User talk:Icerat/Archive 5

Compensation plan resources

I ran across that stairstep breakaway article that I saw you comment on about the quality of the resources. (Those definitely do not appear to be RS...)

I was thinking wouldn't it be prudent to perhaps make an overall article on direct sales compensation plans all in one article? And then the sections could list out the major types (unsure if pros/cons of each type is WP material or not).

You mentioned there were books on this subjects - as long as they pass the RS test, those might be the best source. Also, I would think trade industry magazines/websites would be RS for this particular subject as long the WP text sticks to the facts. Leef5 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 15:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Len Clement's book Inside Network Marketing has a section on compensation plans. It's published by a division of Random House and is an RS source. I bought the PDF version off his website a while back. Trade and industry magazines would also be RS for this, but I can pretty much guarantee they'll be challenged to death. Bruce Grubb challenged the Clements book when I raised it as a potential source a few years back. He's another guy with the view that if a source is not anti-MLM then by definition it is biased and unusable. :/ Flat out renovating at the momement, planning on selling and moving house in the next month or so, so not much time for WP right now! --Icerat (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the joys of home ownership and selling/buying! I'll see if the library can get that book in and see where we go from there. Random House should definitely make it RS. Leef5 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 00:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi Icerat. I noticed you were engaged in a discussion related to PR participation on Wikipedia on Jimmy Wales' page and that you are interested in the topic of direct-selling. I thought I would drop you a line, because I participate on Wikipedia in a PR capacity (and on a volunteer basis) and am currently working with Proactiv / Guthy-Renker to improve their respective Wikipedia pages. I'll be offering some draft content on their respective Talk pages (eventually) for consideration by an impartial editor. As it seems like this is aligned with your interest, I would be very interested in your general participation if you care to watchlist them. CorporateM (Talk) 15:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the talk to my watchlist, but best to buzz me here as well when you post there. --Icerat (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a draft Proactiv article for consideration here and welcome your review if you still have time. Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 20:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corp Page Guideline

Hi Icerat, I saw your post at CREWE, and I'm interested in a proposed structure for corporation articles. Our articles on corporations are sometimes primarily about their controversies, which while I view as essential to cover, shouldn't be present at the exclusion of the basic operational facts of what a company does and how they do it. However, the charge you'll face with your guideline is that it is effectively whitewashing controversies by drowning the page in mundane details and statistics. I'm curious if you're prepared to address that charge, as I'm sure it will come up.

Have you stopped by WP:WikiProject Companies and ran your draft by anyone there? (A natural fit would be Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies/Guidelines).

Also, if you want to very different but meaningful feedback, I suggest you ask User:Slimvirgin and User:Rangoon11 for their views. Both are excellent editors but a wide range of opinion between them, I suspect.

Last, while I have no beef with direct selling per se, my issue in that field tends to be the claims of efficacy about products which are often not based on WP:MEDRS quality sources, or particularly good ones at least. Industry-funded studies are always going to be suspect to bias and secondary reviews of studies are almost always going to be more reliable than individual primary studies.

So, welcome back, and I'm glad you're jumping into these big issues with a clear focus. It will be a long process, but it seems like a discussion worth having. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 02:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Ocaasi. I actually started with this issue on the talk page in companies project, some, but not a lot of feedback before I took a wikibreak. Regarding "whitewashing", in theory WP:BALANCE should address how much of what a topic should cover, however it's my experience on wikipedia (not just in the Corp area) that controversy almost always gets way more coverage than RP sources would justify, and that's after you consider that fact that controversy generally generate press, which means RP sources. In some ways what is happening is that WP is reflecting perceptions rather than facts, and it's self reinforcing. Take the article on Amway which I spent some time on a couple of years back. There's clearly a perception among many people that the company is controversial. Read the WP article and something like half of the article is taken up by controversies, so anyone reading the article will have that view reinforced. Not that long ago the article was almost entirely on controversy. What's the reality? I've been collating all sources I can find on the company (I'm writing a book) and I'd estimate that no more than a few percent of RS sources refer to controversial issues to any great extent. Most, particularly from the past two decades, reference no controversy at all or if they do it's as a passing reference to past accusations. There's no objective way of supporting a claim the article is "balanced" when talking about RS sources. Heck, if you look at things like complaints and lawsuits, the company is involved in significantly fewer lawsuits and about the same number of complaints with organisation like the BBB as other non-MLM companies of similar size.

So how to deal with it? Clearly removing controversial issues isn't an option. WP:Guidelines state there shouldn't be a separate "controversy" section in articles (or at least they did, can't find it now so might have changed!), with issues instead being raised in their relevant sections, but then we have entire articles like Criticism of Walmart. I tend towards the view that controversy should be handled "in-line", but if there's enough controversy to talk about, a separate article is probably the way to go.

As for "mundane facts and figures", one person's trash is another's treasure! In the world of corporate information that's exactly the type of information many people (including myself) are interested in. I'd like to see historical graphs of things like revenues and share prices. Heck, in FMCG I'd love things like lists of ingredients! Where are products made, who makes them, what's in them, how are they marketed and who buy (endorsements, sponsorships etc etc). This is all important information when you're researching a company and I can't see any reason why much of it can't be included in WP.

Regarding product efficacy claims and direct sales, direct sales (and particularly the MLM model) offers low cost of entry to a market for companies or manufacturers wanting to launch a product. So if you've got some product you can't get a traditional distributor interested in, then it offers an avenue to get it to market cheaply. That means it's a great model for the amazing cancer curing life extending makes beer and vacuums your house crystal healing wand from Nepal. :/ On the other hand, it's also a great model to go around and demo cookware or let people try on makeup before they buy. Low barriers to entry has its pluses and minuses! --Icerat (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guthy Renker

Hi Icerat. We had met previously when I noticed you had an interest in direct marketing companies and you provided feedback on the draft Proactiv article. I wanted to let you know there is now a draft for consideration on the Talk page for Guthy-Renker at: Talk:Guthy-Renker#First_draft.

If you have an interest, I would be appreciative of your time considering our work and providing any feedback. Cheers.CorporateM (Talk) 17:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Icerat. I also did some work for another direct marketing company, Publishers Clearing House, and thought you might be interested in my COIN post here, where I've requested consideration of our work. I've also posted on both the relevant Talk pages. CorporateM (Talk) 16:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Al Anbar Governorate may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*Provincial Council Chairman (PCC): [[Sabah Karhut al-Halbusi]]<ref>{{cite news url=http://www.ninanews.com/english/News_Details.asp?ar95_VQ=GLKKMF newspaper=National
Chairman of Anbar Council rejects the Governor’s call for the Army return to cities date=2014-01-01]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]