Talk:Accident Compensation Corporation

Untitled

Have added a bit about ACC's no-fault principle, will try and expand soonish if I get the time Timmah48 (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Given that the Accident Compensation Commission morphed into the Accident Compensation Corporation, I’ve added the appropriate merge tags to these pages. Barefootguru 00:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Missing date/loaded language

Not really good enough having a question mark "?" for the missing date of the name change. Also, the comment that "Predictably, insurance premiums increased under the socialist Labour government" sounds close to loaded/politically partisan language.

Cleanup? (Oct 2009)

This article feels somewhat cold. I highly doubt many would question a notability issue if in good form... yet I did give this tag since it's nearly impossible to determine anything about the company from the sources and links offered besides the official company site. Number and variety of sources and an overall neutral point of view are missing. Not that it feels like an advertisement as a full article, it just reads like one which is where that tag comes from. As it stands now, the quality might attract more negative attention. References aren't linked outside or have incomplete format such that one cannot even locate those sources if needed. For a company like this with its age and accomplishments over time, I'm sure there must be resources around that can help improve this article. This is a rare instance when in business you can actually (hopefully) pick up some sources about public advocacy or extended type of services for the public. Showing the company from this view instead of just dates and deficits could add that delightful "warm" feeling everyone's looking for and shouldn't at all subtract from its professional nature. Though collapsing into company propaganda is a risk here, an alternate perspective could be of use.

My thoughts, at least. As a non-native I wouldn't consider myself particularly qualified for resource and writing expansion, but if anyone comes along and feels like changing or adding anything I'd be more than happy to give feedback if requested. Users are also free to remove the tags as they see fit, so long as the issue was addressed in at least one way in your edit. Just a few things like that should give a bright, polished feeling of an article that the Wikipedia community loves to love! Though it's just listed as a stub, I wouldn't think it unreasonable to consider normal article status a mid-term goal. Datheisen (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability? You have to be kidding. The ACC is a no-fault compulsory government run scheme which means you can not sue for personal injury in New Zealand. Every person in NZ pays in, everyone has had many ACC claims, and it is regularly covered at front page and headline level. There is even a full plus an asssociate Cabinet Minister for ACC. Herne nz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

Clean has been done and new information added - three years later. Offender9000 19:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio

You wrote on my talkpage: "Please don't do things like this or this again: if you're quoting directly from your source, use quote marks, and do not readd material removed because of close paraphrasing/copyvio concerns."

You removed this: Initially ACC adopted a ‘pay-as-you-go’ funding model which collected “only enough levies during the year to cover the cost of claims for that particular year”. In 1999 a ‘fully funded’ model was adopted which meant ACC began collecting enough money during each levy year to cover the lifetime costs of every claim. Since some people are supported by ACC for “30 years or more”, significant reserves had to be generated to fund future costs.

The greatest number of words that are a direct copy are this phrase: “only enough levies during the year to cover the cost of claims for that particular year” - 16 words. WP:CP states: "Depending on the context and extent of the paraphrasing, limited close paraphrase may be permitted under the doctrine of fair use; close paraphrase of a single sentence is not as much of a concern as an entire section or article." Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. One of the four factors is Amount and Sustantiality... On this point WP says "In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, ex: a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use." In other words a few sentences out of an entire publication is deemed legitimate. The concept of de minimis also applies. The article goes on to say: "In other words, de minimis sampling was still considered fair and free because, traditionally, "the law does not care about trifles."

I know you have good intentions - but deleting the paragraph on the basis of 16 trifling words - how do you justify this? Offender9000 22:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Simple: exact copying is not the only thing you need to avoid, and the rest of that section was nearly identical in structure and phrasing. Furthermore, WP:Fair use limits that type of usage to quotation, which this was not - you were presenting it as an original wording when it really wasn't. On the same article you also copied or very closely paraphrased other material as well. You need to stop doing that, now, or you're very likely to get blocked, and you've been told at much at your CCI. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say on the fair use page that fair use is limited to "quotation"? It doesn't say it on this page about fair use. I see that under close paraphrasing it says: "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text." Offender9000 01:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

