Talk:LexisNexis Risk Solutions/Archives/2016

Untitled

ChoicePoint has been criticized for a bias in favor of the Republican Party, for knowingly using inaccurate data, and for racial discrimination. Allegations include listing voters as felons for alleged crimes said to have been committed several years in the future. In addition, people who had been convicted of a felony in a different state and had their rights restored by said state, were not allowed to vote despite the restoration of their rights. (One should note Schlenther v. Florida Department of State (June 1998) which ruled that Florida could not prevent a man convicted of a felony in Connecticut, where his civil rights had not been lost, from exercising his civil rights.) Furthermore, it is argued that people were listed as felons based on a coincidence of names, despite other data (such as date of birth) which showed that the criminal record did not apply to the voter in question.

Who made these criticisms and claims, and what proof have they offered? Was it Greg Palast? If so, cite him as the source. --Uncle Ed 17:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A lot of people have made these criticisms. Pretty much anyone who thinks the 2000 election was "rigged" has made these accusations. People who think Choicepoint did not allow them to vote, they have made these accusations. Do you really think removing the text is the proper way to discuss this? Is it too much to ask that you take a moment and contact the author of the text; instead of just removing it and potentially having nobody ever notice what you did? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Vanity Edits and talk page blanking

I reverted vanity edits by an anonymous user from a ChoicePoint IP 66.241.32.160. I also reverted a full blanking done from this same IP of this Talk page. Here's the WHOIS output on that IP:

OrgName:    ChoicePoint, Inc. 
OrgID:      CHOICE-30
Address:    1000 Alderman Drive
City:       Alpharetta
StateProv:  GA
PostalCode: 30005
Country:    US

NetRange:   66.241.32.0 - 66.241.63.255 
CIDR:       66.241.32.0/19 
NetName:    CPS-NET00
NetHandle:  NET-66-241-32-0-1
Parent:     NET-66-0-0-0-0
NetType:    Direct Assignment
NameServer: ADAM.CHOICEPOINT.NET
NameServer: EVE.CHOICEPOINT.NET
Comment:    
RegDate:    2003-08-22
Updated:    2003-08-22

TechHandle: ZN102-ARIN
TechName:   NETSYS 
TechPhone:  +1-770-752-3550
TechEmail:  netsys@choicepoint.net 

OrgTechHandle: ZN102-ARIN
OrgTechName:   NETSYS 
OrgTechPhone:  +1-770-752-3550
OrgTechEmail:  netsys@choicepoint.net

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2005-07-19 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

Play nice, people, please. --NightMonkey 05:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like we have a registered vandal in the form of new user User:Gcomer, who did the same basic vandalism and heavily biased edits as 66.241.32.160. I'll figure out if and how we call an admin in to investigate and ban Gcomer. I'd love to know if Gcomer is coming in from a ChoicePoint IP address... --NightMonkey 19:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Just to note - a second attempt to vanity vandalize the artcle from 66.241.32.160 was attempted, and reverted. Thanks for playing. --NightMonkey 23:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

And now again, more ChoicePoint edits from 66.241.32.160. Reverting edit with highly biased and non-NPOV language, and deletion of text. --NightMonkey 07:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

ChoicePoint respects Night Monkey's right to his own opinion; however, it is important to view both sides of any issue. For that reason, ChoicePoint has allowed Night Monkey's inaccurate comments to remain, and instead of removing them altogether, has provided additional information for readers so they can learn the whole story about the company. We hope this clears up any confusion. ChoicePoint 14:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So nice of you to hold back from vandalizing my comments. ;) You should be sure to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before making edits on Wikipedia, if you wish to not cause yourself undue grief. Specifically, some polices which would be apropos here is in WP:NPOV section entitled "12.1 There's no such thing as objectivity", and WP:NOR, which requires that text have citations from reputable and verifiable sources. Arguing that "It's a Fact!", as you do in some of your edit's comments, doesn't hold here as a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. I think that we can work together with you to create a better article, but it is important to note that building consensus among editors is a cornerstone of the better articles, especially with respect to controversial topics.

Also, please respect the Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule. This is one of the few official polices which have specific and quick punishments for editors. You have already reverted reversions five times, as of this writing, and will quickly get you banned from editing if you persist. I will not report you now, as you are a newly registered user, but if you persist, you will be reported. --NightMonkey 23:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, man, this is getting tedious. I reverted yet another reversion to material added by User:ChoicePoint by User:70.34.139.43. I should describe this edit. This edit contains material which is not written in an encyclopedic style, is heavily biased, and does not cite sources. The edit also deleted references to the Pennsylvania contract controversy, and new external links that I added. Please do not re-add it, but feel free to discuss it here. We *do* want to have a better article, but this material detracts from the article, it does not enhance it. No individual, corporate individual or human, can just "make statements" in article text. Both this anonymous editor editing from 70.34.139.43 and User:ChoicePoint really need to read up on what Wikipedia is all about (via official policies and guidelines) before making further edits. Let's not start an edit war here. Thanks.

I also need to note that just because a user registered with a user name of "ChoicePoint" doesn't mean we can assume that the user is indeed a representative of ChoicePoint, Inc. How do we know that ChoicePoint is being officially represented by this account? Even if it is an account from a user editing from a ChoicePoint IP, how do we know this is someone who is actually authorized by ChoicePoint, Inc. to speak on behalf of the corporation? Is the editor the CEO, or the janitor? I just want to warn this user that if they *are* a ChoicePoint employee, they really should check with their supervisors to make sure that they do not embarrass their employer, which could potentially have a negative effect on their employment. This *is* the Internet, after all, and the Internet rarely forgets... --NightMonkey 02:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This account was created by the ChoicePoint Corporate Marketing & Communications department, at the direction of the Chief Marketing Officer, so I am, in fact, authorized to post information for the company and have been directed to clarify erroneous information about ChoicePoint. Our concern, as a company, is that Wikipedia is being viewed by users as a valid reference source, but how can that be possible when any person (whether they have knowledge of ChoicePoint or not) can post information - which others then view as fact? In the interest of knowledge, why wouldn't readers want to view information from all sides? We specifically did not remove NightMonkey's information, but instead, added a ChoicePoint Response section - which is clearly written from the company's perspective. That is why we specifically gave it that title. So, in the interest of fairness, it would be nice to give ChoicePoint an opportunity to present its own side of the stories shown on this page. While NightMonkey quotes sources that have always been ChoicePoint's detractors, we think Wikipedia readers could benefit from information that comes directly from the source - ChoicePoint itself. ChoicePoint 14:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Press release removed

I removed this:

ChoicePoint's Official Responses

Fraud Incident

A story in The Wall Street Journal on May 3 incorrectly reports that, in relation to the recent fraud incident, that data had been illegally downloaded on millions of people. This error is based on testimony from a criminal hearing in December 2004. Since that time, law enforcement investigators have stated they agree with ChoicePoint’s estimate that approximately 145,000 consumers may have had their personal information improperly accessed.

ChoicePoint takes fraud seriously. We have provided benefits to potentially affected consumers that no other information company had done before and that several companies have since emulated – including voluntary nationwide notification, dedicated call centers and Web sites, free credit reports and one year of credit monitoring.

ChoicePoint recently formed a partnership with the Identity Theft Resource Center – a leading non-profit organization dedicated exclusively to assisting identity theft victims. Most importantly, ChoicePoint has shifted its focus to ensuring its products and services provide a direct benefit to consumers or to society as a whole. While this has meant exiting an entire market, the company decided that consumer interests must come first and foremost.

Florida Voter Issue

It is a false assertion to say that ChoicePoint was involved in the pre-2000 election review of the Florida voter rolls. The company retained by the state of Florida was DBT, which ChoicePoint subsequently purchased after DBT’s work was done for the state. DBT, which had been hired by Katherine Harris’ predecessor, was to produce a list of potentially deceased voters, those who were registered in more than one county and those who may have a felony record. That list was given to the state for review and verification by state and county election officials. Under Florida law, only a county election official could remove a potential voter from the registry -- not DBT.

A person’s race was not part of the review criteria, and DBT had advised Florida officials that the state’s review criteria would misidentify some individuals as felons and that the list was to be reviewed and verified by state and county election officials before anyone would be removed from the voter registry.

C.L.U.E.®

C.L.U.E. (Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange) is a loss history information exchange that is maintained by ChoicePoint on behalf of property and casualty insurers. C.L.U.E. enables insurance companies to access prior loss history of applicants during the underwriting and rating process. C.L.U.E. Personal Property helps insurers qualify applicants and properties for homeowner coverage. C.L.U.E. also helps insurers reduce costs, speed coverage decisions and detect fraud.

C.L.U.E. provides many important benefits to consumers. Insurance applicants receive a fairer rate based on their specific loss history – not the generic loss history of broad classes. Consumers can obtain copies of their C.L.U.E. report, which provides valuable information during the insurance shopping process and when buying and selling a home. For example, potential homebuyers can request that the seller provide a copy of a C.L.U.E. report associated with the property before deciding to buy. This report can help to identify hidden losses that don’t appear on a seller’s disclosure form.

C.L.U.E. reports contain up to five years of personal property losses matching the search criteria submitted by the inquiring insurance company. Data provided in C.L.U.E. reports includes policy information such as name, address and policy number, and claim information such as date of loss, type of loss and amounts paid.

More than 90 percent of insurers writing homeowners coverage provide claims data to the C.L.U.E. Personal Property database. By providing interactive information, C.L.U.E. Personal Property helps insurers and agents make immediate business decisions and helps applicants obtain fairer rates."

