Talk:Knowledge Generation Bureau/Archives/2012

Notability/KGB redirect

I'm expanding on this article chaps, please don't speedy or prod it. I'm involved in some rather strenuous work at the moment, so can't reply on my talk page very quickly - but I should be picking up on the backlog of messages soon. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Give me one reason why this is not a commercial site and I will hold off nominating it for deletion. At the moment it looks a prime candidate for speedy --Snowded (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's an article about a company - I'm not sure how much less commercial I can make it. From what I can find about it, it's the world's biggest "Directory Services" company. I read about Texperts being bought out by them, and was surprised that they didn't have an article, so I've broken my time off in order to craft one lovingly from the wreckage of the previous one. I think i've done a pretty good job. Anyway, it asserts notability, so it can't be A7'd, and it's not blatant advertising, either. If you really want this deleted, it needs to go to an AfD, but I'd rather it doesnt come to that. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Might it be better as "118118" (which is notable? Either way I have a transatlantic flight so no real time to think about it, will look in again tomorrow but when I looked earlier a lot of the sentences sounded like marketing hype. --Snowded (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

118118 already has an article - 118118 are a UK-based subsidiary of kgb_. kgb_ are the 'parent company', and kgbkgb are 118118's US counterpart. If 118118 and ChaCha are notable, then there's a good chance that kgbkgb is, too. Have fun on your flight - I just came back from overseas, flights are awful - and protips are always welcome on the article, have a crack at it if you can! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, obviously a breach of wikipedia policy going on here: I just tried to search for the (Soviet) KGB and was directed to this page, with no disambiguation link to get me to the page I wanted! Delete, Delete, Delete! ASAP! 74.215.238.46 (talk)

Quite right. I've converted KGB to a disambiguation page. Equazcion (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, I actually work for this company (for the moment). If you need any help just ask. Also, the Canadian service is 542542 and meant for 411 services. Although I'm not sure they've done any advertising other than maybe a newspaper ad. REALfreaky (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, here's a list of all the services they do (taken from an internal stats page): 118118; Orange; 11850; US; 66000; 64222. I only take US texts so I'm not sure what countries the rest are for. (Except for 118118 which is for the UK). REALfreaky (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Name a reference to the Russian KGB?

I've been wondering if the name Knowledge Generation Bureau was a reference to the Soviet Комитет государственной безопасност (Committee for Government Security). Since the Russian KGB was a very intelligent Organization, and the Company KGB is an information company. Mr. Someguy (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering the exact same thing. I like your connection between the intelligence of each organization. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section

Anonymous users keep removing this section. The last edit summary read "Deleted 'controversy' due to being a private matter bound by confidentiality", implying that this is an internal company matter. Firstly, being that the petition is available online for anyone to read, this is certainly not an internal matter. Secondly, even if it were, we'd still be free to post it. Wikipedia's editors aren't bound by confidentiality agreements. Equazcion (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section as well because it's unsourced. There was a link to the petition, which has barely over 100 signatures, and doesn't prove the existence of a notable controversy. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to Equazcion's inclusion of the Controversy section because it is a valid matter which is relevant to the subject of kgb_. The amount of signatures, whether it be 100 or even 1,000,000 signatures, is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRebelde (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can create an Internet petition, and that doesn't mean that the controversy is notable and widespread. If there really is a controversy, it shouldn't be hard to find an independent, reliable, real source, like a news site, to back it up. We can't verify the existence of notable controversy by an Internet petition. Kotiwalo (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone could stop reverting each other while the discussion is taking place. That would be one possible solution, for the time being. And please don't go warning each other with templates over this. It's a revert war and everyone deserves warnings, especially the anonymous reverters who've chosen not to even participate in the discussion.

Anyway. I'm not sure what the threshold is for a petition or controversy to be prominent enough to mention. However, bear in mind that this petition isn't your average petition for general public activism. It's not gonna get a million signatures because it's just for the employees of a certain company. "Significant" for something like this is a much lower number than it would be for a regular public petition. If there are 500 Special Agents, for example, then 150 signatures could be significant. Equazcion (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Online petitions are generally not reliable as sources because they can be created by anyone and are likely to be very biased (of course, exceptional numbers like hundreds of thousands and millions can be taken into account). Try to find that reliable source and I'll be glad to have it stay. If there's a notable controversy that is not limited to some very small group, I'm sure there are independent and reliable sources. Kotiwalo (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the petition is not restricted to the special agents only, anyone can sign it. Kotiwalo (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

To further oppose the unsourced section, we don't even know whether the wages in the section were correct. The only source we had for them was the petition, and since they can be created by anyone, it is possible that the numbers were made up. Kotiwalo (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Again: How is this article related to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Telecommunications?

Just because because the company provides directory assistance services it doesn't make it part of telecommunication! Telecommunication is about studying and enabling the technology for communication, and, in a more specific sense, the study of wave based communication over media such as cable, air, etc. Following your logic, any Internet based company providing online services would have to be attributed with this tag! Please remove the tag.

