Talk:School Information Management System

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Education

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Market Share

SIMS.com is the most widely used educational information management system in the UK< has been bought by Capita, and is used by many thousands of schools. Cruftbane 18:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be so, but this article does not establish notability. Read WP:WEB and add reliable sources to the article demonstrating the notability of the site under these guidelines. Darksun 18:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does now. Used in over half the schools in the UK, double the size of its nearest competitor. Cruftbane 18:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, the article looks much better now, good work :) Darksun 18:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate cruft :-) Cruftbane 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the following statement hard to believe:

[SIMS] has gained a very strong market presence with over 80% of schools in the UK [...] using it.

Can anyone back this up? 80% seems very high...—Preceding unsigned comment added by IndieSinger (talk • contribs) 13:51, 17 October 2008

Recent diminishing market share

The data supplied by The Department for Education, a department of the UK Government in response to a Freedom of Information Act request show the latest market share to be 50%.

The raw data is provided here https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/school_mis_suppliers_as_of_the_a_4#incoming-2488556

The current figure is 50% and I would like the user who is reverting the changes to justify why direct raw data from a UK Government department which is published on line in response to a statutory request is not reliable. @MrOllie 82.15.109.83 (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

whatdotheyknow.com is not remotely a reliable source. We can update this when an actually reliable source appears - come back when you've got a major newspaper or an article in a peer-reviewed journal. Editorial process is crucial per Wikipedia's sourcing policies - the sources you are attempting to use have none. MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that assertion, the website is a well known method for requesting information from the UK Government using the Freedom of Information Act and you can see the data has been directly provided by the UK Government. Are you saying that information provided by the UK Government in their statutory response is not reliable? 82.15.109.83 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that you do not seem to understand that we do not base Wikipedia content on primary sources in this way, let alone primary source data that isn't straight from the original source and is being accessed through an unreliable third party (whatdotheyknow.com). I have mentioned this several times on your user talk page and pointed you to the relevant policies. MrOllie (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So the currently cited statistics from several years ago on theregister.com is preferred to the actual current statistics as provided directly by The Department for Education, a department of the UK Government?

whatdotheyknow.com is not an unreliable third party and the data provided is directly from The Department for Education - it is their direct response under the statutory requirement. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines prefer. MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have given what I assert is a reliable source - nowhere in their policies and guidelines do they specify and exhaustive list. Unless you can demonstrate the data is incorrect or the data has not come from The Department for Education then the source meets the requirements of being reliable. Unfortunately the UK Government doesn't publish this data directly and the only way to obtain it is through a Freedom of Information Act request. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can demonstrate the data is incorrect or the data has not come from The Department for Education then the source meets the requirements of being reliable. <-- This has nothing to do with Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. You're welcome to your personal definition, but Wikipedia's is the one we have to follow. MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia policy on reliable sources allows for the use of primary sources.

"specific facts may be taken from primary sources" 82.15.109.83 (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The full quotation is Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. That is obviously not what you are trying to do here. We have secondary sources available, so they are preferred. And you are not using them 'with caution to avoid primary research', on the contrary you are using them to support original research. MrOllie (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have up to date secondary sources, the data has changed markedly since the secondary sources were written.

If there were recent secondary sources I would have used them if for no other reason than to appease you and end this back and forth. The fact of the matter is the article on SIMS is currently massively misleading. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have up to date secondary sources <--- another requirement that exists nowhere in policy. If you agree that we're already using the most recent secondary sourcing that is available, that means the article is as up to date as it should be. We have no deadline and Wikipedia is not a breaking news site, so any updates should wait until reliable sources appear. Wikipedia is slow to update in many areas by design - being properly sourced is more important than chasing up to the moment updates. MrOllie (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The UK Government's data is a reliable source.

