Talk:Code42/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notability

Is this company notable on its own standing? The lead question makes me wonder if is piggy bagging on notability of one of its product "Code 42 Software Inc. is the Minneapolis-based developer of the CrashPlan backup software and services suite. So, if it has to reference to CrashPlan, isn't it piggybacking on the notability or are they justifiably both notable on their own accord? WP:ORGSIG Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

America centric representation

Might someone explain why the locations are listed with the USA locations receiving city mentions while non-US locations are only named by country names? as opposed to say "four locations in USA" and " Ireland, Australia, Singapore and Japan"? Again and again, en.wikipedia is supposed to represent globally neutral view, not base around USA, which is just a country among many in the world that uses EnglishCantaloupe2 (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I simply removed the locations. Looking in infobox, it gave me an impression that company was actually held actual locations at different countries, but from reading the official page, it appears that it means there are 7 data centers. This is misleading in my opinion. It is akin to Google's page reading (xxx locations) based on number of data centers they have, or small companies counting each warehouse they lease towards "company locations". Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

It is apparent from the author's username (Mariecrashplan (talk · contribs)) that she is involved with this product or its manufacturer. As such, her involvement in this article constitutes a conflict of interest. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

For information only: as can be seen from the talk history, IP 208.38.107.84 appears to be User:Mariecrashplan ... richi (hello) 23:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Request edit

I would like to request consideration of a revised version of the article:

• User:Corporate Minion/CrashPlan

Compared to the current it:

• Has a Reception section summarizing product reviews
• Has a lead that summarizes the article
• Links to more meaningful (reliable) reviews
• Has a little more detail on features/function, though some are actually less detailed.

Probably where my COI is most relevant is just making sure we're avoiding advert (tough on a product article) and if the Reception section is fair. Corporate 16:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done I made some minor edits, but it looks mostly balanced. For future reference, don't use "smart" quotes or typographic quotes or whatever you want to call them. On Wikipedia we use typewriter straight quotes like you get when hitting the key on your keyboard in a plain text editor. Gigs (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained selective removal

A reason "oh please" was given and my edit was reverted. It was reverted again by the same user using a script who did not provide a reason despite request in comment in this edit. Please explain. What is the objection to the comment? Why shouldn't it be included in Wikipedia and according to what policy? Thank you. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up Corporate, I have requested explanation on this page, noted in edit comment, as well as left you a message on your talk page. You have chosen to ignore it completely and used Twinkie to revert the edit you disagree with. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's an explanation. Please read BRD. If you still don't understand, read it a few more times. You "boldly" made a change. (A poor one, but a change.) It was reverted. Now you need to discuss if you want it in. Try {{request edit}}. Apparently you should also read UNDUE and RS a few times, given specifically what you wanted to put in. --Nouniquenames 05:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Promotional tone/NPOV

It's so blatantly obvious just from skimming through. Why I think so:

• Highlighting the company in a positive way
• "In benchmark tests it is the best performer for incremental updates". What relevance does something like this have on a page about a company? Why is "reception" page even needed?
• Written like a product review
• Mentions of matter like "Gartner gave the enterprise version, CrashPlan PROe, an "excellent" rating."

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Benchmarked test of a company's product (with RSs like the WSJ) and 3rd party product reviews from RSs (like Gartner) are excellent indications of notability--highly appropriate content. I would even say such reviews are essential for such an article. I do think it has some problems: the lead is disproportionately ong and repeats material better in the article. and , like most writing anywhere, the article can be improved by condensation. And the placement of the illustration interferes with the infobox. at least on my computer. I'd normally suggest the ed. responsible for the content improve it, but since he says he's reluctant because of COI, I'll do some fixing myself. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I will assist, since I took responsibility as the neutral third party for the COI edit. That said, Cantaloupe2, it's a little insulting for you to say that it's blatantly promotional in tone. I would not have inserted an article on behalf of a COI editor if it were blatantly promotional. Gigs (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no dispute over the factual accuracy of the cited references. I'm simply commenting that it looks promotional and product pamphlet to me that is tailored to highlight features of products rather than just describe it in a totally neutral tone. You're closed minded to say its offensive when you disagree with another editor's comment. "Business customers often use CrashPlan PRO to back up to a private cloud. " I think this can be said with less promotional and less suggestive of use by saying that they offer free as well as paid use optionCantaloupe2 (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

yes, that sentence needs rewriting, but that they supply a private cloud is relevant. It's important not to remove information along with the unnecessary adjectives. But here's the thing--the extent of promotionalism varies, from G11 territory to articles where one or two words need to be changed or deleted, and what needs to be done is specific to the article. It does harm rather than good to treat all of them as equally reprehensible. But Gigs has a dilemma, a dilemma which caused me personally to stop accepting requests to approve such edits. either I sponsor an article that does not fully meet my standards, or I have to do as much work to check it as the original author. We need perhaps a lower standard of approval, similar to that at AfC -- good enough to have a reasonable chance of not being deleted at AfD. But I'm reluctant to do that when I know I can do better. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

