sigsaver: -- EsotericRogue Talk 09:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Softwaretop100.org is not a reliable source for companies ranks by software revenue, since it omits Sony, which I estimate to be in 5th place.
Regarding my subjective estimate of 5th place, I have found two sources of Sony software revenue as follows:
Sony 2008 Annual Report: page 90: Sales and Operating Revenue by Business Segment: Game: Total 1 284 243 000 000 Japanese yen ~= 13379.2436 million U.S. dollars "game" likely includes hardware and exludes non-game software. (Non-game software should be significant, as demonstrate by the popular product names at http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/). Yet even a small portion of 13,379 million is significant when compared to the 228 million of #100 Corel.
http://www.emsnow.com/newsarchives/archivedetails.cfm?ID=20542 "Sony Corp. in the third quarter [of 2007] generated $1 billion in gaming software revenue for its PlayStation 3, PlayStation 2 and PSP..." This likely exludes software that is not PS related. Again, 1 billion quarterly times 4 equals 4,000 million annually, which is enough for 7th place. Esoteric Rogue ( talk) 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Cnet cites " IDC recently published its annual report on software industry market share, which ranks software companies by revenue." Esoteric Rogue ( talk) 20:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Finally finished removing all Softwaretop100.org citations and Softwaretop100.org has sent an e-mail today stating "We will publish the new Software Top 100 within two weeks, and Sony will be in there." Still with such a notable omission, I do not suspect we can claim it as a proper source. Esoteric Rogue ( talk) 20:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I finished removing all (~25) softwaretop100.org citations. Practically all (only the first few I didn't examine) citations were made by one user last year, and a different user around the beginning of this year. Esoteric Rogue ( talk) 06:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
As the editor of the Software Top 100 I would like to provide some feedback on the above. Our yearly list is made according to a published methodology, relying on verifiable data (mostly from annual reports) and reproducible calculations. The methodology adheres closely to Wikipedia's OR policy. Like Wikipedia, the Software Top 100 is overseen by a not-for-profit foundation, aiming to publish the best information possible to the public. As stated on our website, errors do occur and should be brought to our attention so they can be corrected. In this light, we corrected the Sony omission (thank you for that contribution!) and other errors in the last years. Like Wikipedia, we acknowledge the Software Top 100 is not 100% correct and complete, but we certainly have the ambition to make it so, and it improves every year. The point I want to make is, that one or two errors in a big body of work do not render the work useless or unreliable. If verifiability, objectivity and comprehensiveness are the criteria, there is no better source available online in the world today, ranking the world's largest software companies. Many software companies now use the list as a point of reference. I hope this changes the reader's perspective on www.softwaretop100.org. BalderV ( talk) 5 August 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC).
I have posted several messages on your talk page in the past year, to which you never replied, Esoteric Rogue. And since you started the discussion here... The Software Top 100 is a verifiable and objective source. As for the omission: Sony has long been added to the Software Top 100 list. Wikipedia needs good sources like the Software Top 100. Instead of deleting all links to Software Top 100 based on self-justification, why not first discuss? Please come up with arguementation, or even a better source? That would really help Wikipedia forward! You discredit Software Top 100, but Forbes and Software Magazine, which are other sources mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_largest_software_companies, you leave unspoken. Did you notice they STILL do not mention Sony? -- BalderV ( talk) 15:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Upon second thought, I did as you requested and kindly invite you to my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BalderV -- BalderV ( talk) 15:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Chzz, I have answered on my talk page in an effort to group the thread. In short summary: Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources allows tertiary sources in some cases. It is a bit subjective whether rankings are secondary sources, but I think they are; and rankings are often used as useful sources in Wikipedia, e.g. to indicate the relative size of something. Do you think rankings should be used as sources in Wikipedia? -- BalderV ( talk) 09:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Esoteric Rogue, shall we continue the conversation we started on my talk page? It's been some time since your last input, I look forward to your response! -- BalderV ( talk) 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Esoteric Rogue, it has been a few months since your last input for our conversation on the Software Top 100. If you have no further objections, let's conclude our discussion. -- BalderV ( talk) 13:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
w:Special:Whatlinkshere/Marco Polo
Hiya. Thanks for helping out with spotlight. Your name isn't on the 'spam-list' on that page, so I haven't sent you the newsletter; but I just wanted to let you know a couple of things. Following over 500 edits from the spotlight project, Marco Polo has attained good article status. We've now started on the next article, Marco Polo sheep. Please join the IRC channel some time ( quick link), or add your name to the Participants list at WP:SPOT. Cheers, --— Deon talkI'm BACK! 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Spotlight needs your help! We've had great success with Marco Polo (now a Good Article), and Marco Polo sheep (currently on the main page in the "Did You Know..."). We're now working on Dry ice. We'll be choosing the next article on Sunday 26th July, and the following one on Friday 31st July (which is when we'll finish Dry ice). Therefore, we need suggestions, here - and even more importantly, we need comment on the suggestions of others. Hope to see you in the channel again soon, cheers, Chzz ► 18:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
