![]() | A fact from Lexipol appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 12 July 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
- Though the LLC may be located in California, it looks like there physical headquarters is in Frisco, TX according to their own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.255.55 ( talk) 01:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
97198 (
talk)
15:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Created by Schazjmd ( talk). Self-nominated at 00:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC).
"Critics note that a decision made by Lexipol becomes policy in thousands of agencies and that there is little transparency into how the policy decisions are made" - I believe this should be limited to the Criticism section and not part of the lede given the non-neutral tone. Generally, many articles have a section on criticism but they are usually not a part of the lede. Perhaps if there are multiple WP:RS supporting this assertion, it makes for a stronger case to be in the lede? -- Molochmeditates ( talk) 22:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.Schazjmd (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I'm an employee at Lexipol and the 3,500 clients number is representative of policy clients as of 2019 only. Since the merger with Praetorian Digital, the number of agencies served is 8,100 - this includes, policy, training and grants support as of 2020. You can see this number on the Lexipol website ( https://www.lexipol.com/) and in Lexipol press releases (EX: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/03/06/1996516/0/en/Lexipol-and-PowerDMS-Announce-Integration-Partnership-to-Streamline-Public-Safety-Risk-Management-and-Compliance.html) Mchilds72 ( talk) 21:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello editors! User:Mchilds72 here to make suggestions on Lexipol's behalf. I know I must not edit the article directly myself, because of my paid conflict of interest (I am an employee). To stay aligned with the site's guidelines for editors like me, I'm here to discuss possible edits to the current entry with reviewing editors, and occasionally request that updates be made on my behalf. I'll post my queries and requests here on the article Talk page for feedback from the community.
In reviewing sources used in the current article, it seems there is much room for improvement. I am providing a few suggested details for updating the article below, along with secondary, Wikipedia-appropriate sources for verification. Are there any editors willing to help improve the article by replacing unsourced details (e.g. Founding) with better information and any acceptable sourcing that I've provided here? Additionally, there may be details below to expand on Services or improve sourcing in other sections as well. Reviewing editors are invited to make their own adjustments to the provided text while considering these changes, and feedback is welcome!
References
Thanks in advance for any assistance. Mchilds72 ( talk) 14:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello editors! User:Mchilds72 here to make suggestions on Lexipol's behalf. I know I must not edit the article directly myself, because of my paid conflict of interest (I am an employee). As noted in my previous edit requests and in order to stay aligned with the site's guidelines for editors like me, I'm here to discuss potential edits to the current entry with reviewing editors, and occasionally request that updates be made on my behalf.
I am submitting a few edit requests for the Services section in order to clarify Lexipol’s offerings and what industries they serve. I’ve incorporated information from sources already cited throughout the article, as well as added in a few new ones for review and feedback from the community. The goal is to ensure the information included is the most up-to-date and from recent, credible and Wikipedia-approved sources. I also wanted to see if it would be possible to include recent awards Lexipol has won, following the Wikipedia guideline of including only the awards that have their own Wikipedia pages. Reviewing editors are invited to make their own adjustments to the provided text while considering these changes, and feedback is welcome!
Thanks in advance for any assistance. Mchilds72 ( talk) 17:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Does this help? Let me know if I can provide any further clarification here. Thank you so much for your help! Mchilds72 ( talk) 20:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Thanks so much for your help on this, User:Schazjmd! Noted that this format is best for future edit requests, including references. On the second paragraph, that makes sense when it comes to transparency, but that was my bad - it was supposed to say "improving documentation."
I just had one quick question on the third paragraph update: The new addition currently contradicts the sentence directly following ("Subscribers are advised that the regular updates provided by the company will overwrite any customizations."). Since the new addition is from a more recent source and is providing different information, would it make sense to remove the sentence about overwriting customizations? Much appreciated, Mchilds72 ( talk) 19:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello! User:Mchilds72 here again to make suggestions on Lexipol's behalf. As noted in my previous edit requests and in order to stay aligned with the site's guidelines for editors like me with a conflict of interest (I am an employee), I'm here to discuss potential edits to the current entry with reviewing editors, and request updates.
