What gives with the Wikipedia mob? I know that they have gotten an (undeserved, I hope) bad rap for altering pages with wild abandon. However, I really did not expect to see what just happened.

I had a client to whom I was sending a copy of my company's development methodology. Unfortunately, with more than a million files on the companies network here, I can't find the doc in question. However, I did find the nice image that accompanied the document.

I thought that I would do a 'reality check' against articles on software development at Wikipedia and I did not find quite what I was expecting. If our (relatively simple) take on what is actually done on software projects is not represented there, it makes me wonder.

FWIW, the diagram merely shows the flowchart (arrows, docs, decision diamonds, 'things', etc) of the following development cycle:

1. INSPIRE
   • Identify needs/opportunities
   • Create requirements
2. DESIGN
   • System design
   • String (sub-system) design.
3. CODE
   • Unit Design, build and test
   • String (multiple units) Design, build and test.
4. BUILD
   • String Assembly
   • Full System Build
5. TEST
   • System Test (all works together)
   • User acceptance Test (System is acceptable to client)
6. RELEASE
   • Release to Pilot
   • Release to production.

What is nice about the diagram is that it shows in a tidy way how these stages flow into one another both forward and back and shows the entire life-cycle from conception to system retirement. It also shows how (and why) it's possible (as happens) that a system could make it all the way to release into production and then almost immediately retired.

I wonder: how many other people like myself have been discouraged by such actions at Wikipedia? My time is limited and that article may now not see the light of day. That's a shame.

I would link to the offending pages, but unfortunately that appears to be considered bad practice at Wikipedia and might even get me banned (oh my)!