Talk:Level 3 Communications/Archives/2012

Unstable servers?

Perhaps we should mention something about the notorious instability of Level3's dialup servers. They don't seem to have the ability to handle the traffic surges they get in the evenings... --Aurochs

Thanks for that. I'm with a company that shall not be named and wondering why the hell level 3 pops suck so much. We're moving everyone over to global pops. --Nyxxxx 00:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Aurochs? Why do you keep cutting the blurb? It's true. Level 3 is also a very friendly ISP for spam and adult hosting providers. This is the backbone provider to Neucom Inc. (aka City-Guide aka CandidHosting) [1] They've been continuously notified that this reseller in Tampa is abusing the internet.[2] [3] Yet they continue their relationship because it is so profitable. If you want to resell to porn providers this is the ISP for you.-Jack92129

I keep removing it because it's blatantly POV and unencyclopedic. I see no reason to include this info here. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

How about if I cut the POV stuff? -Jack92129

Much better, but I still don't think this belongs... --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

Where else would you post information about this company that doesn't respond to internet admin complaints? I feel this is topical. I'd certainly want to know about their efforts to comply with their written policy before purchasing stock in the company. --Jack92129

WP:NOT a financial research institute. (I guess that would fall under "indiscriminate collection of information".) --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

You should cite EXAMPLES (not opinion) of their inability to resolve complaints, and it would be cool to include.

Also, somebody should add some paragraphs on L3's pre-communications origins as a coal mining company.

What about the Cogent - Level3 fight that precipitated discussion around "internet partitioning"?

Name Origin

Where does the company derive its name from?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.119.66 (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_company_name_etymologies#L The name Level 3 is a reference to the "network layer" of the OSI model.

...advertising, anyone?

Sooo, this article has become an advertisement. Anyone else notice that? I'm tagging it as such - this is pretty blatant, as far as they go. --Ultraxiv

I believe the last set of edits was by the PR department. The information about its origin as part of the Kiewit Group was cut, which seems odd and pointless. Shall we return to the previous version by Nbach? Acroterion _(talk) 11:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

GOOG 411

Is this the level 3 that Goog 411 talks about? User:Kushal_one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.163.1 (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Buy this stock??

It says in the first section "With the Director of White House persnoell; being a former member of Level 3's BOD, I suggest this stock to be a strong buy. Seeing as how in the past, the WH's problems with E-mail (sending, storing,and receiving); level 3 is expected to boost it's capability to world class standards. At the same time it's ability to interface with the rest of the world; a seamless transition is expected. So in my opinion, investing in this stock will be nothing other than a positive move. With this stock closing on Friday 2/27/09 at .80, a $10,000.00 investment may return a five fold return in as little as one (1) month." That should be removed and someone should replace that. (Jeffreyjoh (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

Page vandalism

This page is obviously being vandalized. Though I agree the last revisions are an advertisement and need to have more citations the other revisions are blatant attempts at embarrassing the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarmey (talk • contribs) 00:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: I've reordered the sections on this page into the conventional order for a talk page.

I think you should assume good faith rather than accuse people of vandalism. If you take a look at the recent edits of User:Fleetham you will find he has been adding citations, and removing paragraphs of uncited material. He has also been adding the glassdoor survey to the lead section of Gibson Guitar Corporation, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, LexisNexis, Level 3 Communications, AutoZone, The Hertz Corporation, Spherion, Dominion Enterprises and Rain Bird, which appears to give a rather bizarre emphasis (IMHO), especially for Level 3. Various editors are discussing the prominent role of this survey with him to try to persuade him that it is not appropriate to give it such prominence. See User Talk:Fleetham and Talk:Fastenal for recent discussion. No doubt he will be happy to engage in a constructive discussion on this page, as he suggested this on one of his edit summaries. I believe the consensus is not to have the glassdoor survey in the lead paragraph, but no doubt he will give us his opinion here. - Ttwaring (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Last Paragraph is broken

- link shows that Level3 is in the top 50 BEST companies to work for, yet is cited as showing that they are amongst the worst.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.103.45 (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Article emphasis

