Wikipedia Requirements discussion

Wikipedia's content on business analysis and requirements management are problematic. They do not cover the ground, are not written in a consistent voice, often offer competing or contradictory views and repeat details in multiple places.

In short the content reflects poor requirements practices. I have started to post some questions and suggestions on the relevant discussion pages and I plan on making substantial changes to the content in the not too distant future. However, rather than just make wholesale changes changes to Wikipedia I am planning to drat the changes here and offer them to Wikipedia contributors and other stakeholders to review.

If you are here reading this you are probably both motivated and informed, so your opinions and contributions are also welcome. Don't forget to add commentary to any proposed content.

yellowpages.sulekha.com/packers-and-movers_bangalore

The first activity in the section is to list the Wikipedia ages I think are in need of attention.

Requirements - article moved beyond the scope of a simple definition and context. Given the other (below) pages it should be simplified.

Requirements_analysis - merged with Requirements engineering (how do you un-merge?) Also sloppy writing and moves beyond the scope of the topic, duplicating many things said on related pages.

Requirements_engineering - currently a sub-topic of requirements analysis but should be a stand alone topic. There is a discussion thread related to this at Modern Analyst

Requirements_Management (also a subheading in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_area_(CMMI) ) - apart from the idea that the two sets of content should at least align the requirements management content goes beyond the scope of a focus on the activity/process of managing requirements.

Requirements_traceability - does not provide a clear and simple description. Full of trivial clutter and incomplete content.

Requirements_elicitation - is only a holding page with some poor descriptions

Non_Functional_Requirements - has at least half a dozen articles covering the same ground

Functional requirements - needs simplification and a better description of the counter arguments (ie Functional requirements is an artifical designation. How is it different to business requirement?)

Business Analysis

Business Analyst Training

Requirements Engineer

hai

Business Analyst Body of Knowledge (BABOK)

Software engineering body of knowledge (SWEBOK)