Talk:Navy Marine Corps Intranet

Untitled

This article seems to me to be rather biased, with a hostile tone and derogatory links hidden by inappropriate pipes; e.g., [[Biased sample|distribution]] and [[Self-serving bias|post analysis]]. ➥the Epopt 03:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Made a bunch of changes, removed the derogatory links. Let me know what you think. -S

Original Research

Looks like the comment about Marines is original research. Although I do agree somewhat with the editor's comments, I see no sources... plus it is way too POV.

Supersquid 13:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

More original research: "NMCI is referred to by many users (tongue-in-cheek) as the 'Non Mission Capable Intranet', out of frustration with a perceived lack of performance." I'd like to see a citation for that. ➥the Epopt 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence such as the quote in question are usually acceptable as unattributable if they reflect a "general trend in thought" among the referenced audience, and is considered to be verifiable. This makes it "original source material," and as such, doesn't require a citation. It's also caveated with "many," rather than "most" or "a majority of," and so can be categorized as a selective viewpoint, but one which supports the narrative.

Also, based on my personal experience, I think that it does reflect the attitude of "many" NMCI users, myself included.

Okiberv 04:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It is an untrue statement, and will not be included in the article without a source — which of course doesn't exist, because it is untrue. ➥the Epopt 06:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Count me as another frustrated NMCI user. "Non Mission Capable Intranet" for sure. They took our hardware and won't work on it until it's been broken for a week. Not to mention they charge monthly for maintenance on hardware upgrades ($8 a month for a stick of RAM). But you're the Wiki nazi, not me. At least two references so far, by my count. --RoadDoggFL 06:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of our own personal feelings about NMCI, any statements have to come from a reliable, verifiable source. I could state that the NMCI's main server is a Commodore 64 with an acoustic coupler modem for a backbone (which it does seem like sometimes lol), but that doesn't make it true. Wikipedia isn't about personal anecdotes. Now... if you could find an article (say in "All Hands" or "Navy Times") that states that there are reports that many users are dissatisfied with the service and refer to it as "Non Mission Capable Intranet" then you have a source, and THEN it can be added into this article. I suggest that you refer to WP:OR and WP:POV, then you will understand where The Epopt is coming from (and it is NOT a matter of WikiNazism).

Supersquid 10:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, well I've got some links. Navy intranet program fails to meet goals (didn't read it), and the comments (did read it) on that story. Mentioning $3,500 a year would be nice. Also I just overheard a nice bit: we have an old fax machine that cost $1,500 somehow (it'd fetch maybe $50 on craigslist, but it might've been purchased several years ago). When a SSgt inquired as to justification of the price, he was told that it includes free maintenance. But guess who comes to work on it when it needs repairing? Marines. Are we getting reimbursed for this? Replacing this entire article with the words "RIP OFF" in bold and underlined would be accurate and 100% factual. --RoadDoggFL 19:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There was an article that I read in the Navy Times that did cite that almost all of the NMCI users out there thought it sucked. Good luck tracking it down though

Those of us who are required to use the NMCI system know more about what it doesn't do than those who don't use the system. My previous "Problems" section is MY observation as a user and developer being forced to use NMCI. If you want a "verifiable and reliable" source, then make that ME! I have the experience that perhaps you don't. If there is no place in Wikipedia for a person's experiences, then an important part of knowledge will not be learned. The NMCI system really is a bad one. This is why the US Army and Air Force have NOT gone to such a system. I agree with RoadDoggFL. NMCI is a huge colossal rip-off. Most developers in my building have had two computers on our desks for four years now because NMCI can't get their computers to do the functions and development work that our "legacy" systems do (which were supposed to be replaced by NMCI). The NMCI contract took over the Navy's legacy computers and charges the Navy for the use of the legacy computers and the NMCI computers that can't be used for most developing. How's that for government waste? The NMCI acronym I came up with years ago is, "Never Manage Computers Intelligently". -- Mikejapp 16:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I realized that some here are using the NMCI system but are any editors changing the page without direct knowledge and experience in NMCI? I'm just asking the question because I want to know. -- Mikejapp 16:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of comparisons are being made in the above text between commercial systems, and systems that are supposed to run in a military environment, one way or another. Hardly fair given the obvious differences between the two. For starters, companies and corporations don't need to be worried in the same sort of way about certain fundamental aspects of security unless they are doing something illegal; more to the point, companies and corporations also have the choice to simply buy insurance instead of practicing rigorous asset protection. There is mentioned a pricing system for memory above that seems high at first glance, but when ones takes into account that the memory is probably priced against what it cost at the time the military stockpiled it. Maintenance costs may seem high, but only until one contemplates what it might actually cost to get a qualified computer technician on-site to repair a machine. Oh, by the way, this same technician also needs a pretty good security clearance. Imagine the plethora of electronic espionage opportunities that would exist if the government were simply calling in people from Best Buy. Zaphraud (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

All it takes is Googling "non mission capable internet" or "not mission capable internet" to find docuomentation that that's exactly what we call it. It also defines this sorry system pretty well. 138.162.128.55 (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Substantive changes and many references added

In the last couple of years, a lot has been written about NMCI by independent publications—like SIGNAL and Military Technology Information magazines—and I thought it would be a service to update the NMCI article on Wikipedia to include information from those articles.

