Talk:TRIZ
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theTRIZ article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Hello, I have never edited on Wikipedia before but I wanted to comment that I am still working on redoing this page. I-TRIZ in specific will need a lot of expansion because this is essentially the modern existence of TRIZ for most concerns (at least as far as I know). As a disclosure, I will attempt to get in contact with someone who's still very involved in I-TRIZ to help me sort the article. Please let me know if there are any other good resources I can use for wikipedia formatting!— Precedingunsigned comment added by47.42.9.179 (talk)03:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Altschuler has never been to the USA, he lived in Baku, Azerbaijan, and then moved to Petrozavodsk in Russia during the violence in the Caucasus during the breakup of the Soviet Union.
More has to be said about the actual history of the movement beyond personally Altschuler. Also, need to invite more TRIZ experts to add their 5 cents. This is a fairly divergent discipline by now, and effort has to be made to give an accurate picture of it.
Does anyone use this technique? And more importantly, are there examples of sucessful application? All the links seems to besellers but no happy buyer is mentioned.Pavel Vozenilek 04:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And when I am here: could it be explained in the first paragraphwhat it is? Right now it is just bunch of acronyms giving no sense to me. I found the whole article very dubious. (I am software engineer, this could be the problem :).Pavel Vozenilek 04:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is sufficient examples to suggest that TRIZ has many takers around the world.
TRIZ is a sub-discipline of inter-disciplinary science of Creatology:the science of Creativity and Innovation and Altshuller is a greatCreatologist(Sayed Mahdi Golestan Hashemim ,Iran Research Center forCreatology,Innovation & TRIZ :Golestan@creatology-triz.com) www.triz-journal.com/archives/2002/05/a/ TRIZ Work Recognized-Samsung Award --AndriuZ 00:25, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
Evidence for the Samsung TRIZ would be helpful. AndriuZ, links to TRIZ conferences and sites that have "triz" in the domain name are clearly biased and not helpful. The Japanese site you linked to does not exist. The one valid reference there is the ThinkSmart conference. How well-known is this conference? Was TRIZ presented there as a talk, or just in the proceedings?RSpeer 03:22, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
In response to your points above, while not perfect, the website I have set up via the Institution of Mechanical Engineers may go some way in helping those interested in TRIZ:Institution of Mechanical Engineers TRIZ website
One can also look the through the INSA de Strasbourg[2] educational program[3] which is an international advanced master on innovative design in which are taught the advanced methods of problem resolution based on TRIZ.— Precedingunsigned comment added bySebastien.duboisINSA (talk •contribs)13:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google search links should not be used in articles (low control over result, it looks very unprofessional). If possible, majority of external links should be one section (quite common habit on Wiki that should be kept). I would quite like to see short example of TRIZ in opening paragraph (webpages that were linked from here had a lot of these but I could misread) instead of buzzwords currently here.Pavel Vozenilek 19:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'm convinced that it's used. Thanks for going to the effort, AndriuZ. I agree with the style points above, regarding how the article needs to be revised.RSpeer 23:03, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Well, to be a good Wikipedia article, it has to be a good explanation on its own. It shouldn't rely so much on external links (and as Pavel said, it would be best for all external links to be in a section at the bottom).
There are also too many internal links. TRIZ is not realistically going to have that many Wiki articles (and if those articles were created, I bet they would be requested to merge into the main TRIZ article fairly quickly). Long lists of linked words don't do a lot to explain TRIZ anyway. Most of them are terms that will mean nothing to the typical reader, and even those terms with existing meanings (like "System" and "Contradiction") probably have a more specific meaning within TRIZ.
Not every piece of jargon from TRIZ needs to be mentioned, especially if the jargon is not going to be explained (like "Maxi-Problem"). The article shouldn't have to go into that level of detail; it should give an overview for people unfamiliar with the field, which someone can read and understand without having to follow any links. If it is necessary to introduce some terminology, then that terminology should be explained.
An example of a situation where TRIZ could be used, and how it would be applied, near the top of the article would be useful.
RSpeer 22:34, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Point of style: should it be "inventors'" and not "inventor's" as the system is refering to many inventors?193.35.132.150 (talk)20:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for Your contribution. Could You act more in the spirit of Wikipedia next time by fixing links, providing meaningfull comments? see for moreHelp:Contents --AndriuZ00:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool down with revert wars and discuss disagreements in the talk page, or I will block you all.
