Talk:BS 25999

I've been chatting to BSI about this standard today. The dates cited here for part 2 have slipped a bit, so Autumn is looking optimistic. Publication is more likely to be November(ish) Binarygal

BSI Certification

Certification is now availiable from BSI in the UK. There is a big que forming (100+). Julian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.201.150.120 (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links

I have tidied and archived the link discussion as discussed.

One final comment: addition of links and references is a sensitive area. Addition for commercial self interest or by proxy is contrary to the integrity and ethos of Wikipedia. Hopefully though,

the natural evolution of this section can continue in due course. 66.84.37.52 (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English or Engrish

Just noticed a few words in the document and it seems to be a pattern. Since this is a British document, does that mean the the following misspellings are actually ok?

Organisation

Standardisation

Programme —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.22.30.2 (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future

Is there any info on the future for this standard that can be added? Will it become an ISO standard? Anyone? 80.225.153.78 (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As is usual with standards, there doesn't seem to be a big picture

ISO have recently introduced a publically available specification

ISO/PAS 22399:2007 Guideline for incident preparedness and operational continuity management

86.138.72.47 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for traceability, the above comment was me, forgot to loginSamsungjohnny (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably a bit too soon to be looking at the future, the second part has only been available for a few months. As is usually the case with standards it is possible that it will be revised in the future Samsungjohnny (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the comment in the article about all effective standards being taken over by ISO. The standards process doesnt work like this. The future of BS25999 is unclear and to be honest its only been out for a short time. It is likely to be revised though, as all standards are. ISO22399 as mentioned takes the best from a number of BCM related standards (BS25999, NFPA1600, HB292 an Israeli one and I think one from Japan). The future at least in the short term is to stay as BS25999 and be revised. I honestly don't think there is a coherant plan for standards harmonisation because NFPA1600, BS25999 and the others don't show any signs of dissaperaing despite the introduction of ISO22399. It is also worth adding that BS25999-2:2007 is the only one that can be externally and independantly verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.227.244 (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the future of BS25999 it continues to gain wide acceptance as both inclusive and adaptable, ANSI will be receiving shortly from ASIS the results of a combined BSI/ASIS standards project for the US and including many members of the BCM/1 team that created BS25999. This should be available in the Fall of 2010. It is also cited specifically under the PS-Prep framework for US organisations and will likely form much of the core of an ISO standard that seems to getting a lot closer as a project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCM adviser (talk • contribs) 09:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

StandardsDirect.org

I removed the link to a standards purchase site, standardsdirect.org. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#StandardsDirect.org for more about this site. As I see it, Wikipedia is not a directory and we're not here to help people sell things. Most of these standardsdirect.org links have been added by single purpose accounts who likely have a conflict of interest. See:

If an established, high-volume editor wants to add it back to the article, by all means go ahead. Otherwise, it stays out pending resolution at the spam discussion link above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related Standards

I have added the ASIS/BSI BCM.01:2010 standard. This was a joint venture between BSi and ASIS for the US reflecting some of the differences in national structures and BCM culture.

Please note BS 25999-2 is the basis for ISO 22301 that is currently under development and which may be released this year (2011). There is considerable currently debate on the changes likely to emerge and connections to Organizational Resilience Standards such as ANSI/ASIS SPC.1-2009 that is in parallel development at ISO.

BCM adviser (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 22301 will be documented here when published. ContinuityForum has been repeatedly added to most BCM related Wikipedia pages over the years, including many times as the single edit, as evidenced by edits to this page from the same account. 217.42.156.116 (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment and you are correct, but the ISO standard is a very significant development for anyone looking seriously at the area. They should be at least informed of its impending arrival and be aware of the implications for might be a very significant investment indeed. The sectors leading experts who are working on the ISO, including ourselves, would be remiss in 'overlooking' these implications as would Wikipedia which will be referred to by some less knowledgeable on the current state of affairs

Additionally, there should be no issue with Continuity Contributions as the Continuity Forum is an NGO, with considerable expertise that works without a commercial agenda. These Wiki pages managed to omit the BCM.01 Standard developed for North America and specifically the US in a joint venture between ASIS and the BSI. We have added this now. Many Wikipages are significantly improved by single edits, corrections that add to the information provided. Alterations/deletions seem made on an rather irrational basis where presumptions are made, often erroneously as indicated by those links that are really just camouflaged 'sales' sites. That aside we would accept that the rules have a purpose, but the goal posts should stay in the same place don't you think. Can you provide any real evidence of a conflict of interest?

BCM adviser (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your single edits as evidenced by your history log largely comprise of adding a link to that website. Many single edits on other business continuity related Wikipedia pages comprise of adding a link to that website, and it appears to be actively promoted across a number of related topics, for example here (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/National_Counter_Terrorism_Security_Office). I note that you have been challenged on this by a number of editors previously.

On this particular Wikipedia article, as with most of the other Wikipedia articles which links are inserted from, the website adds no extra focus, no compelling content, and little to merit inclusion. Throwing stones at others is no defence to this, and neither is the promise of the replacement standard. That will be documented on Wikipedia itself as appropriate.

This continued pattern of activity could end with that website being blocked from Wikipedia entirely. If you are the owner or affiliated you might also reflect on the conflict of interest aspect, and the Wikipedia rules governing this. 217.42.156.116 (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie posted this to you previously, but it is still moot.

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to List of professional associations in the United Kingdom. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. 86.166.195.142 14:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)