![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I just wanted to place a note here stating that I removed a section of content that was pretty much identical in sources and content to the Career section of the Mike Zammuto page. Of course, we could removed that information from the Zammuto page and place it here instead, so I'm open to discussing it here if that is the consensus view. GenuineDiva ( talk) 15:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Being a top editor is not consensus. So, things were reverted to before you started destroying and twisting references a week ago. So make your case and well see if we can reach a consensus. -- BeloyiseBurron ( talk) 23:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
A vote is not consensus. Yes, it was and I tried to be fair, and am open to others who think the material can be added in an even more fair way. Though I would point out that we are discussing well-sourced material that was white-washing from the page and I am only one editor. While that makes it 2-1 on including the material, that's only an invitation for a messy slim decision margin. I think we need more people here (the more the better) to ensure the decision is the best possible. Of course, white-washing long-term on the behest of one editor isn't likely best for the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BeloyiseBurron ( talk • contribs)
This recent edit [1] by IHR.HIASO ( talk · contribs), and several previous attempts to perform a similar edit, raise some concerns. Changing "provides Internet search management, creating positive web articles about its clients in order to have them overtake negative news" to "connects clients and publishers to provide people with a news media outlet." looks rather promotional. Since the company, under its previous name of Reputation Changer, has well-cited reports of some rather sketchy activities, anything that looks promotional here is going to be viewed with some degree of suspicion. Please discuss here before making such changes. Thanks. John Nagle ( talk) 06:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BeloyiseBurron. SmartSE ( talk) 21:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
It was worth a check to see if the recent sockpuppets had a legitimate complaint. So, searching for recent "brand.com" news, the Seattle Times has a recent story (June 14, 2014) on brand.com: "City Light hires online results firm to polish its CEO’s image" [2]. City Light is a government agency, so the contract with "Brand.com" is a public record, and the details came out. "So City Light hired Brand.com, an online reputation-management company, to drown out critical stories in search results and replace them with happier items. .... City Light’s chief of staff, Sephir Hamilton, signed the contract with Brand.com in October, and extended it in February. The two contracts together authorized $47,500 for services through the end of this year. But a City Light spokesman said the city had paid only $17,500 to date and did not plan to spend more." So we now have a reliable source that shows that, as late as February 2014, "Brand.com" was still doing "reputation management". This contradicts some of the claims of the recent sockpuppets. -- John Nagle ( talk) 19:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
My name is Hannah and I am an employee of Brand.com and am trying to determine the best method to get the page accurate and up to date. I have written to Wikimedia General Counsel and they suggested that this was the best way to try to amend the page to make it more accurate and truthful, by disclosing my employment with Brand.com and seek to appeal to the editors who are monitoring the page. There is material that is on here that is not supported by references or accurate and yet it stays. Statements like ‘The company provides Internet search management, creating positive web articles about its clients in order to have them overtake negative news, and Wikipedia profile management’ are historic practices by Brand.com. Brand.com has shifted away from offering those services. Other statements are not accurate. ‘To help improve online reputations, Reputation Changer created its own positive content about its clients, in an attempt to force other less flattering articles about them down in Google search results.”
Though during this time the company had been accused of "making false claims" about the effectiveness of their services, the company insists that those claims are the result of rivals and not legitimate complaints. This includes the hiding of negative user-generated reviews for hotels and other commercial enterprises.’ are not neutral views. While Brand.com used to do some of the things listed, the company no longer offer majority of the services listed. The article is outdated and also doesn't appear neutral. How can this be fixed?
The goal is not to remove the previous posts, but simply to correct them, and describe what the company currently does. For example, the article located at http://www.inquisitr.com/1422726/consumers-want-their-advertising-to-tell-a-story-says-brand-com/ generally describes the new brand.com services. This has been the case since the spring of 2014. Lastly, the 22nd citation to the Percolate article is incorrect. Brand.com does not claim to have published stories on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Huff Post or Forbes. The article states that Brand.com has publishing partnerships with publishers “like” or such as the above mentioned online websites, not specifically with those sites. So, this statement is misleading as it misquotes the article. HannahBugs ( talk) 21:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
While we have moved away from those services in the spring, it is not an automatic thing that others can see. It is difficult to be seen as a new industry once you are have the reputation of being the top in your industry [10] [11]
To keep the article up to date and in line with consistent information is what I wanted to assist with. Many articles in Wikipedia that have not been reviewed by multiple editors suffer from inconsistencies and unverified information [12]. I thought it was important to assist in any way possible to eliminate those inconsistencies. While I do not believe that some of the sources are reliable or neutral, I understand that editors have to come to an agreement on material to get on the page or a census.