For starters, please explain me why the reference to the book by the original author ofTRIZ keeps deleted? I am inclined to consider this as a malicious vandalism. `'mikka(t)21:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Genady Filkovsky: Sorry for that. My mistake. That reference should've stayed. Thanks.
Michael Slocum: All I have tried to do is make the content more complete. You can see from filkovsky's message that he believes HE controls what should be used as a reference. The Altshuller book listed does NOT even contain useful TRIZ information. I may certainly add a best selling book on Innovation that highlites the TRIZ methodology. INsourcing Innovation should be included as a reference (as should the other books filkovsky deleted). filkovsky has added much material about worhtless stuff he is involved in (like the Althshuller Prize--the Altshuller Family attorney will be directing him to not use their name very soon). filkovsky is not the final arbiter concerning TRIZ. I am recognized, respected, and a proponent of the successfull practice of TRIZ. My useful additions are relevent and important. filkovsky is anti-triz--why else does he try to ruin and bias this entry????? At least allow the addition of relevent information and stop his reverts--you'll note that I have never reverted anything.
The section contains claims (including personal ones) that currently are not supported with sources and may be considered by someone as biased and even offensive. IMHO, it should be either provided with facts or rewritten in a more neutral form.Bronx18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you, 205.207.66.3 (Mr. Karasik?). Provided with your links, I somewhat cleared the issue for myself and made changes trying to make it clear for others and to remove some NPOVness. I still have a question: were Zhuravleva, Flikstein et al. not granted a Master Diploma or Sertificate or both? It seems to me that in [[4]] these two forms are sometimes used interchangeably, raising some confuse. Is there a public list of masters and sertified specialsts?Bronx12:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the inventive principles are quite obvious. TRIZ is just out there to sell the books that provide information on problem-solving that is vague and rhetorical. Read some of Insourcing Innovation and you'll see what I mean. Whenever you think some sort of interesting epiphany about design will be written, Slocum writes about how it cannot be discussed due to intellectual property concerns or something else. Thanks for nothing.—The precedingunsigned comment was added by150.135.161.73 (talk)18:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The version of clause about TRIZ in English essentially differs from its version in Russian. Here rules of this encyclopedia are broken all!There there was a section of " Critic TRIZ ". In it there was a referencehttp://liw1949.narod.ru/index.html. Only there there is a constructive criticism of technical version TRIZ of the sample of the last century. And here there are only for a long time out-of-date materials. You meaningly deceive the readers!80.95.41.21317:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Leonid Wullo (LIW1949)[reply]
The following statement from the article contains a contradiction; either an inventor resolves a contradiction or they do not.
"The inventor typically does not resolve a contradiction but trades one of the contradictory parameter for another: No special inventivity is needed for that. Rather, the inventor develops some creative approach for resolving the contradiction"
I can't tell if TRIZ teaches that inventors should resolve contradictions or not but I think it is safe to say someone should resolve this one.
I am an Australian mechanical engineer, and have on occasion used TRIZ to help solve problems. I have found it to be a very useful tool, such that when used appropriately it suggests other avenues to explore. It is however only a tool, and people should not have unrealistic expectations of it. It will not help with every problem, nor does it always get it right. At the same time, people are wrong to unfairly criticize it, (eg. get rich quick scheme) as it has a solid technical basis and really does work. If you are in any doubt then I suggest you learn the technique (it's really not that difficult) and try applying it to your problems.Logicman196607:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TRIZ is not a general method of being creative, i.e. you will not write a better symfony. TRIZ is a method fortechnical creativity and innovation. This should be stated in the beginning of the article.I have just read Altshullers 'Creativity as an exact science - The Theory of the Solution of Inventive Problems' (translated by Anthony Willians,ISBN 0-677-21230-5, 4th printing, 1998; Gordon and Breach Science Publishers Inc.). The book states over and over again, that its methods is for the solution of technical problems, so please make that clear in the article.Right now the article seems like a sales ploy to me.—Precedingunsigned comment added by90.185.21.93 (talk) 17:55, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
It is a sales ploy BUT that is GREAT. Sales is great. Sales is what moves stuff. It is also a tool (TRIZ). It is also a real life get rich method. However, just like getting rich on stocks: there is no "one right method". Its about a combination of personal judgement and frameworks and tools - and even then getting rich is never guaranteed - but you must try and tools enables this.— Precedingunsigned comment added by130.191.152.93 (talk)21:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page sounds like an advertising. More cleanup, and on linked articles, need to be done. --Statsone05:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where You are removing "impossibles" (contradictions), for example: water and not water, until You have nothing left to remove (of courese sometimes it can't be done).... FIXME please84.16.123.194 (talk)19:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has a massive amount of unsourced material, and what sourcing there is, is from TRIZ advocates. It reads partly as POV for TRIZ, as well as some POV inserted against TRIZ, or reflecting what seems to be a split in the TRIZ movement. It's also not very clearly written. The lede gives the reader no particular idea of what TRIZ is, apart from something really wonderful. (I actually had to look at other sites to get a clear idea of what TRIZ meant). An anonymous IP editor recently reversed an attempt to at least get rid of the unsourced stuff, and has since added more unsourced or poorly sourced material. This isn't good. I put a message on their talkpage, but they've continued to edit since then.
