Talk:Business Initiative Directions

Provide the correct information

• File:Campeonato de la Juventud
• File:OpelAward

Posting that this company is selling awards when it is a marketing and graphic design company that hosts international business events, is misleading, inaccurate and harmful. The company has never hid the fact that they charge a fee for attending to the events. The nomination of companies selected to be offered this service is done on BID own criteria alongside the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. We have provided access to the official web site of this cooperation agreement between BID Group One (BID subsidiary) and the UPM. The UPM is one of Spain main universities. To explain the know-how of BID publicly is INSANE. Is like requesting Coca Cola to provide its recipe. But besides all this, everytime we post pictures of actual awards produced (look at the terminology, BID PRODUCES this awards like many other marketing material) by BID for the spanish government and for Opel, the pictures are erased. This is not fair. Neither is logical. Those are realities, proofs of this company work. Please stop using Wikipedia as a corporate revenge tool. (FernandoSantiago (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC))

BID is of course welcome to sell awards as its business. It is generally considered unethical but not illegal. At the same time Wikipedia can link to reliable sources that inform the public of this practice. BID removing those sources from the article is not acceptable however. BTW I looked at the BID website and it is not at all clear these awards are paid for by the recipient and not given freely as an honor for merit or achievement. You can't say one the one hand it's a paid-for marketing product and on the other hand the award is given for merit and achievement. Well, you can, but such practice is ethically questionable. Don't take my word for it, many sources say the same thing and they are linked in the article.

Also as a matter of protocol. You are apparantly connected to BID and should read WP:COI meaning you should be working out differences on the talk page not engaging in edit wars. I'm afraid you might be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue reverting at least 6 different editors that won't go on much longer. You've had plenty of warnings and notices. -- GreenC 13:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I am willing to work out changes to the article with you. All we need are reliable secondary sources such as defined by WP:V and WP:RS this means newspapers, magazines, books etc.. that have no connection or association with BID (ie. not press releases or announcements of winners). As it currently stands the only such independent journalism sources publicly available discuss the selling of awards, which is why the article is weighted in that direction. -- GreenC 13:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Just because you have references or citations do not make them reasonable sources. Do vet the references. If this company is a scam or whatever as claimed, they would not be running 36 years, and governments supporting them. You are basing such information on unreliable sources. Do not spread fake news on behalf of those who want you to cause damage to others. Wikipedia is a place for information, not some sort of authority which is used to spread fake news, to destroy the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.40.134.3 (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I want to add this. Please use some common sense and logic. Nowadays anyone can put up a blog, or a website, and you fall for it and used them as citations? I have gone through all the references, citations. They are not from reliable sources. So put up facts will you. Use some logic and common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.40.134.3 (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello. This article seems to be reasonably sourced, what specifically are the sources you think are unreliable and why? If you wish do add other sources you can however they also need to be reliable. HanotLo (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Reasonably sourced? Seriously? Can we use some logic? The references you all put up basically is saying this company is a fraud. Then why is it still runnning? And the winners are world's biggest companies, with billions of revenues. Do you think they will not know? Some of them even own REAL media companies that has real journalists, not like those quoted in this article. We have a bigger responsibility. Everyone can start a news website in seconds. So are we going to just cite from these websites? So many of the winners of the awards have blogged about winning the awards. That's news right! They didn't even mention anything scammy or fraudulent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.40.134.3 (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you please be a bit more specific? Are there any reasons outlined in WP:V or WP:RS that you believe the sources are contrary to? HanotLo (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

