Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:32, 27 March 2011

Companies Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments

POV

I think this article reads like Web Sheriff propaganda and really needs some POV work. The majority of the article seems to be promoting the company rather than informing about it. Also, what is supposed to be the difference between "Notable Client Issues" and "Notable Client Successes"? Both sections present the same kind of material. Blokatoh (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

All information is sourced from abundant and very reliable sources and does serve to explain the premise and operations of the company. There is of course, occasionally a negative fan reaction as mentioned in the article itself, that is sometimes responsible for vandalism to the article and to be expected somewhat by the nature of the company's activities and which I took into account when I independently expanded the article. I will check the article for dead urls and replace and consolidate the Issues and successes into one section for better clarity. Agadant (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an article can be well-cited and well-researched, yet still not be NPOV. I agree that this article is definitely well-cited (thanks to your continued efforts), but can not agree that the entire article serves to explain the premise and operations of the company. The introduction and first two sections are great, but clients section is more than half of the entire article, and does not appear to add much to the explanation of the premise and operations of the company. For example, the clients section begins with an impressive list of 48 people and other entities that have been represented by the company. Though I do not contest that the size of the list speaks to the, say, repute of the company, I would argue that it is not necessarily imperative to include the entire list; at least, not in the main article. A few examples of the entities previously represented by the company given together with a phrase or two indicating the company's wide-spread use, maybe with the more comprehensive list used as reference, would likely be more effective and less likely to be interpreted as non-NPOV or an attempt at using the article as an advertisement. In addition, the remainder of the clients section includes at least six detailed descriptions of cases the company has pursued as well as an impressive and extensive discourse on the reputed benefits of the company. Though examples of the company's work do help to expand upon the premise and operations of the company, the length and extensiveness of the section appear to only serve to promote a subjective view of the company's performance. A reduced version of the current section would likely similarly be more effective and less likely to be perceived as non-NPOV. Blokatoh (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you have taken a lot of interest in this article: even counting the number of clients listed. I actually had not done that myself. You seem to believe that you have problems with how the article is written and cite what you think are examples of how a Misplaced Pages article should be written to not be interpreted as non-NPOV. And yet, as of today, the only contributions you have made as a Wiki editor: these 4 edits are to label this article as POV and take considerable time and effort to write a well-thought out argument for your reasoning behind why you think it's this article that has the subjective viewpoint. This company deserves as good a representation on Wiki as any other corporation and certainly should be as thoroughly represented as the BitTorrent websites and other copyright infringing ones. I don't know how it can be said to be an attempt to use the article as an advertisement. I don't work for them. BTW, have you ever thought of using your writing talents contributing to Misplaced Pages articles. There are many that are urgently in need of editing help. All the best, Agadant (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm with the person who says it looks like propaganda. It's completely unbalanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.143.72 (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is compiled from information gathered from WP: RS such as: Rolling Stone, Esquire, The Independent, The Guardian, BBC, etc., etc.. The comments about it looking like propaganda are by two people who have made no other contributions to Misplaced Pages but on this talk page: that speaks for itself but it's not unexpected due to the nature of the company's field of operation. Agadant (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Advert?

Propaganda.Luísarfs (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC):

Per your contributions your only editing is contributions for a competing organization. Agadant (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever arguments you try to present it does not change the FACT that this page is written like an advertisement. Also, the fact that you are trying to delete this talk page seams rather suspicious. I see you also deleted some specific comments on this talk page. What are your intentions exactly? Luísarfs (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My intentions are to prevent vandalism and trolling on an article that is written on a company whose line of work is copyright enforcement and sometimes upsets fans on the internet with the removal of videos or downloaded songs. The talk page comments have only been made by editors who have no other contributions but contentious one to this article and talk page. That is one way to make a judgment of the intent of the editors involved. And the other editors did not have anything further to say when they were replied to. Your very few edits on the English language Misplaced Pages are mostly limited to entries about Associação Fonográfica Portuguesa which seems to be a competitor in copyright enfringement enforcement. You have stated on your edit summary that the article needs work from someone not affiliated Web Sheriff implying that I am. I've been an editor here for over four years and have edited this one because it was often vandalized and was a very unfair representation of an important company in this field. You do not have a consensus to tag this article as an advertisement. All information is backed up by very good reliable sources. Agadant (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just seen that you turned this in as a dispute asking for a third opinion an hour before I made the reply above or challenged you on your reverting me. Not exactly a willingness to present any debate on your opinion of why the article should be tagged. Agadant (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The comment I removed previously was a completely inaccurate and unfounded opinion on the company and disproved by reliable sources in the article. As such it equated to vandalism and should be removed from the talk page per the talk page rules. . This article, of necessity, because of the company's line of work has to be closely watched and protected or it would be taken over by disgruntled fans acting out their dissatisfaction with vandalism to the article. Not the same as claiming ownership but being the editor who has put in numerous hours of work doing research, collecting and updating reliable sources for references and formating the article, I've had to assign myself to do that job or see my work all for naught. Agadant (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Clients' charting and awards" section tries to imply that web sheriff clients success, awards and album sales are closely related to the company actions when that would be arguable. This is a common strategy used in advertising. Other POV problems and arguments have already been addressed on previous comments, including the one you deleted which i consider valid and is not fit for removing according to WP:TPO guidelines. As to why you deleted this talk page is beyond me since being a casual contributor does not invalidate participation in discussion. Luísarfs (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It "tries to imply"? that is certainly a subjective remark and along the lines of your stating that I was affiliated with Web Sheriff. The section only lists charting and awards as is commonly done in musician's articles, as an example. Those are not said to be POV, if they are factual. Those chartings and awards and success are by the company's clients and as such are successes for the company's work. This could be seen as a subjective observation and objection from an editor who is putting information into articles about a competing organization in copyright protection.

The comment I removed was not valid as the company has been in business for ten years and not just getting started and the only instance of pro bono work was for the Bob Dylan Christmas album. A casual contributor is one thing but when the only contributions are on one topic - Web Sheriff - and how this one article in the whole of wikipedia is biased or written as an advertisement, it does tend to raise flags.

I decided it would be best under the circumstances to remove the POV section and comments by the one-time only editors, as it was acting as a magnet for more of them and distracting from any serious or well-intentioned discussions. Agadant (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO guidelines: "Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." And "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." Agadant (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion: Aside from the Clients section being a total mess, this article isn't really an advertisement. It's well sourced and doesn't have any particularly poor text. — HelloAnnyong 04:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Unassessed company articles
• Unknown-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles