 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.statsoft.com and http://www.statsoftpower.com. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2009041610055834. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en  wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission. |
This seems like an awful lot of self-promotion/company brochureware to me.
Others? I am too new at Wikipedia to make a unilateral decision.
I wish you'd signed your post...
If you have a look at the edit history and talk page for Statistica and Talk:STATISTICA you'll see the long discussion I had with User:EntropyAS over that page. Yes, the Statsoft page still reads a bit (read: LOTS) like a company brochure, but I decided that, as a gesture of good faith, that I'd turn a blind eye to the Statsoft page after the work User:EntropyAS put in. I know there are rules, but I figure that we have a major win already.
It's probably instructive to see the edit war in the history for the Statistica to see what you're in for if you just keep editing it. I found that clearly explaining to User:EntropyAS what I saw as the problems led to him/her fixing the page, whereas reverting every day didn't really get anyone anywhere.
Ultimately it's up to you if you want to pursue a cleanup of this article. I don't think it's perfect (far from it), but I do acknowledge the effort that the Statsoft/EntopyAS people have put in towards working with WP Johnpf 01:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the unsigned post that this page is self-promotional and of little information value. Wikipedia can do without this entry. Theodoros 87.17.215.55 (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I had hoped to read some objective evidence about the qualities of StatSoft, but this is simply a blatant unpaid advertisement. Why do we have to keep up with this sort of totally misleading information in a forum to which people turn for objective information? I suggest that the editor add to the StatSoft text that it is an advertisement. 82.95.243.177 (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Philip Quanjer
This article is helpful in that it tells us that Statsoft is a large, global company with many customers but doesn't help much with comparisons with other comparable statistical products in terms of quality, functionality, primary uses, or ease-of use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.87.11.239 (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I have edited and changed the article a bit, I think it is a much better improvement as compared to the previous.
(KyleAraujo (talk)User:KyleAraujo~) —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC).
I reverted the page to a state that is written in a neutral point of view. I hope this is a good starting point for addressing concerns. The two tags that were at the top are gone now, I didn't mean to circumvent any official processes of removing them. Let me know if there's a better way to do what I did (go to a old neutral revision and "Save") Best wishes. EntropyAS (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Added section about "Support for European Countries in Crisis" and 2 citations. This is recent news. Additional citations from more independent news sources will probably follow in the coming weeks. Karl (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)