There seems to be a strange emphasis in this article, as the $1.24 billion acquisition of TelCove Inc. in 2006 has been repeatedly removed between January and April this year. On the other hand, a "worst employers" survey from "glassdoor.com" has had a prominent place, despite a potentially low number of respondents (25 or more), and the lack of a follow-up in 2010 or 2011. Note that glassdoor has continued to post "top employers" league tables for 2010 and 2011, but not the "worst employers" table. Web searching shows that this an isolated report of employee unhappiness at Level 3 and maybe the emphasis here is wrong. There are currently two editors edit-warring, and telling each other to respond on this talk page. Perhaps they could contribute to this section and reach a consensus. - Ttwaring (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to the TelCove acquisition's inclusion. Fleetham (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If no one objects, I will replace the removed material. Fleetham (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My objection is that inclusion gives a strange emphasis to an isolated survey. On seeing the survey as a section in the article, people who actually know about Level 3 have been assuming it is vandalism (see various edit summaries). I hope we can be objective about its inclusion/exclusion - [4]. - Ttwaring (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"people who actually know about Level 3 have been assuming it is vandalism" What? I've never seen that. I think that's reading a bit too deeply into edit summaries. Let's not equate a well-sourced section with vandalism. No reason not to include it. I don't think your "a strange emphasis" argument holds much weight. Fleetham (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at the comments "Restoring from pre grudge error", and "This page was obviously vandalized; none of the changes made are relavent and someone is looking to embarrass this company." There is also an accusation of vandalism on this talk page, where I defended your edits. Obviously your edits are not vandalism, but giving the article a bizarre emphasis is probably not a good thing. - Ttwaring (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I really do object to your characterizing the section as one which lends "a bizarre emphasis" to the page. Relevant language:

• WP:WEIGHT

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view"

"For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

If reliable sources can be found that support the majority view as one of L3 being a good place to work, than I agree we should continue this discussion, per WP:VALID

• WP:VALID

"Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship." (emphasis my own))

Again, we don't know what the mainstream view on L3's treatment of employees is, so we can't say the glassdoor survey is an "extraordinary claim" or even if it's a "minority view". Fleetham (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." This is an isolated criticism, and it has very little significance (compared to debt, fiber distance, acquisitions, etc.) to the article topic. It is best to leave it out of the article. - Ttwaring (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Employee sentiment is just as important as those other things you've mentioned. We've come to an impasse; it's simply my opinion v. yours. There's no reason not to include the information. Fleetham (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be an isolated bit of criticism, but it's not disproportionate in significance. Fleetham (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

From the small number of sources available, it would appear that employee sentiment is *not* as important. The article emphasis should reflect this. As a comparison, this article [5] appears as the 68th reference to a Google search for '"level 3 communications" debt'. - Ttwaring (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider a top-ten ranking as the "worst employer in America" disproportional to include. Many articles about companies include employee satisfaction rankings.

• SAS
• Boston Consulting Group article includes "best employer" ranking in its lead
• Wegmans Food Markets, Inc does likewise
• Google
• the NetApp article includes a "Work environment" section, and includes its employee satisfaction ranking in its lead
• Zappos.com
• Camden Property Trust
• Nugget Markets article includes employee treatment in its "history" section
• Edward Jones Investments
• Scottrade
• Alston & Bird
• Robert W. Baird & Co.
• USAA
• The Container Store article mentions the company's rankings in its lead

Employee satisfaction rankings are not disproportional to other information when present in a company's article and often see inclusion in articles about companies. Fleetham (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You are not comparing like with like. Whole chapters of books have been written about the way employees are treated at many of these companies. SAS is probably a case study for MBAs, and I remember hearing about their employee satisfaction on NPR [6]. For Level 3 there is a one-off, never-repeated survey, and virtually no other search results. - Ttwaring (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is that it's not disproportional to include it. It isn't only the SAS article that includes such information. It's totally normal for employee treatment to be included in an article on a company. Doing so is not disproportional. In fact it's common. Fleetham (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's common for articles where employee satisfaction is a notable and widely-discussed aspect of the company (SAS, etc.). That does not apply here, as a web search shows. Compare and contrast the search results for 'wegmans employees' and '"level 3 communications" employees' - Ttwaring (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it's just common to include a workplace satisfaction ranking where one exists. Here's another list of articles on companies that include a section on workplace satisfaction and a workplace satisfaction ranking.