I am submitting a few edit requests for the Expansion section in order to clarify a few points and add further context. I’ve incorporated information from sources already cited throughout the article, as well as added in a few new ones for review and feedback from the community. The goal is to ensure the information included is the most up-to-date and from recent, credible and Wikipedia-approved sources. Reviewing editors are invited to make their own adjustments to the provided text while considering these changes, and feedback is welcome!
Thanks in advance for any assistance. Mchilds72 ( talk) 20:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
References
GlobeNewswire News Room Jan 2021
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Riverside Aug 2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Crain's Cleveland Business Feb 2019
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).GlobeNewswire News Room Feb 2019
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
Yahoo Finance Dec 2020
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hello editors! User:Mchilds72 here to make suggestions on Lexipol's behalf. As noted in previous edit requests, I know I must not edit the article directly myself, because of my paid conflict of interest (I am an employee).
I wanted to reach out to request that the Criticism section be renamed to something else such as "Reception," per Wikipedia's guidelines on sections focusing on criticism/controversy. I appreciate your help! Mchilds72 ( talk) 14:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response and for the clarification on WP:Criticism. Because the “Criticism” section is about half of the article, we want to ensure the information is balanced and provides insight into all notable views evidenced in third party sources, so as to comply with the guideline, WP:Neutral point of view. Our aim is not to remove negative views or commentary, but to ensure the article provides a fair and proportionate summary of these significant views. As such, the goal of this request was to arrive at a more neutral name for this section and to allow these views to be summarized within it. Mchilds72 ( talk) 20:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! Excluding press releases, we’ve found several positive comments in the already-cited sources for this article. Would it be preferable that some of the positive views be incorporated beside the critiques/concerns in this section before seeking to rename it?
Examples of these views are below:
There are also positive comments on Lexipol’s wellness solution, Cordico:
As noted above, these comments are from sources already cited in the article. I can also supply examples of positive comments in additional sources. Please let us know what you believe is the best way to proceed here. Thanks in advance! Mchilds72 ( talk) 20:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks - I've updated the refs. Mchilds72 ( talk) 13:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi User:Schazjmd, just wanted to check in and see if those updates were what you were referring to and what your thoughts are on the Criticism section at large. Thank you! Mchilds72 ( talk) 14:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
Hello editors! User:Mchilds72 here to make suggestions on Lexipol's behalf. I know I must not edit the article directly myself, because of my paid conflict of interest (I am an employee). As noted in my previous edit requests and in order to stay aligned with the site's guidelines for editors like me, I'm here to discuss potential edits to the current entry with reviewing editors, and occasionally request that updates be made on my behalf.
I am submitting a few edit requests for the Public Reactions section in an attempt to help streamline and organize the content for easy consumption. I’ve incorporated information from sources already cited throughout the article, as well as added in a few new ones for review and feedback from the community. Reviewing editors are invited to make their own adjustments to the provided text while considering these changes, and feedback is welcome!
Thanks in advance for any assistance. Mchilds72 ( talk) 20:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi User:Schazjmd - wanted to see if you were able to take a look at the above request. Thank you! Mchilds72 ( talk) 16:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello editors! User:Mchilds72 here to make a quick edit request on behalf of Lexipol. I know I must not edit the article directly myself, because of my paid conflict of interest (I am an employee). The CEO listed in the information box differs from the CEO listed in the "Founding" section and both are outdated. Our current CEO is Chuck Corbin, listed on our leadership page [1]. The CEO is also listed on Glassdoor [2]
Thanks in advance for any assistance. Mchilds72 ( talk) 19:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
References
Done
Schazjmd
(talk)
20:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, User: Schazjmd! Is there any way we can also update the last sentence of the Founding section to include the correct CEO as well? Chuck Corbin was named CEO in January 2021.
