for "ubiquitous command and control" yields three kinds of hit. Firstly this Wikipedia page and pages that are clearly derived from it. Secondly, references to the papers by Lambert and Scholz. Thirdly, use of the term to mean something rather different - the ubiquity of (traditional) command and control. So it seems that very few people use the term in the Lambert & Scholz sense, while many people use the term for something else. Wikipedia should be used to record a standard meaning for a term, not to try and establish one. --RichardVeryard 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- If the concept is representative of command and control systems (although I'm not convinced about this) then perhaps put in a brief reference to this concept into a general article about command and control. Meanwhile I stand by my original suggestion that the authors of this concept should consider creating their own website or blog to provide space for discussing and developing this potentially interesting idea, without the editorial constraints of Wikipedia. (This is what I do for my own material, rather than trying to use Wikipedia.) --RichardVeryard 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not representative of C&C systems, well not at least according to the experts I have consulted (it's not my area but I know people who's it is). I could be convinced otherwise by better sources. --Fredrick day 19:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