On the citations which were deemed unreliable, one source even provided evidence that some of the establishments did not pay for the awards. There were other evidences given in forums, by award winners which have stated clearly they never did pay for the awards. Therefore, these sources are not reliable, as the information they are providing are fake, and not in accordance to the facts of the company in question here. I have gone through all information by award winners, they have never paid for the awards, and their is proper selection process. Award winners from 176 countries and the citations are focused on a few countries, whose opposition have an axe to grind with the governments who won the awards. There are so many other award winners over a span of 30 years. Are you going to put up these unreliable source? These sources are opinion pieces, they are not facts based on sound research. Wikipedia is all about facts, based on undeniable truth. So please stick to that method of selection of citations. It is always better to stay on the side of providing what is 100% truth or factual, than what is subjective information based on opinions. Do read the unreliable sources which have been removed. I do not think CNN, or some other major news outlets or magazins companies are going to release an investigative news articles which are citation-worthy on a harmless company such as BID. I will be the first to cite a news article that covers a real crime committed by the company, and not a biased opinion piece on these websites. There is even one blog post being cited. Are you all serious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.40.134.3 (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

We cannot source evidence given on forums or your own original research, WP:NOR. As has been said to you before, OCCRP is a reliable source as per WP:RS. In your most recent revert you said, "The organisation which wrote the article being cited admitted their research did not show 100% factual about their finding. I have stated on the talkpage" however there is nothing in your statements here on the talk page that says this. HanotLo (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. That is why there are more reliable citations. OCCRP if you read the article they admitted some of the award winners were sponsored. The citations just added also showed this. OCCRP article is not factual about BID, but may have some substance with regards to corruption involving the winners. If you read one of the paragraphs, they linked winning the award to embezzling $65 million dollars. This article is not suitable for the entry on BID, as it is not about the company, and it is not even factual. Do refer to the new citations from actual winners who were reported to be sponsored by news outlets.

If the OCCRP article is not "factual" you should have no problem linking to other factual articles that correctly portray BID and its industry. These other articles would be neutral (no connection to BID) and published in a source known for objective investigative research, like OCCRP. -- GreenC 16:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

References

A Blogpost is a citation?

http://consumerwatchdogbw.blogspot.de/2010/09/voice-consumers-voice_17.html

This blogpost is a reliable source? The comments that follow are anonymous, and are opinions and not facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.40.134.3 (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Another blogpost cited as reliable source? The about page is even not filled up. https://yayraslibrary.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/enticing-award-but-meaningless/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.40.134.3 (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

List of Past Winners Important Section - As that is the company's nature of business

The list of past winners is crucial to be together with BID. As this provides more information for wikipedia users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.40.134.3 (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not needed. Wikipedia is not a directory or hosting service. That is why we have an "External links" section with a link to the company website. And waht about the content that is being added? For example, "BID has positioned entrepreneurs at the pinnacle of recognition, recognizing their achievements with quality awards" and "award recipients are icons of commitment to leadership, technology and innovation". How does that comply with WP:NPOV? Edwardx (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. But the company in question is about Quality Awards. Therefore, the past winners list is essential. It is neutral, because that is fact of what BID is doing, which is positioning these establishments as such. Please refer to this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_Global_2000 is this a directory to you? It is a factual list of the companies Forbes ranked as Global 2000. BID does the same, by awarding these organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.40.134.3 (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Forbes is not the same as BID. Since BID has many sources calling it a 'scam' (etc) I don't believe it is in Wikipedia's best interest to list the winners. This does not assert BID is a scam, only that since there are questions about it in the sourcing, we should not inadvertently help market a possible scam. -- GreenC 16:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Page protection

I have requested page protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Business_Initiative_Directions, so that non-IP editors do not risk getting into trouble for edit warring. Edwardx (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

There was only one IP edit warrior, who is now blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I have reverted the article back to the last version without their contributions. Let us hope that a new IP editor does not emerge... Edwardx (talk)

Page protection

I have requested page protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Business_Initiative_Directions due to the recent flurry of removal of sourced content by various IP and newly created accounts. They are unable or unwilling to discuss on the talk page. -- GreenC 00:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Press Link worldquality.org

If you need more proof that this company is a big huge scam look at their website links... They even created fake newspapers that show their pityfull award in first page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.86.107 (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)