Talk:Alida (software company)

I am the VP Social Media for Vision Critical, and have just submitted a set of proposed changes (and placed them in the review queue) in order to bring this article up-to-date. These changes are all fact-based and reference external sources. I have conferred with the Wikipedia team and have tried to conform to the principles around conflict-of-interest and transparency; our intent is just to ensure the article is current and factually accurate. awsamuel (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what is wrong with my post. I feel it is important for any large organization to have a page on Wikipedia as it is the main source the public uses to find out about topics such as market research. A company under our umbrella, Angus Reid Public Opinion, has a Wikipedia page that is not a problem - I can also show you many other pages that are similar. Therefore I think we should be allowed to keep this listing. Please explain why you disagree or how the page is in any way biased or sales oriented. I have written it in an entirely factual and referenced manner.

Kirstinhepburn (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of a similar, albeit much smaller, company that has a page on Wikipedia. These pages are almost identical in their content. Please help me understand why you have flagged my entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Entertainment

Kirstinhepburn (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:COI, as you openly admitted here. WuhWuzDat 00:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read what you post:

Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia. When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor.

When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline. An editor's conflict of interest is often revealed when that editor discloses a relationship to the subject of the article to which the editor is contributing. Where an editor does not disclose an existing affiliation or other conflict of interest, carefully following Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing.

Kirstinhepburn (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW: a) other articles are not a valid argument for this one per WP:OTHERSTUFF; if you feel that other company doesn't belong here, feel free to nominate it for deletion. b) for now Vision critical survived speedy deletion, but it can easily come under process known as WP:AfD (based on WP:NOTABILITY policy, probably WP:ORG will apply). To avoid it, it is generally advised to add reliable third-party references to the article which demonstrate that somebody else (except for the company itself) thinks it is important enough to write an article on it. Ipsign (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the article with links to several "reliable third-party references" that demonstrate that somebody else (BC Business, Globe & Mail, Research Magazine, Vancouver Sun, etc) thinks Vision Critical and Dr Angus Reid are important enough to be included in Wikipedia. I hope this will help.
http://www.bcbusinessonline.ca/bcb/tech-innovation/2010/04/02/vision-critical
http://www.bcbusinessonline.ca/bcb/top-stories/2010/05/05/angus-reid-line
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/your-business/business-categories/web-strategy/should-you-go-big-with-your-blog/article1765866/
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/12/speech-slogan-pollster-of-year.html
http://www.research-live.com/features/how-the-recession-is-reshaping-research/4001520.article Kirstinhepburn (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what I've meant, thanks, I've already said on AfD page that I think that keeping it is a good idea. Could you please also take a look at statement which I've marked as not in citation? I wasn't able to find support for this statement in the reference provided, so now there are 3 options about it: a) to show that this statement about sparqTM is indeed supported in the reference, which I've overlooked; b) to provide another reference supporting the statement; c) to drop the statement. Ipsign (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)