Thanks, cheers, Nageh (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I guess I can understand the rationale. As directory assistance is about enabling communication with intended receivers, one may understand it part of the field of telecommunications. I don't think it fits perfectly, but anyway... I won't argue. Nageh (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad you agree. Directory assistance goes way back in the history of the telephone. Dialing zero and getting an operator used to be the only way of making a call when you didn't know the number. Things have changed (in that people can now look up numbers themselves online), but directory assistance is very much still part of telecommunications. To futher comment on your earlier note, while I don't think internet companies in general are part of telecommunications, the minority that are in the Voice over IP business certainly can be part of it.Mattnad (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

User:Cs32en added a {{refimprove}} tag, which I removed. The article contains plenty of primary source references. For a mere non-interpretive description of the service, this is fine. The notability issue the user brought up in his AFD nomination is taken care of with the TIME.com reference, and for an article of this size and complexity, I don't think there is any dire need for more than that. Cs32en is nevertheless welcome to add more, which would be easy since several were listed for him at the AfD. Tagging a article to tell someone else to take care of a problem that only you see isn't constructive. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:47, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to using the primary and self-published sources, per WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS. However, the article should not be based predominantly on such sources. Therefore, the {{refimprove}} template is appropriate. The sources at the AfD were not listed "for me", as Equazcion (talk · contribs) says. The primary responsibility to add these sources should, of course, rest with those editors who created and expanded the article, and who are, presumably, more knowledgeable about the subject. That the lack of such sources in the article is a problem follows from a straightforward interpretation of Wikipedia policy. People who may be more interested in promoting the company do not see a problem with this and would rather stick with the self-published sources of the company. That's not what Wikipedia policy says, however.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who the sources were listed "for" (though they were indeed listed for you, in response to the concern that you brought in your AFD nomination). They were listed, and you can add them at any time. The responsibility for doing that does not merely rest with the editors who created or expanded the article. It falls on anyone who sees the lack of sources as a problem. This is a wiki, which means anyone and everyone contributes wherever they see a need, as much or as little as they like. You don't need to know about the subject to add sources. PS. I see no particular reason to think anyone who edited this article has an interest in promoting the company. Assume good faith, please. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:18, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)

The sources were listed as a contribution to the discussion. I think it is a valid assumption that those who add content to Wikipedia should be the first that are responsible to add good sources, although everyone else can do so, too. I also think that it is preferable to know something about a topic before working on an article about it. On the Assume good faith issue: I did not say that anyone who edited the article would have an interest in promoting the company. (Read again what I have actually written.) However, that various spellings for the Russian KGB ended up as redirects for the article on this company was quite obviously the result of edits that were intended to promote the company.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that as an obvious conclusion at all, but that's neither here nor there. Your assumption isn't valid regarding responsibility for adding sources. If you see a lack of sources, you don't then have grounds for demanding them from the editors who added the material -- unless you plan to challenge the added material. Citations only need to be added to a statement if someone seeks to challenge them. People are actually allowed to add all the content they want without providing citations, so long as the added material isn't dubious or contentious. As far as knowing about the topic, it may be necessary to know something about a complex topic, but there's isn't much to know here. Read the article and read the source, and when you find matching facts, add a citation (if you think one is required). A little reading is all it takes here, again, if you feel there is some significant need for further citations. There are no "kgb_ text service experts" to consult on this topic. You're probably as much an expert on this as anyone else here, with the excetion of people who work for the company, whom you don't want editing the article anyway. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:52, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)

"Special Agents"

"Special Agents" is a promotional description used by the company. Obviously, the independent contractors are not agents, neither in an informal sense, nor in a formal sense (they are contractors, not agents).  Cs32en Talk to me  20:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the intent (promotional or otherwise), we've already explicitly stated further up that it's merely a term the company uses to refer to that type of employee. Doing that once along with quotes is enough. Quotes don't need to be present for every use of the term. People will have already gotten the message. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:53, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to adopt the promotional language by the company, whether that is being explained somewhere else in the article or not. We, as an encyclopedia, use terms that are the most exact and most common. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain specialized knowledge in words that everyone can understand. Calling the independent contractors "Special Agents" is misleading.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not misleading if we explain what the company uses the term for. Proprietary language is actually used often in articles. If a company has its own name for a technology or specification, for example, we first define that term and then proceed to use it throughout the article, whether the term is meant to promote the company or not (a judgment we don't even make). The same goes here. I think you're taking the whole promotion prevention thing a bit too far. If a term happens to help promote a company, that's not a reason to specifically avoid using it. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:14, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

This would be fine if this were a proprietary term that is being used to describe something that cannot be easily described by non-specialized language. However, the company created this term not to better describe the independent contractors, but to obfuscate what they actually do.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if that were a valid conclusion, I don't see what difference it makes. Also, I'm not sure that what they do can be easily described without the specialized language... When you removed that language, you replaced it with "those who provide answers the queries". Does that really benefit the article? It's simpler to just use their language. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:27, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Is the use of the term "Special Agents" promotional?

