User talk:MikeWillisX9

Hi. In your changes to XBRL, you removed much of the wiki-markup (e.g. [[links]] and '''bold'''). I could see how this would happen if you copied the web page text into a text editor and then copied it back to the wiki. If you prefer to edit in an external text editor, it would be better to copy the marked-up text (e.g. from here) instead of copying the text of the article as it's presented in your web browser here. Thanks. —Fleminra (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is XBRL an open standard?

Hi, I reformulated the section title to XBRL is an atypical open standard so that it does not sound as a matter of opinion. The section is properly sourced in a University of Waikato paper that was published in the European Accounting Review

Cheers, Lancet (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Published materials does not make them factual, correct, complete or balanced. The language here is simply misleading. Let me provide a few examples:

"the governance structure of the XBRL consortium is significantly different from a model open source approach because of the barrier to participation that is created by requiring paid membership" The XBRL governance model is very similar if not identical to the model followed by other Internet standards bodies such as the W3C or OASIS or OMG. This paid membership idea is a common governance model for Internet standards bodies.

"and a focus on transacting business at physical conferences and meetings." This is a partial truth; while XBRL International conducts business when the community comes together at conferences: XBRL working groups, committees, boards, and jurisdictional groups routinely conduct business via virtual methods (e.g. conf calls, webcasts, special face to face meetings, etc.) all of which are open to observers. The incompleteness of the comment is misleading.

"XBRL International requires its paying members to advocate its use" As a collaboration of diverse organizations working to solve common business inforamtion supply chain problems, the XBRL community is commonly motivated to promote the use of common standards which also routinely include other standards such as ACORD, SWIFT, RIXML and others which serve to promote process enhancements.

"many XBRL conference attendees are vendors" and many XBRL conference attendees are government regulators, academics, companies, press representatives, etc. The omission of other relevant conference participants implies a motivation that could be perceived by some as misleading.

"much of the published material makes claims for compatibility and standardization that have yet to be achieved" Given the number of projects that are published with documented benefits and case studies available on the XBRL.org website, this 'fact' may be somewhat dated at this point. Suggest that more current observations and facts be considered.

Please, provide a reason why the governance structure of XBRL (which intentionally mirrors other international Internet standards bodies) is atypical. The sitation of an incomplete, inaccurate published paper is not a valid reason for including this section/comment.

Hi, I copied your remarks on the XBRL discussion page.

Cheers, Lancet (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]