There is still a debate over the extent to which EDS has succeeded in achieving all of NMCI’s stated goals, and I do not want to shortchange (let alone short-circuit) that debate. I do, however, think that the debate is more even now, with many voices represented.

In the future, I think this article should be restructured to make it easier for people to find information about specific components of NMCI, for example, listing its basic functions (security, consolidation, application management, procurement, etc), the state of the Navy’s IT infrastructure prior to its commencement, and the steps taken to improve the network in chronological order. Likewise, headings should be added for ease of navigation.

Does anyone have suggestions for additional topics I may have left out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passat123 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just remember to contribute to the Chinese/Russian translation of these pages if you do add details xerxesbeat (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding a new section to highlight and contextualize criticism

Today I'm adding a new section to this article, incorporating (and expanding on) the criticisms of NMCI that an editor from 205.110.147.14 posted this week. I am also working on a larger edit to this entry, breaking the text up into logical sections and working in criticism and contextualizing EDS' decisions—showing how EDS has tried to balance the needs and expectations of the end-users against the requirements of maintaining a highly secure and stable network and managing a robust set of applications. Of course, I welcome any input on the discussion page and will try to incorporate all legitimate viewpoints into the next iteration of this article.

Passat123 (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about Neutrality Banner

On June 11, an anonymous user from 138.162.140.54 added a banner to article questioning its neutrality. I think the article adhere to NPOV, but is someone has suggestions for specific passages or even whole sections that should be improved, could they post them to this discussion page? I’ve reached out to other editors and would like to fix the article and remove the banner. Passat123 (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see where here coming from with the Neutrality banner the article reads a bit like an advertisment see WP:SPAM maybe a bit of a tweak here and there Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely a promotional tone to the piece. As someone who fought against "Needlessly Making Computers Inefficient" for my last several years in the Navy, I'm probably not the right editor to fix it, though. Horologium (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

At the time of writing, the preface references a pair of paragraph-long quotes from Weller (it's never mentioned previously who Weller is; original unverified research being Weller is the officer who inherited responsibility for NMCI at a given time, and has since been moved to other work) xerxesbeat (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be accurate to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.166.214 (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I showed my wife the following quote: "HP depends on their comments to enhance NMCI, and the intent of the surveys has always been to pinpoint specific areas in need of improvement." She agreed that it was advertising, and not objective. As a user who has been frustrated by the limitations and excessive cost of NMCI, I certainly agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor.leigh (talk • contribs) 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

While I agree this article continues to read far too much like an ad for EDS/HP, I'm also too involved to consider toning this down --N7bsn (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

New "Today" Section

I'm an HP rep and I'd like to add a Today section, between history and next steps

Please refer to the original research guidelines and it is preferred the diction for these updates reflect the time and date, as some day this will be a number of years old. That said, feel free to contribute (And please update your contribution to the talk section with a signature)

Today

The Naval Enterprise Networks (NEN) program office, in collaboration with NMCI partner HP, which manages the CoSC program, is deploying a number of new Navy initiatives, including:

Tablet laptops for Navy recruiters

• The NRC began rolling out Hewlett-Packard (HP) Elitebook 2740p Tablets to recruiters in early September 2011.

Hosted Virtual Desktop (HVD) capability

• Thin-client HVDs using network storage will replace bulkier traditional workstations.

Expanded support for smartcards

• Two-factor authentication using a SIPRNET smartcard token will be used to confirm the identity of NMCI users.

Enterprise-wide operating system upgrade and improved end user hardware delivery times

• New five-day seat deployment initiative aims to speed up the delivery time of new workstations.

Tjb hp (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As an NMCI user, I'd like to comment that NMCI is NOT in Japan, as it is a CONUS (Continental United States) Intranet only. The citation to the DON CIO should be check for currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.58 (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This is correct. OCONUS connectivity is ONENET (OCONUS Navy Enterprise NETwork) controlled by SPAWAR, the USN's Systems Command. TomConsidine (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

References

NGEN

This article needs to be updated with news about the NGEN contract which replaces COSC and went into effect during late 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.214.219 (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

on Weller

I hope not to cause any fuss by saying, bluntly... Look, I know it probably made sense to who wrote this, but the page currently, literally says "[...] Weller said during [...]" without ever mentioning who Weller is. Further research shows this is just copy-pasted from the article cited. Okay, it might be obvious who Weller is, but this is an internationally public encyclopedia..... aside from (barely) being plaigarism, if the USN needs a wiki, wikipedia uses mediawiki which is freely downloaded... :( xerxesbeat (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Navy Marine Corps Intranet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eds.com/news/news.aspx?news_id=2905
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101106033118/http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0831_navy_network_shachtman.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0831_navy_network_shachtman.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)