I suggest trimming down to the basics. The information about Altschuller should be transferred to his article. RS critiques of TRIZ need to be found. This seems to be a movement with a lot of passionate advocates; we need to be aware of such editing patterns.VsevolodKrolikov (talk)06:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is "unsourced stuff" to you ? What you consider to be "unsourced" is in fact references to TRIZ publications. Ignorance of something is not a ground for starting editing articles written by the knowledgeable people.—Precedingunsigned comment added by67.70.128.37 (talk)14:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what is "independent source" for you ? There is no a signle line in the article that is based on "independednt source" in your sense. You have to delete the entire article to conform with your interpretation of "independent source" because independent commission of inquiry into the theory, practice, and efficiency of TRIZ has been never established. There is simply no "independent" body on the matter of TRIZ. As for site Metodolog, it is quite a reputable source. As for reference to a specific article on this site, it will be provided shortly.Other references will be also provided.—Precedingunsigned comment added by67.70.128.37 (talk)16:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references provided in the article conform to the definition of independent source. You simply bend this definition and try to impose your own interpretation of it. As for consensus, don't you think that you have to first know something in TRIZ to judge, edit, and demand consensus with your opinion ?—Precedingunsigned comment added by67.70.128.37 (talk)16:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny. On the one hand you deleted what people knowleageable of TRIZ wrote, and on the other hand appeal to such people to turn up and improve the article. Why would they start improving it again ? So that to allow you to vandalize it for the second time ?—Precedingunsigned comment added by67.70.29.253 (talk)19:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the various anonymous Canadian IPs (one, two, three different people?): Are you interested in learning how to contribute to Wikipedia? If you're interested in improving (what is obvious to any experienced editor) a very poorly done article, the first thing you have to understand is thepolicy on verifiability, and the associated issue ofreliable sourcing. They are there for a reason.
so:
So when we want sourcing, it doesn't matter whether it's "true" or not, or how much you say you know, it needs to be sourced, and sourcedproperly, andwith the editor stating the source. Metodolog.ru, for example, does not appear to be a "reliable source" in the wikipedia definition. (If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means provide it.) As for Triz journal - it does not appear to be peer-reviewed, and it's run by advocates of TRIZ. This makes it a problematic source for various kinds of information, particularly any evaluation of the TRIZ method. Wikipedia should not have articles that are merely puff pieces for someone's favourite thing. Statements on the effectiveness of TRIZ need to be sourced.
As for original research:
The last point to emphasise is that you must bepolite to other editors. There are people with extremely strong disagreements on topics who manage to work together because they remain civil. The IPs have insulted people and effectively refused to discuss their issues at all. It does not matter if an editor is "right" or not, if they cannot work with people, they will get blocked.
Remember - wikipedia is by far the most successful example of internet volunteering ever. Despite all the jokes studies show it actually has a high record of accuracy, and has become one of the top sites in the world. It's done that by following the principles outlined above. As TRIZ advocates, surely you should be interested in how wikipedia has managed to do that relying on the principle that anyone can edit, regardless of qualifications, shouldn't you? It's a contradictory situation, after all.VsevolodKrolikov (talk)00:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While we wait for protection to end, here are three more sources independent of the TRIZ movement itself, where the full articles are appear to be available.
