Definition A 'New' Aspect of the Cove - A Definitions and Acronyms page?

I once "borrowed" some documents which contain a glossary of terms used by automotive-oriented companies, including acronyms and jargon. FWIW, here they are:

I voted "yes" because it seems there are frequent posts asking for the meaning of this or of that. As an example, one presently rolling along came from a Cover in the PRC asking the meaning of "Calendar Year".

Though I can understand why some may vote "no" regarding it as a redundant exercise, by extrapolating that view, a highly experienced person in the quality field might sniff that much of what goes on in the Cove is similarly redundant. Taking that kind of approach would IMO be inconsistent with much of the original purpose of the Cove.

Marc said:

Anyway, back to the topic.... We could prod folks to not only contribute definitions, but also links to applicable, informative sites like many of the links in this thread. I think the combination would be very valuable. As the person who 'looses' by adding links to external sites (with respect to people clicking advertisements, when they leave this site they may not come back - Long story, but the 'Webmeister's Guide" says that's a No-No), I would like it - And from the poll I'm sure I'm going to do it.

Now - I ask you which do you think would be preferable:

1. Wiki style - Anyone can edit
2. A specific, focused forum within the current forums

Click to expand...

Perhaps Marc can let us know of the results of his testing the Wiki software.

But, adding to my previous post and for reasons other Covers will suspect, I do not see why there should be a choice. Why not both.

1. The Cove is quite capable of developing its own Wiki for quality. It would require moderating and a sense of responsibility, not used as a place for fun.

2. The specific forum dedicated to pertinent publications or similar could be used as a base for referencing others' definitions and material.

But, since we now have a Reading Room (thanks to Wallace's initiative as I understand it) which is used for serious stuff, I would recommend the Wiki and the references forum should be (if not a part) adjacent to the RR.

We have plenty of other threads in which we can take a lighter view of life, the universe and everything.

As much as I like the idea of a definitions/acronyms page, my worry is not that it will be redundent but more that it will not be used. People ask before doing a search...and I fear that there will be the occasional smart-mouthed response telling them to go page such-and-such (usually given after we tire of constantly telling people to do a search). Newbies are prone to simply ask their question, before using the search function...and, once told to use the search function, they find the answers they are looking for or are able to evolve their question to something more meaningful.

My other worry is how will definitions be defined? By whom? What if there are differences, for example, in what a "procedure" is to me versus what it is to someone else? Who is to say they're right? Who is to say I'm right (but we all know I am)?

I don't want a lot of work to be done on a page that might not be used and might promote a lot of disagreement.

Fundamentally, the idea is sound. I'm working on one for my own company to help promote a "common language" between the plants. But a global Management System and Business Methodologies Dictionary?...if Advil has stock, I might just go out and buy some cause the person(s) devleoping the dictionary are going to have some big headaches.

Your friendly neighbourhood nay-sayer...

I whole-heartedly support a subject-specific glossary / acronym list. I just tested RCA and Root Cause Analysis was near the bottom of the second (last) page.

I have seen this concept work in different ways. The most common that I have seen is to create a forum for members to post either a definition or a question. Eventually the number of posts makes the forum unuseable and some kind soul takes on the task of summarizing everything and making a permanent thread.

I think it would work here.

I (obviously) have been thinking about this for quite a while. I even downloaded and tested a couple versions of 'wiki' software but found that the imvolvement (such as monitoring) would be significant. Wikipedia is not a small site and there is more than meets the eyes.

The idea of a forum specifically for definitions and acronyms is a reasonable idea. I was thinking of other ways to do this, especially because I'd like to have it in a 'straight html' format becauswe search engines like that type of document.

I will act on this in the next couple of weeks. Just got busy and this sorta drpped off the radar screen, so to speak.

Wow

Here's a well-thought-out dictionary of measurment units.

(broken link removed)

Looks like a lot of work, however.

Thanks for the link!

Marc,

I started to put together a glossary of quality terms. (I must have been bored.) After 41 pages, I realized that it could be a life long effort and contain who knows how many pages. I don't know if you can use the glossary but I attached it. I kept track of references in general but not by specific word or phrase. It is actually somewhat entertaining to read if you are in the quality field. It covers a wide range of topics from management theory to technical words to some words and phrases that are not normally associated with quality.

Bill Pflanz

I can only
your glossary.
If only I could be so constructive when I am bored