There is a disagreement of whether the term "Special Agents" used by the company "Knowledge Generation Bureau" (KGB) is promotional, and whether Wikipedia should avoid using this term to describe independent contractors working for this company.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO the article should avoid overly use of the term. Rephrasing when possible is certainly desirable as it will deliver a more neutral touch. However, in the paragraph concerned use of the term is acceptable as it provides more clarity. It is also okay to put the first occurrence in the paragraph under quotes to point out its specific meaning; there is no requirement to put the second occurrence under quotes. My 2 cents. Nageh (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses companies' job titles to add information to articles. See Apple Store and Wal-Mart for examples. Using job titles means the article can be clear. As long as we explain what the job entails, the article is more informative if the description of "who does what" is precise. The other option is to create a long job description, which wouldn't add any more information than we already have, but which would remove the clarity that comes from a shorter term. On the main question, I believe the term is informative and more clear than the alternative option, as long as the job description is explained at the first use of the job title. Whether or not it is promotional does not matter. One can argue that any article about an organisation is inherently promotional. The role of Wikipedia is to be clear and informative, not to promote or to refrain from promoting. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Seems like a petty thing to raise a dispute about. As it is used currently I don't see it as promotional and it is more precise than employee, which could mean people doing other things. Agree with AtSwim. II | (t - c) 08:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a riff on "kgb" as spy/secret police agency, and is meant to play on "secret agent". There's nothing particularly "special" about them and it's used by kgb in their press releases about the service. Another way of looking at it, if we use the term "special agent", how is different from "agent" in when using encylopedic NPOV. In reality, they don't even qualify as agents in the typical sense. They are work at home piece workers getting paid pennies an answer. Hardly special or agent.Mattnad (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hyped up

This article seems very hyped up. This company can't be all that great considering the amount of people who have smart phones. It all seems like a scam to me. This article is definitely not NPOV. 75.221.105.139 (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Mattnad (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Promotional" language

This was discussed above at length. The vast majority of outside input we got from the RFC indicated that using the company's terms for its employees was fine, and not promotional. Why someone is still editing according to their own opinion and ignoring the consensus here is beyond me. But I hope it stops. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Which RFC are you referring to? The discussions on this talk page do not indicate a vast majority of anything. I will say it's a bit unusual for a Wikipedia article to go into such detail about specific job titles, but given that it needs to draw upon press releases to get these terms indicates to me these terms are probably not notable, per well established Wiki Sourcing Guidelines:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully."

So coming back to this, we are we even getting into their job descriptions with their unique (and promotional) titles? Mattnad (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The section above, #Is the use of the term "Special Agents" promotional?, was an RFC, and everyone who came to comment, aside from you, agreed that the answer is "no". We're getting into their job descriptions in the context of how the service operates. The information is sourced via primary sources, which is all that's really needed when you're talking about what a company calls its employees. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I read the discussion a bit differently. From what I can tell, two people thought it was overly promotional (Cs32en and me), Nageh felt it was OK to mention once, but then use standard terms, AtSwimTwoBirds and II (Imperfectly informed) and you thought it was OK to use their terminology, although AtSwimTwoBirds proposed an extreme alternative of saying only "employee" for his/her reasons for defaulting to the promotional language. However, the version that limited the promo-speak did an excellent job of explaining roles without resorting to jargon. This previous version that you reverted from was in the middle ground where "Special Agents" is used once in the first paragraph. I'm in favor of that even if it's tending towards an Advertisement. The version you now have in place offers no such compromise. But really - why again are we pushing what the company calls it's employees when that's done for advertising purposes? Mattnad (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

AtSwimTwoBirds put it nicely above: "Whether or not it is promotional does not matter. One can argue that any article about an organisation is inherently promotional. The role of Wikipedia is to be clear and informative, not to promote or to refrain from promoting." There are lots of promotional aspects of companies that will nevertheless be necessary to use in articles. We don't need to specifically avoid a term just because the company uses it for that purpose, and to do so would not be NPOV. Again, for many articles on companies that have proprietary terms for their various aspects, we do use them in our articles, whether an argument can be made that they were chosen for promotional reasons or not. In fact, it's original research to even claim that it was chosen for that reason to begin with. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not OR to limit how promotional wikipedia articles are for a business. This section even includes disclaimers that prices do not include carrier charges for text service. SwinTwoBirds' observation that an article of a business is somewhat promotional does not open the door for everything a business says about itself. I'm seeking a better balance which I believe has been lost and makes the section a little over the top. Your latest edit was the tipping point for me.Mattnad (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)