• Goldman Sachs
• Whole Foods Market
• Quicken Loans
• W. L. Gore & Associates
• Chesapeake Energy
• QuikTrip
• Genentech
• Scripps Health
• PCL Construction
• American Fidelity Assurance
• Devon Energy
• Intuit
• TDIndustries
• Novo Nordisk
• American Express
• Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts
• Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta
• Mayo Clinic
• Deloitte
• FactSet Research Systems

Fleetham (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I don't think this is comparing like with like. "The company also has been on Fortune Magazine's 100 Best Companies to Work For list since the list was launched in 1998" is quite a noteworthy fact. - Ttwaring (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

PLease be objective about this. It's common to include a workplace satisfaction ranking, and therefore the source does not fail WP:WEIGHT. It's not disproportional to include such a ranking. I believe I've provided sufficient examples for an objective decision to be made. Fleetham (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Every company is as unique as a snowflake and all, the point is that including a workplace satisfaction ranking in an article about a company is common practice. Fleetham (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Level 3, this survey is an isolated criticism. It might be used as an example for the policy you quoted above - "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." The fact that employee satisfaction is more notable at other companies is not a reason to add this one-off survey to this article. - Ttwaring (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying because the criticism is isolated it shouldn't be included? Fleetham (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The key word in the policy you originally quoted is "disproportionate". Including the survey gives a misleading emphasis to the article, as employee satisfaction has received virtually no coverage apart from this one-off survey. Level 3 is not notable in this area, although it is notable for topics in the rest of the article. - Ttwaring (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No, isolation does not equal dis-proportionality. In fact the policy in question specifically separates them. An isolated criticism can be verifiable, neutral, and proportionate. In fact, this one is all four. Fleetham (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The WP:WEIGHT policy allows isolated criticism if it is verifiable, neutral, and proportionate.This one is all four. Fleetham (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To recap why I don't think this should be included:

• You haven't brought forward any other Level 3 references at all
• Level 3 is not in any way known (positively or negatively) for labor relations. Huge debt - yes, huge network - yes, acquiring companies - yes, employees - no.
• The survey was crowd-sourced and the "bottom 25" list was only published once (January 2009, based on crowd-sourced input, possibly with as few as 25 employees, in 2008). It has not been published since.

We can set aside your references to companies which have well-known, MBA-studied, multi-referenced, multi-year and non-crowd-sourced employee studies, backed up by many Google-searchable references to employee happiness or unhappiness. Having done this I don't see what is supporting your assertion that this is "proportionate". - Ttwaring (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'n not quite sure I understand your argument. Are you are saying the methodology means the survey is "disproportionate"? Fleetham (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As this has been discussed at some length, this seems like a good time to involve a third party, especially as the Removal of information that portrays company in an unfavorable light section you added suggests that editors may not be maintaining a neutral point of view. From this comment it seems like it would be best for you, as the person seeking to restore material, to ask someone independent to assess the extent to which NPOV is or is not being maintained here. - Ttwaring (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputes

Having a significant portion of the wikipedia page devoted to disputes wouldn't portray an unfair or biased view of level 3 would it? I feel that these disputes aren't inherently negative so the fact that about half the page is devoted to this topic is justified. Raimi.michael (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly an important battle for Level 3, so the coverage doesn't seem unreasonable. One interesting side note is that Netflix now claims more subscribers than Comcast [7]. - Ttwaring (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The disputes section of this page is repetitive. Both the first and third paragraphs cite the December 8 letter. 155.95.90.253 (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of information that portrays company in an unfavorable light

On several occasions an editor has removed material referencing "worst employer in America" rankings and this company's appearance on a "bottom rung credit rating list" complied by Moodys.

As these are "actual events" and well sourced as well, I implore future editors to keep a neutral point of view.

Thanks, Fleetham (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I was the last editor to remove the glassdoor.com survey. This was because there was an edit war going on with two editors who referred each other to the talk page, but were apparently unwilling to actually start a section discussing their disagreement. After a discussion was started on this page, the survey was removed in April, and there has been no consensus to restore it in the last 7 months. If there is any new data, then it could either be added to the Article emphasis section (which I've just updated), or a new section below. - Ttwaring (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there was any consensus to remove it! Fleetham (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)