CrashPlan does not supply a "private cloud", corporate customers choose not to use CrashPlan's hosting and instead run their own in-house backup servers. It's kind of silly to call it a "private cloud" when it's probably a single server most of the time, but other than that, I think the sentence is being misunderstood. It's about customers choosing not to use a service CrashPlan offers. That's hardly promotional. Gigs (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"on their own infrastructure" would be an adequate replacement for "private cloud." Corporate 23:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A pattern I've noticed with the major contributor, who is a paid editor, is that, in my opinion, mainly shows flattering remarks to show "several reviews said positively" Referenced, but references gathered around positives creates bias. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

So, is it just me who is seeing selective presentation of positive quotes? I went through one of the references and found that reviewer commented that it was "slow" along with actual test data. Reporting both negatives and positives with equal weight is what is expected for neutrality. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The article contains quite a bit of coverage on the issue of slow initial backups, even including a mention in the lede. Gigs (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed. The additional negative speed information you repeatedly added was from a single review, and you added it in much greater detail than the material from any other review. And you added repeatedly an entire paragraph that was a single customer complaint from a blog. That's the worst sort of content, and, though I am too involved to take any administrative action here, we would normally block any user who insisted on adding such material. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I assume that comment was meant for Cantaloupe. Gigs (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Controversies/reception

There is a personal website that presents his experience with the program. Normally such sources are not usable to support a claim as they're normally opinions. In this case, it can be accurately said that the user did express his issue, and the correspondence that he had with the company appears a reasonably reliable for the purpose of stating the company responded with the statement (the email quoted). Please comment on this edit Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I noticed the lead was written as "Code 42 is the developer of CrashPlan" which infers that this is what they're perhaps notable for and it appears to be a company with only one significant product. I think that having two separate articles would be a WP:CFORK. Input? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge?

Except in cases where we bump up against WP:LENGTH, we normally merge company and product articles. Since we now have a Code 42 Software article, I suggest we merge CrashPlan with that article as someone has already proposed with a template. CorporateM (Talk) 00:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

|}

Crashplan page

Now that Crashplan and code 42 have been merged, I'm moving the Talk page contents from Crashplan here for storage/reference. CorporateM (Talk) 14:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Crashplan CrashPlan backs up data to remote servers, other computers, or hard drives. It's available on Mac, Windows, Solaris and Linux. The consumer version is sold on a freemium model, where daily local backups are free, but using Code 42's cloud service requires a paid subscription, called CrashPlan+. There is also an option to lease a hard-drive, so a faster local backup can be performed to the drive and it can be shipped back to Code 42 for initial backup. Initial backups may take several hours over LAN or days over the internet, but afterwards, continuous and incremental backups are done without user intervention. Data is encrypted and password-protected. There is also an option for a more secure private key. Corporate users have CrashPlan PROe back up to private servers instead of Code 42's data center in four out of five cases. The software has an option to create a private on-site backup server. Reception <<insert current Reception section>>

• Rewrite the lead; to bring it up to WP:LEAD to summarize the article.

Proposed lead)

Code 42 Software Inc. is the developer of the CrashPlan backup software and services suite. It was founded in 2001 as an IT consultancy. Code 42 started a project to create a Facebook-like desktop application, but ended up focusing on the online storage element, releasing CrashPlan in 2007. The company raised $52.5 million in 2012 as part of a fund by Accel Partners for big data companies. CrashPlan is sold to consumers on a freemium model, where local backups are free, but uploading to Code 42's servers is sold on a monthly subscription through CrashPlan +. There are also enterprise versions that are usually used to facilitate backups to the company's own servers. CrashPlan gets positive reviews based on its pricing, feature-set and user interface, but large, initial backups are slow.

CorporateM (Talk) 16:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Reception section

The reception section definitely needs examples of negative reception from reliable sources. Otherwise, it's biased as it only gives weight to positive reception. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The bias tag is probably well-placed.

It currently includes:

"In benchmark tests by Computerworld...the worst performer in archiving an entire system drive, which took almost five days.[13] A Wall Street Journal columnist also noted lengthy initial backups, followed by better-performing incremental ones.[6]...doesn't allow users to recognize mapped drives, a feature offered by competitors..."