Is there a compromise to be had here? Some agreed wording that we could use to resolve this impasse or are you completely unwilling to compromise on this to the point you will repeatedly revert my changes to this article? 82.15.109.83 (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely unwilling for the article to become non-compliant with policy, that is correct. MrOllie (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some examples of "compliant" sources you would accept in the arena of School MIS market share data please? 82.15.109.83 (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I already wrote above, a major newspaper or an article in a peer-reviewed journal. Since you're not willing to listen to my points, I suggest we wait a bit for a third editor to come along, perhaps you will listen to them. MrOllie (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is theregister.com a major newspaper? 82.15.109.83 (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ask that at WP:RSN, perhaps you'll find an answer to your liking over there. MrOllie (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm asking you since you seem to have taken it upon yourself to be the arbiter of what is and isn't a reliable source for this page. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also the arbiter of which questions I answer, and I choose not to answer this one. MrOllie (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly making the same edit or deleting content is not going to work. MrOllie (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're not happy with the source provided by me and I'm not happy with the source you keep promoting wouldn't removing the market share stats be the compromise way forward? 82.15.109.83 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, blanking part of the article is not a 'compromise'. MrOllie (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what's your offer of a compromise - I've made several attempts now to find a compromise way forward and all have been rejected by you. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make changes to the article, you must 1) provide adequate sourcing and 2) convince others to support your edits. Edit warring to delete parts of the article when you don't get your way will just lead to your IP address getting blocked. I'm not going to suggest or agree to any 'compromise' that violates Wikipedia's content policies. MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided adequate sourcing - the raw data supplied directly by the UK Government proves the assertion is correct.

The source you keep replacing doesn't meet your own criteria either since it's not a major newspaper nor a peer reviewed journal.

Therefore to avoid further conflict would it not make sense to remove the market share statistics? 82.15.109.83 (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have edit warred to add self published, manifestly unreliable sources that do not properly support the changes you are trying to make. Removing the reliable sources that we do have is not a 'compromise', it is damaging the article. 'My criteria' are the ones given in WP:RS, not your misquote of my statements. Please try to avoid Straw man arguments. MrOllie (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So the data supplied directly by the UK Government is less reliable than that from theregister.com?

theregister.com is not a major newspaper or a peer reviewed journal.

The source you are referring to as self published is widely acknowledged to be an expert within the UK MIS sector.

I have given you two reputable sources and neither is acceptable to you.

whatdotheyknow.com is a widely used and reliable source - your assertion otherwise is ridiculous.

I have made numerous efforts to find a way forward, you have made none. You make out I am the unreasonable one. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So the data supplied directly by the UK Government is less reliable than that from theregister.com? <-- Yes, when it has come through a chain FOI requests, unreliable sources and blogs.
theregister.com is not a major newspaper or a peer reviewed journal. <-- Irrelevant. Straw man arguments will convince no one.
The source you are referring to as self published is widely acknowledged to be an expert within the UK MIS sector. The website specificly states that they are not an expert.
I have given you two reputable sources and neither is acceptable to you. <-- Per Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, they are not reliable.
whatdotheyknow.com is a widely used and reliable source <-- Not under Wikipedia's requirements
I have made numerous efforts to find a way forward, you have made none. You make out I am the unreasonable one. <-- Edit warring and breaking policy in multiple ways are not ways forward, and are not examples of reasonable behaviour. You know what you have to do. Bring sources to this talk page that actually meet Wikipedia's requirements, and gain support from other editors for your changes. Anything else is disruption. - MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point me to where whatdotheyknow.com is specifically called out as unreliable in Wikipedia's policies please.

Your assertion that the data that supports the assertion is unreliable because it has come through an FOI request is illogical - you will need to expand upon that.

The article you linked to regarding him not calling himself an expert is from 2014. People who are experts can frequently make similar statements due to modesty/being self effacing. If you actually did any further digging you'd see the name of his consultancy business is actually "EdTech Experts" which was established well after the 2014 post you referenced. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not enumerate every unreliable source on the internet, such a list would be nearly as large as the internet itself. You are welcome to believe that Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines are illogical, but you must follow them nonetheless. MrOllie (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you assert that the sources I have used are not reliable but you are not able to point to why they are so. Similarly the source you wish to use doesn't meet the criteria you enumerated regarding being a major newspaper or a peer reviewed journal but you're happy with using that.