Problems? Here's a few:

• The voice of the text often speaks from a 1st person perspective (e.g. "We have provided benefits..."). This appears to readers like Wikpedia is making the statements. This is a big no-no.
• Opinions as blanket statements. Wikipedia would never say something like "ChoicePoint takes fraud seriously." How does Wikipedia know that? Ah, ChoicePoint says so. So, because ChoicePoint says so, Wikipedia can say so, right? Nope. We need *reputable*, *verifiable* sources for a statement such as this. I can't walk into ChoicePoint and confirm this. A major university cannot send a research team into ChoicePoint to scientifically verify this and publish their independent results. So, on that basis, it is not verifiable. As far as being a reputable source, last I checked, ChoicePoint was not a reputable source for generally unbiased reporting and research, like, say, the New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC News, Harvard University, etc.
• There are no references/citations to reputable and verifiable sources
• There are many components which are just sales pitches ("C.L.U.E. provides many important benefits to consumers."). Another big no-no here.
• References to specific statistics ("More than 90 percent of insurers..."), without links to corroberating published peer-reviewed studies, or other independent research outlets.

And, again, we cannot just trust that the user ChoicePoint *is* ChoicePoint authorized. But, that is tangential to the big problem we've got going here. *Every* Wikipedia Editor must familliarize themselves with Wikipedia Policy. The continued pushing of your biased and non-encyclopedic text into the article shows that you are not educating yourself/yourselves in what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Please do so before making further edits which do not reflect the spirit of Wikipedia.

P.S. You refer above to my "comments", and preserving them. I realized after reading that again that you may believe that I've written this entire article. I have contributed to this article, but there are dozens of other editors who have added here, and I didn't even start the article, IIRC. So, you may be under the impression that you are only working with one editor. You are not. There are editors who have added much more content here than I. --NightMonkey 20:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

NightMonkey - please check your e-mail. I have e-mailed you to attempt to resolve this situation. You can rest assured that I am authorized to post ChoicePoint information, as you will see from my e-mail. And while you note that you are just one editor, you seem to be the primary editor who keeps changing our information, which is why I have contacted you. I look forward to having a productive discussion so we can move on. ChoicePoint 21:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the e-mail. I think that there is room to make progress, but it is important to follow Wikipedia policies, and, to a lesser extent, guidelines, in adding information to the article. If ChoicePoint believes, deep in it's heart, that there is information that needs to be presented here about itself, there is a way. Find a 3rd party source for the material you wish to add, and refer to that source in the text, rather than making blanket statements.

Let me give you an example. Let's say that I'm searching about myself, NightMonkey, through the Wikipedia. I find an article about me, that is an OK article, except that it says I'm colored blue. And it has references to articles that say I'm blue. Well, I'm ticked off now, for sure. But, I cannot just remove that information, or add my personal statement that I'm not blue. Why? WP:NPOV. However, I Google, or even go down to the Public Library, and find a reference that says, correctly, that I'm actually "green". What's more, the references I found were way more reputable than the dirty, dirty blogs that say I'm blue. So, yay, I can now put in a reference to an article that says "While there have been reports on blogs (dailyKos entry link)(ihatenightmonkey.com entry link) that NightMonkey is blue, Cambridge University's Professor Pallette published a whitepaper which discussed his discovery that NightMonkey is actually sea-green.(MSNBC link)(LA Times article link)(...)" Make sense?

I also hope that ChoicePoint realizes that it has no additional rights here than any other user, and cannot add text to articles justifying it because it is "Corporate information", which you have tried to do. Wouldn't it be silly if I could add stuff here, justifying it because it is my "Personal Information"? ChoicePoint "Corporate" information has no intrinsic value over any other information here - remember that Wikipedia is an external entity to ChoicePoint, Inc.... All are Equal before the Official Policies. You cannot carve out a part of Wikipedia and declare that part of it is for ChoicePoint Use Only. *Please* read the policies before re-adding this information without sources which meet Wikipedia criteria. I will revert any further additions, in it's current state. Note that I *did not* remove all of your edits, just the ones which are clearly unencyclopedic and unverifiable. --NightMonkey 21:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't revert, since I would go over the 3RR rule, which User:ChoicePoint seems happy to violate. Anyone else care to assist? Thanks. --NightMonkey 21:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just tagged section with NPOV and Original Research. --NightMonkey 22:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed this section. It is unencyclopedic, written like a press release, violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. If we want a section outlining ChoicePoint's response to these issues, it should be written as a brief narrative of events with citations to press releases or news reports. --mtz206 (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

_------------ anyone actualyl use this site? It offers a free vin check, but it wants my Social Security number, date of birth, first name, last name and address? Isnt that eactly enough for identity fraud? Should this company be trusted?

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:LexisNexis Risk Solutions/Archives/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I was just reviewing the recent edits to this page and I noticed some issues with the links provided as footnotes. I was curious about the terms used so tried the ones in question, 41 and 42, and found that not only are they invalid and lead 404 errors, they are links to the company's own website. It hardly seems unbiased to have them verifying their own propaganda. In addition, the link for footnote 40 is invalid as well. I didn't check them all, but someone ought to.

Substituted at 21:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)