Thank you! Mchilds72 ( talk) 21:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Lexipol appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 12 July 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
- Though the LLC may be located in California, it looks like there physical headquarters is in Frisco, TX according to their own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.255.55 ( talk) 01:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
97198 (
talk)
15:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Created by Schazjmd ( talk). Self-nominated at 00:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC).
"Critics note that a decision made by Lexipol becomes policy in thousands of agencies and that there is little transparency into how the policy decisions are made" - I believe this should be limited to the Criticism section and not part of the lede given the non-neutral tone. Generally, many articles have a section on criticism but they are usually not a part of the lede. Perhaps if there are multiple WP:RS supporting this assertion, it makes for a stronger case to be in the lede? -- Molochmeditates ( talk) 22:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.Schazjmd (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I'm an employee at Lexipol and the 3,500 clients number is representative of policy clients as of 2019 only. Since the merger with Praetorian Digital, the number of agencies served is 8,100 - this includes, policy, training and grants support as of 2020. You can see this number on the Lexipol website ( https://www.lexipol.com/) and in Lexipol press releases (EX: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/03/06/1996516/0/en/Lexipol-and-PowerDMS-Announce-Integration-Partnership-to-Streamline-Public-Safety-Risk-Management-and-Compliance.html) Mchilds72 ( talk) 21:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello editors! User:Mchilds72 here to make suggestions on Lexipol's behalf. I know I must not edit the article directly myself, because of my paid conflict of interest (I am an employee). To stay aligned with the site's guidelines for editors like me, I'm here to discuss possible edits to the current entry with reviewing editors, and occasionally request that updates be made on my behalf. I'll post my queries and requests here on the article Talk page for feedback from the community.
In reviewing sources used in the current article, it seems there is much room for improvement. I am providing a few suggested details for updating the article below, along with secondary, Wikipedia-appropriate sources for verification. Are there any editors willing to help improve the article by replacing unsourced details (e.g. Founding) with better information and any acceptable sourcing that I've provided here? Additionally, there may be details below to expand on Services or improve sourcing in other sections as well. Reviewing editors are invited to make their own adjustments to the provided text while considering these changes, and feedback is welcome!
References
Thanks in advance for any assistance. Mchilds72 ( talk) 14:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello editors! User:Mchilds72 here to make suggestions on Lexipol's behalf. I know I must not edit the article directly myself, because of my paid conflict of interest (I am an employee). As noted in my previous edit requests and in order to stay aligned with the site's guidelines for editors like me, I'm here to discuss potential edits to the current entry with reviewing editors, and occasionally request that updates be made on my behalf.
I am submitting a few edit requests for the Services section in order to clarify Lexipol’s offerings and what industries they serve. I’ve incorporated information from sources already cited throughout the article, as well as added in a few new ones for review and feedback from the community. The goal is to ensure the information included is the most up-to-date and from recent, credible and Wikipedia-approved sources. I also wanted to see if it would be possible to include recent awards Lexipol has won, following the Wikipedia guideline of including only the awards that have their own Wikipedia pages. Reviewing editors are invited to make their own adjustments to the provided text while considering these changes, and feedback is welcome!
Thanks in advance for any assistance. Mchilds72 ( talk) 17:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Does this help? Let me know if I can provide any further clarification here. Thank you so much for your help! Mchilds72 ( talk) 20:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Thanks so much for your help on this, User:Schazjmd! Noted that this format is best for future edit requests, including references. On the second paragraph, that makes sense when it comes to transparency, but that was my bad - it was supposed to say "improving documentation."
I just had one quick question on the third paragraph update: The new addition currently contradicts the sentence directly following ("Subscribers are advised that the regular updates provided by the company will overwrite any customizations."). Since the new addition is from a more recent source and is providing different information, would it make sense to remove the sentence about overwriting customizations? Much appreciated, Mchilds72 ( talk) 19:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello! User:Mchilds72 here again to make suggestions on Lexipol's behalf. As noted in my previous edit requests and in order to stay aligned with the site's guidelines for editors like me with a conflict of interest (I am an employee), I'm here to discuss potential edits to the current entry with reviewing editors, and request updates.