VsevolodKrolikov (talk)03:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Krolikov, you appear to be very energetic but naive. Journal of Materials Processing Technology is indeed independent of the TRIZ movement, but authors of its artciles might be not. Darrell Mann (the author of the first your "independent" reference is TRIZ teacher, consultant, etc. Although he calls his modifications of TRIZ "systematic innovation" it does not change the fact that it is based on TRIZ. All other articles in your list were also written as TRIZ propaganda by TRIZ advocates. The fact that they were published in independent journals does not make these articles independent.—Precedingunsigned comment added by67.70.128.51 (talk)15:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are naive in your believe that the rules can be understood uniquely. Unfortunately all rules have a degree of vagueness and are subject to interpretation. You just try to impose one of interpretations. Please note that the rules say that the decision on whether a source is reliable or notdepends on context. The peer review requirement is just one of possible criteria. Ultimately everything is up to the context and the judge. In this regard it is appropriate to ask who the judges are.To me what Steven Hawking writes on his blog is a reliable source but most articles in peer reviewed journals are not.—Precedingunsigned comment added by67.70.128.51 (talk)17:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "Perhaps you could quote the part ofsourcing policy that you think supports your view". Here it is: "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context."[5]. You see, it depends on the context, and everybody see the context differently. It is a well known fact from times of Rome! Well, I am not going to teach you the basics of jurisprudence.I hope you at least know that rules are just another name for law (in Latin law is lex, which means "rule"). And why do you think lawyers exists if everybody understands rules/laws the same way ? Your mentioning of "margins" and "the center" is simply demagogy.—Precedingunsigned comment added by67.70.129.230 (talk)00:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked a question at the reliable sources noticeboardhere about the use of TRIZ journal as a source.VsevolodKrolikov (talk)10:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have studied TRIZ extensively. I have a whole library of books about TRIZ on my book shelf. Many of them are still listed at Amazon. Some are out of print. Others are only available in Russian and quite rare. I'm not sure what the discussion is here, but TRIZ is VERY notable.—Precedingunsigned comment added bySmithh (talk •contribs)17:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Smithh: it is not a discussion. It is an attempt of an anti-Altshuller (and most likely anti-semitic as appears from his other dirty remarks) Russian guy to excercise his authority. To this end he will bend the wikipedia's rules as he pleases, resort to demagogy, and if you don't agree with him, he will call other wikipedians, with a higher rank, to confirm his position (as he already did so by contacting a wikipedian codenamed "airplaneman" who put the lock), etc. When one starts fighting a bureaucrat he ends up fighting the entire bureaucratic machine. This is the law of bureaucracy: to not allow the outsiders to get upper hand in the fight with a bureaucrat. Wikipedian bureaucracy (i.e. wikipedians and their boards, etc.) is no different. It simply has a too narrow authority, over wikipedia only. It is instructive to observer this tiny bureaucracy in action and make conclusions.—Precedingunsigned comment added by67.70.129.230 (talk)00:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is you who are here to cause trouble. Every other your phrase is name calling (such as "schism", "paranoia", etc.). Please heed to your own appeal to be polite and stop name calling.
No problem. I also apologize for mistaking you for one of the many anti-Altshuller guys in Russia that are driven by anti-semitism. It is apparent now that you are not one of them. As for working together on the article I don't mind to help. My first remark is that Altshuller never analyzed patents on behalf of the Russian Navy. His work in the "Inventions Inspection" department of the Caspian Flotilla was not about patents analyzing but about analyzing sailors' proposals to see if they constitute an invention, and, if so, help document the proposals, help submit claims to inventions, etc. He scanned and analyzed patents at his own leisure, not on behalf of the Navy.