It does genuinely get very positive reviews, which is why I encouraged that we take a shot at it. But I think some trimming is needed, such as: WIRED reviewed CrashPlan+ and noted it was "reasonably priced" and the "different kinds of back-ups [are] likely attractive to the paranoid."[10]

Some other sections need some light trimming as well, especially in the Business section the Software and Features section should be consolidated and drastically reduced.

CorporateM (Talk) 13:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

|}

References got mixed up during merge

Looks like references got mixed up during the merge as both articles used conflicting naming scheme for the references. I did my best to straighten them out, but might be nice to have another set of eyes check incase I missed any. Used the pre-merge pages to figure out where to put the references. PaleAqua (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested article-move

The company changed their name to "Code42" (no spaces). Suggest we move the article to just "Code42". CorporateM (Talk) 17:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's doable. However, please bring the body text up-to-date with the new name first, and add a bit about the rebranding. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done I changed all the "Code 42"s to "Code42". I don't have any sources to justify adding the name-change in the article though. CorporateM (Talk) 00:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the article after the Request Edit was 1.5 weeks old and user:Sphilbrick advised that I should go ahead and move it as a clerical edit. CorporateM (Talk) 18:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Mapped drives

continuation of truncated edit summary:

one of the citations doesn't seem to mention mapped drives, one is dead and one is ambiguous, but from crashplan support page cited for the workaround and the citation I've given it's clear that the issue is being unable to backup mapped drives, not backup to them. I think the statement about competitors being able to do that should probably be removed as it's not in any of the citations either, but I'll leave it for a bit in case anyone wants to add a citation. GoddersUK (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• I removed PC Magazine from that sentence, which does in fact not mention mapped drives
• I added a working link for the Macworld article, however it also does not mention mapped drives; suggest we remove it from that sentence
• The only reference that actually does mention it says "doesn't officially recognize "mapped" drives."

At the moment, I'm wondering if the subject should even be covered at all, given that it is only mentioned in passing by one source, however I thought I saw more about it somewhere. Let me do some more searches and see if I can find other sources. (Please note my COI disclosure) CorporateM (Talk) 17:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks CorporateM. I didn't want to remove the citations in case I'd missed something, but a second pair of eyes reduces the likelihood of error :) Regarding the importance of this sentence: seconded, I don't know whether this issue is really worthy of being mentioned in WP (beyond in a tabulated feature comparison, etc). Most likely someone for whom this is a deal-breaking feature encountered the problem and decided the world must know so added it here. GoddersUK (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Also I'll try and be slightly more specific in my talk page comments in future so other editors don't have to go reference hunting or whatever to understand what I'm talking about :) GoddersUK (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have now removed the Macworld reference from this sentence. GoddersUK (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I did most of the article and brought it up to "Good Article" status, so anything wrong with the page is probably my doing. Even though I added the poorly-sourced criticism myself, it's still inappropriate for me to remove it per WP:COI, so the ball's in your court if you agree it seems like a trivial item in a summary of reviews. CorporateM (Talk) 09:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, I'd like to request we remove the sentence at the very end of the Reception section about mapped drives. It was most probably me that added it originally, however thanks to user:GoddersUK second look, we discovered only one of the three sources I used actually mention it and only in passing. CorporateM (Talk) 19:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Done I'd been going to do this after our earlier conversation and never got around to it. GoddersUK (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Updates

I would like to request an editor consider some proposed updates located at User:CorporateM/Code42 to incorporate new sources that have been published since I brought the page up to GA last year and trim a few unnecessary primary source. The draft includes bolded text for additions and strikeouts for trims. Thanks in advance for taking a look! CorporateM (Talk) 10:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Dropbox is a dab page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Fixed. CorporateM (Talk) 15:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Done. Additions add good content, don't appear to be promotional or the ilk. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Update Key People

I would like to request an editor consider some proposed updates to the Key People as personnel have changed.

• Remove Tim Connor, CFO. He is no longer with the company.
• Remove Karen Pisha, SVP Customer Success. She is no longer with the company.
• Add John Emerick, CFO. CyberDefense TV, 2019
• Add Jadee Hanson, CIO and CISO. CIO Dive, April 15, 2020
• Add Rob Juncker, CTO. Security Toolbox, June 4, 2020.

BerkshireQueen14 (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)BerkshireQueen14

References

 Done P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Update Key People

I would like to request an editor consider a proposed update to the Key People as personnel have changed.

• Remove John Emerick, CFO. He is no longer with the company.
• Add Maria Izurieta, CFO. CFO, 2022

BerkshireQueen14 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Ptrnext (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

References