I am submitting a few edit requests for the Expansion section in order to clarify a few points and add further context. I’ve incorporated information from sources already cited throughout the article, as well as added in a few new ones for review and feedback from the community. The goal is to ensure the information included is the most up-to-date and from recent, credible and Wikipedia-approved sources. Reviewing editors are invited to make their own adjustments to the provided text while considering these changes, and feedback is welcome!
Thanks in advance for any assistance. Mchilds72 ( talk) 20:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
References
GlobeNewswire News Room Jan 2021
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Riverside Aug 2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Crain's Cleveland Business Feb 2019
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).GlobeNewswire News Room Feb 2019
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
Yahoo Finance Dec 2020
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hello editors! User:Mchilds72 here to make suggestions on Lexipol's behalf. As noted in previous edit requests, I know I must not edit the article directly myself, because of my paid conflict of interest (I am an employee).
I wanted to reach out to request that the Criticism section be renamed to something else such as "Reception," per Wikipedia's guidelines on sections focusing on criticism/controversy. I appreciate your help! Mchilds72 ( talk) 14:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response and for the clarification on WP:Criticism. Because the “Criticism” section is about half of the article, we want to ensure the information is balanced and provides insight into all notable views evidenced in third party sources, so as to comply with the guideline, WP:Neutral point of view. Our aim is not to remove negative views or commentary, but to ensure the article provides a fair and proportionate summary of these significant views. As such, the goal of this request was to arrive at a more neutral name for this section and to allow these views to be summarized within it. Mchilds72 ( talk) 20:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! Excluding press releases, we’ve found several positive comments in the already-cited sources for this article. Would it be preferable that some of the positive views be incorporated beside the critiques/concerns in this section before seeking to rename it?
Examples of these views are below:
There are also positive comments on Lexipol’s wellness solution, Cordico:
As noted above, these comments are from sources already cited in the article. I can also supply examples of positive comments in additional sources. Please let us know what you believe is the best way to proceed here. Thanks in advance! Mchilds72 ( talk) 20:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks - I've updated the refs. Mchilds72 ( talk) 13:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi User:Schazjmd, just wanted to check in and see if those updates were what you were referring to and what your thoughts are on the Criticism section at large. Thank you! Mchilds72 ( talk) 14:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
Hello editors! User:Mchilds72 here to make suggestions on Lexipol's behalf. I know I must not edit the article directly myself, because of my paid conflict of interest (I am an employee). As noted in my previous edit requests and in order to stay aligned with the site's guidelines for editors like me, I'm here to discuss potential edits to the current entry with reviewing editors, and occasionally request that updates be made on my behalf.
I am submitting a few edit requests for the Public Reactions section in an attempt to help streamline and organize the content for easy consumption. I’ve incorporated information from sources already cited throughout the article, as well as added in a few new ones for review and feedback from the community. Reviewing editors are invited to make their own adjustments to the provided text while considering these changes, and feedback is welcome!
Thanks in advance for any assistance. Mchilds72 ( talk) 20:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi User:Schazjmd - wanted to see if you were able to take a look at the above request. Thank you! Mchilds72 ( talk) 16:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello editors! User:Mchilds72 here to make a quick edit request on behalf of Lexipol. I know I must not edit the article directly myself, because of my paid conflict of interest (I am an employee). The CEO listed in the information box differs from the CEO listed in the "Founding" section and both are outdated. Our current CEO is Chuck Corbin, listed on our leadership page [1]. The CEO is also listed on Glassdoor [2]
Thanks in advance for any assistance. Mchilds72 ( talk) 19:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
References
Done
Schazjmd
(talk)
20:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, User: Schazjmd! Is there any way we can also update the last sentence of the Founding section to include the correct CEO as well? Chuck Corbin was named CEO in January 2021.
Thank you! Mchilds72 ( talk) 21:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)