You are applying a double standard here.

The simplest solution would be to remove market share from the article since you are not happy with my sources and your source which you keep putting back in doesn't meet your own criteria but again you are entirely unwilling to compromise. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained why they are unreliable and pointed you to the policy several times. Your WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behaviour in response does not somehow mean I have not. Your repeated misquotes of my statements will not convince me that I somehow actually agree with you - I know what I said. MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if we are unable to agree on which sources are reliable then would the compromise not be to remove the issue from the article by not mentioning the market share statistics at all? 82.15.109.83 (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. If two people cannot agree on what color to paint a house it is not a compromise to burn it down instead. You requested a third party to comment some time ago. Just stop edit warring and wait for them. MrOllie (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The irony of you linking to Wikipedia:IDONTHEARTHAT is that you yourself have not followed the processes set out by that page.

You have frequently accused me of warring, but you yourself are reverting sourced changes and making changes to the page referencing a source which doesn't meet your own specified criteria by which you discount my own source. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You will find that it makes a large difference when policy is being ignored vs. followed. But if you are certain you are in the right, why not wait for the third editor to show up and agree? MrOllie (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So while we wait for a third editor your changes are allowed to stand but mine are reversed by you each time? I don't see how that is reasonable - you haven't only reverted my changes, you've made changes of your own too. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can temporarily go back to the June 5th revision, sure. MrOllie (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion Because this is a FOIA request, it is both a primary source and a source that should require secondary analysis for context, especially because the 50% figure seems to be a bit of WP:OR in calculating that percentage. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of such a secondary source how do we proceed as the Wikipedia article is now clearly massively out of date and misleading - the picture in UK schools has changed markedly since the source cited (which doesn't appear to be available now either - the Education Investor citation). Would it be reasonable to remove the market share information altogether until an up to date secondary source could be found? 82.15.109.83 (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what looks like an acceptable independent source with more recent data:

By last autumn, ESS was used in about 12,281 schools, meaning it now holds 56 per cent of the market, official data obtained by Perry shows.

Source

Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's an even better source penned by the person that source references himself but it's apparently unacceptable. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://bringmoredata.blogspot.com/2023/12/mis-market-moves-autumn-2023-have-sims.html 82.15.109.83 (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other way around, actually. The better source is the one with editorial oversight, covering the findings, not the primary source from the researcher's blog. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The researcher's writings are not themselves a primary source, they are a commentary on the data they received from an FoIA request. If their assertions are sufficient for Schools Week to be deemed a reliable source then the original source itself is surely a reliable source. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a blog, and we leave the reporting on what a blogger has mentioned to the reporters, then we source the reporters, if possible. We try to avoid doing the "reporting" ourselves, if that makes sense. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But if the commentary on the blog is sufficiently reliable then the blog itself must also be sufficiently reliable. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have a duty to the reader to present a source for those readers that is deemed reliable by Wikipedia. A reader doesn't know who else reported on the blog, and thus a reader could justifiably call us out for sourcing a non-reliable blog with no editorial oversight. So, we "show the work" by providing the RELIABLE source to the reader. We follow the reliable sources, we do not "report" on what's said by non-reliable sources. Why would we show the non-reliable source and hope that the reader somehow knows that it was reported on? We wouldn't. We give them the reliable source, if possible. If the NYTimes states a figure they got from Bob the Hot Dog vendor from his FOIA request, it might be questionable, but we better source the NYTimes, and not Bob himself, to show we did our part to find a reliable source. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schools Week is 'published' by a consultant/training company and is mostly an outlet for their clients and assorted sponsored content. An unreliable source repackaging material from a blog does not make it any more usable. MrOllie (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to be clear - you are now rejecting the third opinion and asserting your own opinion over all others? 82.15.109.83 (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note the Loaded question but otherwise decline to respond. MrOllie (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are continuing to assert your own opinion over everyone else, our third opinion cited the source you reject - it's time to let this one go. 82.15.109.83 (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]