But you need to base your editing practices on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not necessarily on what our articles say - after all, our articles are not reliable sources. Look at Wikipedia:Fair_use#Acceptable_use: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point...", etc. Compare Wikipedia:Fair_use#Legal_position: "It is legal to reformulate ideas based on written texts, or create images or recordings inspired by others, as long as there is no copying (see plagiarism for how much reformulation is necessary)" (my emphasis). See also Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright ("You can use the facts, but unless they are presented without creativity (such as an alphabetical phone directory), you may need to reorganize as well as restate them to avoid substantial similarity infringement") and WP:PARAPHRASE ("Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism, and when extensive (with or without in-text attribution) may also violate Wikipedia's copyright policy, which forbids Wikipedia contributors from copying material directly from other sources...If a non-free copyrighted source is being used, it is recommended to use original language and direct quotations, to clearly separate source material from original material"). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The sentence: "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text" is wikipedia policy. Offender9000 03:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but a) "limited" is an issue (the part in question was several sentences, not a few words), and b) no attribution in the text was provided. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The part you have now deleted is less than one sentence and is not a direct quote. In other words, its very 'limited'. Also attribution was provided at the end of the sentence. Please read the policy you linked to. It clearly says: "Simple facts such as this can have inline citations to reliable sources as an aid to the reader, but normally the text itself is best left as a plain statement without in-text attribution." In other words, for straight forward information, a citation at the end constitutes "attribution in the text" Offender9000 19:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I deleted two sentences that remain almost identical to the cited source, and I've read the policies I've linked, which suggest in-text (not citation) attribution and/or appropriate rephrasing in cases like this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You may have read the policy, but you don't seem to understand it. I repeat - it says "Simple facts such as this can have inline citations to reliable sources as an aid to the reader, but normally the text itself is best left as a plain statement without in-text attribution." If you're so obsessed with proving your point, can I suggest you seek opinion elsewhere about what that means. I am reverting your edit and if this continues much further I will take it to mediation. This seems to have become a personal crusade for you in which you are losing your objectivity. Offender9000 19:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to take it wherever you like, but you should realize that since there is an open CCI against you, your contributions are under more than usual scrutiny for copyright and paraphrasing problems than usual - and this article continues to contain such issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of editorialising

In this edit I've just removed a paragraph which used Wikipedia's "voice" to endorse criticisms of this organisation ("This adversarial approach appears to be confirmed by a story in the Dominion Post..."). This is a blatant violation of the core policy WP:NPOV. The reference provided for this claim was about a single incident, which does not state that the organisation has an "adversarial approach", and describes the incident as a "botch up" for which the organisation was apologizing. The person affected by this incident is quoted as saying that she believes that such actions were typical of the organisation, but this isn't endorsed by the journalist or anyone else, and so clearly doesn't support the very strong claim which was being attributed to it in the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed several other statements which clearly weren't supported by their references (please see the edit summaries). This includes a paragraph on a 'controversy' over public servants receiving compensation as the reference provided for this did not identify any such 'controversy' - it was straight reportage of the amount paid out, and what was driving this (eg, mainly public servants dealing with dangerous clients), without any suggestion that this wasn't legit. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

What about this lne too? "Some ACC clients have been so upset by the way their cases have been handled that threats of violence have been made against staff. " The rest of the paragraph deals in facts but this intro seems to imply bomb threats are justified. There's also no mention of the criminal proceedings taken against those who made the threats. (see the citation) 121.99.255.173 (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've changed that line, but I wonder about a lot of the material in that section and how relevant it is to an encyclopaedic article. I've also done some clean up on the section about Pullar to correct errors / editorialising. Further work is still required however. Clarke43 (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Accident Compensation Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/2952015/The-painful-bills-about-to-wallop-your-wallet
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150728041025/http://www.accselfemployed.co.nz:80/ to http://www.accselfemployed.co.nz
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130216183143/http://www.acc.co.nz/news/PRD_CTRB113304 to http://www.acc.co.nz/news/PRD_CTRB113304

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

List of ministers

Do we need this? Rathfelder (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)