The Spotlight Newsletter, Issue III : October 2009 | |
---|---|
Wikiproject After great success with Marco Polo (and his sheep!), Dry ice went pretty well. USS Massachusetts (BB-59) was challenging, and with Monkey, the project faded: Battle of the Nobles and Oil got little attention. |
We need your help! Spotlight is a collaboration - it works really well when lots of people get involved. It doesn't matter what skills you bring, because between us, we can do great things. Even if you make one, simple edit - if 100 people do that, we'll have made significant progress, and we all benefit by learning from each other. |
Current article This time, we've created a brand-new article, and between us we're confident of achieving a Did you know... on the main page, and work towards getting the article rated as C-class or B-class. |
Father
Aengus Finucane died on 6 October at the age of 77; he was an Irish priest who did lots of work helping refugees of world conflicts, and was the head of the charity
Concern. There are plenty of reliable sources, so it should be easy to write this - so please help out by editing the article. |
Home · Suggested articles|Current Article · Next Article · Change Subscription · Unsubscribe |
In "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy", the term "privacy" may not be the best. I adhere the desire for professionalism and sterility, but the truth is that "feelings" is more the intended thought. Of course, we can then substitute something more mundane like "perogative" or "agenda" or "desires" (which is usually "wishes"). Being more direct like that may be more efficient than sidestepping with "privacy", where a heartless person may argue, "I didn't violate his privacy, I'm just reporting what the violator discovered." After a change from "privacy" to "agenda", they may be forced to admit, "yes, I did go against the subject's agenda" and that in some case could even be proven. Still, perogatives and agendas are stable and factual or tangible things. Feelings are intangible and dynamic. "...with regard for the subject's feelings" is to the point. Look, I'm not a thesaurus. I just know "privacy" is poor ( -- indirect; dodgy; Politically Correct; an increasingly common slight misnomer; metaphoric; et al.). Okay, I am a thesaurus. "Feelings" is best. -- EsotericRogue Talk 11:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jägermeister, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. magnius ( talk) 17:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The Spotlight Newsletter, Issue VII : September 2010 |
---|
|
Wikiproject: We are attempting to revive this project (yet again) after nearly a year of inactivity and we want some help. Please do come by out IRC channel. |
About the articles: Current article is Trauma (medicine), started at a C-class, hoping for at least GA-class. |
sigsaver: -- EsotericRogue Talk 09:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Softwaretop100.org is not a reliable source for companies ranks by software revenue, since it omits Sony, which I estimate to be in 5th place.
Regarding my subjective estimate of 5th place, I have found two sources of Sony software revenue as follows:
Sony 2008 Annual Report: page 90: Sales and Operating Revenue by Business Segment: Game: Total 1 284 243 000 000 Japanese yen ~= 13379.2436 million U.S. dollars "game" likely includes hardware and exludes non-game software. (Non-game software should be significant, as demonstrate by the popular product names at http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/). Yet even a small portion of 13,379 million is significant when compared to the 228 million of #100 Corel.
http://www.emsnow.com/newsarchives/archivedetails.cfm?ID=20542 "Sony Corp. in the third quarter [of 2007] generated $1 billion in gaming software revenue for its PlayStation 3, PlayStation 2 and PSP..." This likely exludes software that is not PS related. Again, 1 billion quarterly times 4 equals 4,000 million annually, which is enough for 7th place. Esoteric Rogue ( talk) 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Cnet cites " IDC recently published its annual report on software industry market share, which ranks software companies by revenue." Esoteric Rogue ( talk) 20:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Finally finished removing all Softwaretop100.org citations and Softwaretop100.org has sent an e-mail today stating "We will publish the new Software Top 100 within two weeks, and Sony will be in there." Still with such a notable omission, I do not suspect we can claim it as a proper source. Esoteric Rogue ( talk) 20:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I finished removing all (~25) softwaretop100.org citations. Practically all (only the first few I didn't examine) citations were made by one user last year, and a different user around the beginning of this year. Esoteric Rogue ( talk) 06:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
As the editor of the Software Top 100 I would like to provide some feedback on the above. Our yearly list is made according to a published methodology, relying on verifiable data (mostly from annual reports) and reproducible calculations. The methodology adheres closely to Wikipedia's OR policy. Like Wikipedia, the Software Top 100 is overseen by a not-for-profit foundation, aiming to publish the best information possible to the public. As stated on our website, errors do occur and should be brought to our attention so they can be corrected. In this light, we corrected the Sony omission (thank you for that contribution!) and other errors in the last years. Like Wikipedia, we acknowledge the Software Top 100 is not 100% correct and complete, but we certainly have the ambition to make it so, and it improves every year. The point I want to make is, that one or two errors in a big body of work do not render the work useless or unreliable. If verifiability, objectivity and comprehensiveness are the criteria, there is no better source available online in the world today, ranking the world's largest software companies. Many software companies now use the list as a point of reference. I hope this changes the reader's perspective on www.softwaretop100.org. BalderV ( talk) 5 August 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC).