The second issue is with you repeating the myth about the content of his letter to Stalin. The graph you mention simply could not be true because during wars the rate of innovaion is usually the highest. Recall invention of submarine during American Civil War, etc. Soviet Union won the war because accomplished outstanding innovaions during it. Its technology outpeformed the German one. Also the Great Purge started in 1937 and ended in 1939. If innovation plunged during these years (presumably due to the imprisonment of innovators), then how could it spring back during 1940 and then plunge again during 1941-1945 ? I doubt all this story about Altshuller drawing such a graph and sending it to Stalin.—Precedingunsigned comment added by65.93.173.241 (talk)00:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to ask the Alsthuller Foundation (altshuller.ru) if they have documents about the letter to Stalin, or at least the written Altshuller's recollections. As for why he was imprisoned for 25 years, that was the capital punishment at that time. No executions. Too many people were lost during war and purges and executions were stopped. If you ask why he got the capital panishment, the answer is, of course, not because he was Jewish but because he did something what was punishable by capital verdict in the times of Stalin. For example, he publicly spoke derogatory about Stalin in the street (http://magazines.russ.ru/znamia/2006/1/li2.html). Also the tone of his letter to Stalin was derogatory, and he did not call him "comrade", etc.—Precedingunsigned comment added by65.93.173.241 (talk)04:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Мы написали письмо Сталину. Письмо было на тридцати страницах. Письмо писалось полгода. Поначалу мы считали- ну, первая страничкабудет посвящена тому, насколько велика роль Сталина в ТРИЗ, дальше страниц 20 текста по существу и, наконец, заключение. Вот такая картина предполагалась. По мере того как мы-копались в материалах по изобретательству, стало ясно, что не нужна ТРИЗ в СССР образца 48-го года, 46-го года. Что изобретения гибнут, и что чем больше изобретений будет сделано, тем больше изобретений погибнет, и смысла особого в нашей теории поэтому нет...
Но письмо мы все же написали, и было в нем только два абзаца, ближе к концу, о том, что методика изобретательства существует и что ее надо преподавать в вузах, и так далее.В 48-м году нас не посадили. Все кончилось благополучно... Понимаете, мы нутром чуяли, что великий вождь народов не снизойдет до этого, он не снисходил до других более важных дел, и трудно было ожидать его делового вмешательства. Мы подстраховались.Мы напечатали еще 30 экземпляров и разослали их всем министрам, ну, скажем, по вопросу введения в вузе основ патентоведения — министру вузовского образования, и так далее. Мы получили 14 ответов. Любопытный штрих для документов той эпохи: все эти 14 ответов не содержали ни категорического "нет", ни категорического "да". То есть те, кто отвечал, допускали, что есть одна миллионная шанса, что великий вождь прочтет и скажет, что это — хорошо. Поэтому насмерть ругать нельзя, ну а о том, чтобы хвалить, не может быть и речи. "Да, в вузах надо ввести методику изобретательства и основы патентоведения... но у нас нет преподавателей, а подготовка преподавателей — большая программа, лет на тридцать—сорок рассчитанная... Да, будем стараться".Письма наши были разосланы для подстраховки основного письма. А основное письмо где-то медленно проходило по своим каналам. Был застойный этап культа личности, решения принимались медленно, но принимались.И в 50-м году нас арестовали. Началось обычное следствие...
Would he really have been suicidal enough not to address Stalin politely? Would he really draw such rudeness to the attention of other ministers? This is not the impression of Altshuller I have so far. Anyway, for this page I think we can put in the two year gap between letter and arrest, and the sending of letters to ministers. The other stuff can go toGenrich Altshuller.VsevolodKrolikov (talk)06:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that sending letters to all ministers after they have not received response from Stalin was not suisidal ? If this acount is true it attests to his crazyness. I don't think that this account is credible. His (and Shapiro's) friend, Leonid Filkovsky, writes about 19 letters sent to the central newspapers, not ministries (http://www3.sympatico.ca/karasik/Pro_Altshullera.html,http://www3.sympatico.ca/karasik/LF_re_official_biography_of_altshuller.html).
You are right, Altshuller was not rude. His voice was soft. But he could say unpleasant things in that soft voice (see e.g.http://www3.sympatico.ca/karasik/LF_part3.html andhttp://www3.sympatico.ca/karasik/LF_part4.html).