For reference, how long must something happen for it to be considered part of the company or not part of the company? Wikipedia had become a ‘news source because of its rapid updating of articles related to breaking news’ Wikipedia, but perhaps including recent news or events was also creating too many problems. HannahBugs ( talk) 20:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
First edit by new editor BOOMERrang80 ( talk · contribs) was to this article. [13] The content was promotional and was removed by another editor. Please watch for similar edits. Thanks. -- John Nagle ( talk) 06:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I just wanted to place a note here stating that I removed a section of content that was pretty much identical in sources and content to the Career section of the Mike Zammuto page. Of course, we could removed that information from the Zammuto page and place it here instead, so I'm open to discussing it here if that is the consensus view. GenuineDiva ( talk) 15:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Being a top editor is not consensus. So, things were reverted to before you started destroying and twisting references a week ago. So make your case and well see if we can reach a consensus. -- BeloyiseBurron ( talk) 23:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
A vote is not consensus. Yes, it was and I tried to be fair, and am open to others who think the material can be added in an even more fair way. Though I would point out that we are discussing well-sourced material that was white-washing from the page and I am only one editor. While that makes it 2-1 on including the material, that's only an invitation for a messy slim decision margin. I think we need more people here (the more the better) to ensure the decision is the best possible. Of course, white-washing long-term on the behest of one editor isn't likely best for the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BeloyiseBurron ( talk • contribs)
This recent edit [1] by IHR.HIASO ( talk · contribs), and several previous attempts to perform a similar edit, raise some concerns. Changing "provides Internet search management, creating positive web articles about its clients in order to have them overtake negative news" to "connects clients and publishers to provide people with a news media outlet." looks rather promotional. Since the company, under its previous name of Reputation Changer, has well-cited reports of some rather sketchy activities, anything that looks promotional here is going to be viewed with some degree of suspicion. Please discuss here before making such changes. Thanks. John Nagle ( talk) 06:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BeloyiseBurron. SmartSE ( talk) 21:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
It was worth a check to see if the recent sockpuppets had a legitimate complaint. So, searching for recent "brand.com" news, the Seattle Times has a recent story (June 14, 2014) on brand.com: "City Light hires online results firm to polish its CEO’s image" [2]. City Light is a government agency, so the contract with "Brand.com" is a public record, and the details came out. "So City Light hired Brand.com, an online reputation-management company, to drown out critical stories in search results and replace them with happier items. .... City Light’s chief of staff, Sephir Hamilton, signed the contract with Brand.com in October, and extended it in February. The two contracts together authorized $47,500 for services through the end of this year. But a City Light spokesman said the city had paid only $17,500 to date and did not plan to spend more." So we now have a reliable source that shows that, as late as February 2014, "Brand.com" was still doing "reputation management". This contradicts some of the claims of the recent sockpuppets. -- John Nagle ( talk) 19:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
My name is Hannah and I am an employee of Brand.com and am trying to determine the best method to get the page accurate and up to date. I have written to Wikimedia General Counsel and they suggested that this was the best way to try to amend the page to make it more accurate and truthful, by disclosing my employment with Brand.com and seek to appeal to the editors who are monitoring the page. There is material that is on here that is not supported by references or accurate and yet it stays. Statements like ‘The company provides Internet search management, creating positive web articles about its clients in order to have them overtake negative news, and Wikipedia profile management’ are historic practices by Brand.com. Brand.com has shifted away from offering those services. Other statements are not accurate. ‘To help improve online reputations, Reputation Changer created its own positive content about its clients, in an attempt to force other less flattering articles about them down in Google search results.”
Though during this time the company had been accused of "making false claims" about the effectiveness of their services, the company insists that those claims are the result of rivals and not legitimate complaints. This includes the hiding of negative user-generated reviews for hotels and other commercial enterprises.’ are not neutral views. While Brand.com used to do some of the things listed, the company no longer offer majority of the services listed. The article is outdated and also doesn't appear neutral. How can this be fixed?
The goal is not to remove the previous posts, but simply to correct them, and describe what the company currently does. For example, the article located at http://www.inquisitr.com/1422726/consumers-want-their-advertising-to-tell-a-story-says-brand-com/ generally describes the new brand.com services. This has been the case since the spring of 2014. Lastly, the 22nd citation to the Percolate article is incorrect. Brand.com does not claim to have published stories on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Huff Post or Forbes. The article states that Brand.com has publishing partnerships with publishers “like” or such as the above mentioned online websites, not specifically with those sites. So, this statement is misleading as it misquotes the article. HannahBugs ( talk) 21:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
While we have moved away from those services in the spring, it is not an automatic thing that others can see. It is difficult to be seen as a new industry once you are have the reputation of being the top in your industry [10] [11]
To keep the article up to date and in line with consistent information is what I wanted to assist with. Many articles in Wikipedia that have not been reviewed by multiple editors suffer from inconsistencies and unverified information [12]. I thought it was important to assist in any way possible to eliminate those inconsistencies. While I do not believe that some of the sources are reliable or neutral, I understand that editors have to come to an agreement on material to get on the page or a census.
For reference, how long must something happen for it to be considered part of the company or not part of the company? Wikipedia had become a ‘news source because of its rapid updating of articles related to breaking news’ Wikipedia, but perhaps including recent news or events was also creating too many problems. HannahBugs ( talk) 20:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
First edit by new editor BOOMERrang80 ( talk · contribs) was to this article. [13] The content was promotional and was removed by another editor. Please watch for similar edits. Thanks. -- John Nagle ( talk) 06:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)