I have posted several messages on your talk page in the past year, to which you never replied, Esoteric Rogue. And since you started the discussion here... The Software Top 100 is a verifiable and objective source. As for the omission: Sony has long been added to the Software Top 100 list. Wikipedia needs good sources like the Software Top 100. Instead of deleting all links to Software Top 100 based on self-justification, why not first discuss? Please come up with arguementation, or even a better source? That would really help Wikipedia forward! You discredit Software Top 100, but Forbes and Software Magazine, which are other sources mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_largest_software_companies, you leave unspoken. Did you notice they STILL do not mention Sony? -- BalderV ( talk) 15:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Upon second thought, I did as you requested and kindly invite you to my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BalderV -- BalderV ( talk) 15:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Chzz, I have answered on my talk page in an effort to group the thread. In short summary: Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources allows tertiary sources in some cases. It is a bit subjective whether rankings are secondary sources, but I think they are; and rankings are often used as useful sources in Wikipedia, e.g. to indicate the relative size of something. Do you think rankings should be used as sources in Wikipedia? -- BalderV ( talk) 09:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Esoteric Rogue, shall we continue the conversation we started on my talk page? It's been some time since your last input, I look forward to your response! -- BalderV ( talk) 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Esoteric Rogue, it has been a few months since your last input for our conversation on the Software Top 100. If you have no further objections, let's conclude our discussion. -- BalderV ( talk) 13:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
w:Special:Whatlinkshere/Marco Polo
Hiya. Thanks for helping out with spotlight. Your name isn't on the 'spam-list' on that page, so I haven't sent you the newsletter; but I just wanted to let you know a couple of things. Following over 500 edits from the spotlight project, Marco Polo has attained good article status. We've now started on the next article, Marco Polo sheep. Please join the IRC channel some time ( quick link), or add your name to the Participants list at WP:SPOT. Cheers, --— Deon talkI'm BACK! 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Spotlight needs your help! We've had great success with Marco Polo (now a Good Article), and Marco Polo sheep (currently on the main page in the "Did You Know..."). We're now working on Dry ice. We'll be choosing the next article on Sunday 26th July, and the following one on Friday 31st July (which is when we'll finish Dry ice). Therefore, we need suggestions, here - and even more importantly, we need comment on the suggestions of others. Hope to see you in the channel again soon, cheers, Chzz ► 18:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
The Spotlight Newsletter, Issue III : October 2009 | |
---|---|
Wikiproject After great success with Marco Polo (and his sheep!), Dry ice went pretty well. USS Massachusetts (BB-59) was challenging, and with Monkey, the project faded: Battle of the Nobles and Oil got little attention. |
We need your help! Spotlight is a collaboration - it works really well when lots of people get involved. It doesn't matter what skills you bring, because between us, we can do great things. Even if you make one, simple edit - if 100 people do that, we'll have made significant progress, and we all benefit by learning from each other. |
Current article This time, we've created a brand-new article, and between us we're confident of achieving a Did you know... on the main page, and work towards getting the article rated as C-class or B-class. |
Father
Aengus Finucane died on 6 October at the age of 77; he was an Irish priest who did lots of work helping refugees of world conflicts, and was the head of the charity
Concern. There are plenty of reliable sources, so it should be easy to write this - so please help out by editing the article. |
Home · Suggested articles|Current Article · Next Article · Change Subscription · Unsubscribe |
In "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy", the term "privacy" may not be the best. I adhere the desire for professionalism and sterility, but the truth is that "feelings" is more the intended thought. Of course, we can then substitute something more mundane like "perogative" or "agenda" or "desires" (which is usually "wishes"). Being more direct like that may be more efficient than sidestepping with "privacy", where a heartless person may argue, "I didn't violate his privacy, I'm just reporting what the violator discovered." After a change from "privacy" to "agenda", they may be forced to admit, "yes, I did go against the subject's agenda" and that in some case could even be proven. Still, perogatives and agendas are stable and factual or tangible things. Feelings are intangible and dynamic. "...with regard for the subject's feelings" is to the point. Look, I'm not a thesaurus. I just know "privacy" is poor ( -- indirect; dodgy; Politically Correct; an increasingly common slight misnomer; metaphoric; et al.). Okay, I am a thesaurus. "Feelings" is best. -- EsotericRogue Talk 11:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jägermeister, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. magnius ( talk) 17:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The Spotlight Newsletter, Issue VII : September 2010 |
---|
|
Wikiproject: We are attempting to revive this project (yet again) after nearly a year of inactivity and we want some help. Please do come by out IRC channel. |
About the articles: Current article is Trauma (medicine), started at a C-class, hoping for at least GA-class. |