I don't believe what is written in "How to become a genious". I read somewhere the statement of his wife, made after his death, that he never told the stories of his arrest and imprisonment to anyone. Apparently she meant the stories like in "How to become a genious" that appeared in the late years of his life.—Precedingunsigned comment added by67.70.31.197 (talk)22:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don`t know.—Precedingunsigned comment added by70.51.61.190 (talk)01:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone be so kind as to explain why the external link to opensourcetriz.com was eliminated? All books and teaching materials are freely given. I realize that the material is not classical or mainline TRIZ, that is why it was in the external links section. Please revert this change.—Precedingunsigned comment added byTRIZguy (talk •contribs)11:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask you to go to opensourcetriz.com and download the book concerning resolving problems. I believe that you will discover that it is still TRIZ. Because it is not fully mainstream, I chose to publish it as an external link rather than as a spin-off of TRIZ in the main body. The tools are rearranged somewhat, but the individual pieces are still recognizable. I think that you will find that the section on separation principles is very practical and useful. I have been applying, teaching and studying TRIZ for nearly two decades and have proven the worth of these methods many times in products that were actually patented and produced. The books have a pedigree and have been somewhat widely circulated for some time as free downloads. All chapters of a former version were published on the TRIZ Journal and were a popular download. I admit that it is possible to find these books in paperback form, but the proceeds are given to humanitarian aid. All books on the opensourcetriz website are for free download. Nothing is sold on the site and no reference is made to anything for sale. If someone wants to get paperback copies, they are on their own, but I can tell you that nobody does, largly because they are offered here for free. I make these available, particularly for people in developing countries that cannot afford expensive texts. Some of the books have been translated into other languages, including Japanese and Spanish. (I spoke on the topic of these books as one of the keynote speakers at the Japanese TRIZ symposium in 2007). I hope that this meets your criterion as "notable" and "examined". It is hard for me to imagine what more I could do.—Precedingunsigned comment added byTRIZguy (talk •contribs)22:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, here is a summary of the objections: 1. There is no documented evidente that the site is considered a useful guide to TRIZ.2. Further, it is not mainstream TRIZ, therefore it could never be considered a useful guide to TRIZ.3. Removal of the link by others, because they thought there was a conflict of interest, is evidence of continuing conflict of interest.4. Promoting material that I have authored is sufficient to a create conflict of interest because this could further my reputation.5. Because I teach others at work to use these materials creates a conflict of interest.
Did I state these correctly? Please add and delete as you feel appropriate.—Precedingunsigned comment added byTRIZguy (talk •contribs)18:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am really trying to get to the heart of the objections and state them succintly from what I believe to be your point of view so that I can know how to respond. If these are not your objections, then please state them succintly. It appears that your objections are: (1) There is no documented evidence that the site is considered a useful guide to TRIZ. (2) The site describes material that is not mainstream TRIZ, therefore it could not be considered a useful guide to TRIZ. (3) I am the author or know the author of the material which is sufficient to a create conflict of interest because this could further my reputation or the reputation of the author(s).—Precedingunsigned comment added byTRIZguy (talk •contribs)12:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than ask for a third opinion, I would rather try to work this out. Being direct in your summary helped. I have spent some time in trying to understand the rules of wikipedia. I can see that there is room for interpretation of the rules and ways that a reference could be changed to make it acceptable. What I would like to know is what changes to the site and its materials would be required to meet your interpretations of these rules? (Interpretation is necessary and is not a backhanded criticism). As for #1, what (objective or subjective) evidence would you require to show that people are using it as a general reference to TRIZ? The website statistics and interpretation of behaviors seem to indicate that people are using this site for this purpose. We would be happy to supply you with the data that we have. As for #2, I am a little confused that you believe that it is quite peripheral to the topic. Would you mind going into a little more detail? As for #3, we are willing to make some exceptional changes such as removing all references to authors and co-authors in the books and in the site in order to avoid the possibility of advancing our reputations. The vast majority of the work is not original research, but rather a decomposition of TRIZ into its various tools and then setting them into a particular order. I will admit that the references are weak or non-existant to the individuals that authored the individual tools. Our next version should remedy that.TRIZguy (talk)23:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would just comment that while the website in question may be non-mainstream in itsformulation and packaging of the material, thecontent and substance does appear to be based upon core TRIZ concepts. Whether or not this suffices to alleviate any Wikipedia-specific concerns about the website, I cannot say.141.213.50.21 (talk)22:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second diagram doesn't look very helpful. Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like a diagram that only makes sense if you already understand a lot about TRIZ. Any comments?VsevolodKrolikov (talk)06:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. It btter be removed.70.49.139.132 (talk)00:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -BobKilcoyne (talk)03:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose,TRIZ is a Russian technique, while theEuropean TRIZ Association is an international organization based in Germany with publications, two separate (related) entities. –Jonathan Bowen (talk)19:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merged as proposed -BobKilcoyne (talk)00:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
