Talk:The UK Government's Knowledge Network Programme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe - this has been updated so I have not put in the "delete" suggestion again However at the moment the article seems over the top and could easily be interpreted as advertising I would suggest that Chris and others CURRENTLY involved in the network should contribute and amend the article which also needs hard pruning to be credible.--Snowded 13:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dave...Chris hasn't been involved in the Knowledge Network for over a year and a half...this is the most up to date position and deliberately avoids any commercial advertising at all. It is important to have the success of this project on the record - and all of the comment are direct quotes from newspapers and official government papers.

I know - but he was after you left and others have been involved since. At the moment this is all "Joe" and the whole tone does not match a wikipedia entry - its more like a case study for a consulancy or software house. Look at this wonderful thing, oh and we did it so employ us. I would not be suprised to see other people slash it or call for deletion. To be honest if it wasn't you (who I know and like) I would probably have reinstated the delete phrase three times if necessary to invoke moderation.

I would strongly suggest that you get other people involved currently (and in the past) to edit and amend it so it does not look like a single authored piece --Snowded 00:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. I've significantly pruned the item and made the tone less advocational. To be honest, it didn't read as 'salesly' to me, and that certainly wasn't the intention, so happy to have done so. I think it is important to get on the record that there is an example of a major implementation of Knowledge Management at an enterprise level by a major government which has proven that the theory can be applied successfully in practice - something which is always useful to researchers and students. None of the text is original, it is all verifiable and from Government reports or press reports. I don't think approaching Cable and Wireless or IBM would be a good idea...if anything, they are likely to make it more salesy... Of course, anyone is open indeed welcome to amend or suggest amendements to the article, as you have done. That's one of the benefits of Wikipedia isn't it...so we don't have the sole option of publish or delete in entirety. Thanks for the advice - good to catch up with you! Joe.

I have pinged you both a pm but notice a slight inaccuracy in the text the current (since 1-4-06) contract is not, as far as I am aware, owned by C&W they are still hosting the kit but the contract was awarded to someone else who pulled the plug close to go-live and then subsequently went to the runner up supplier from the procurement. Perhaps someone perusing this may be able to tell you who it was? 217.158.23.131 13:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Chris

Hi Chris

The firm who pulled out at due diligence stage was Xansa. Cable and Wireless were the runner-up and now run the service. - Joe