Talk:Zendesk

Author totally missed the point

Just WHAT IS zendesk about? What are they doing/selling? Bananas?? May be office desks ... Guess the omission is deliberate for they don't want to tell the truth: spyware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

lol well one thing's for sure, they certainly don't provide any customer service. this whole article reads like corporate copy 174.54.140.30 (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Please allow reinstatement of article

It seems ridiculous that this page redirects to the Benchmark (venture capital firm). Zendesk is a major player in the customer service software space: hundreds of employees, thousands of customers, etc.

Why do Instagram, Zillow, Zipcar, Zendesk, Yelp (all Benchmark-funded companies) have articles but not Zendesk? There are many articles for companies that are smaller and less significant than Zendesk.

This might have been the right call three years ago, but not now. Please allow reinstatement of this article. --Crandmck (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The original article was deleted in 2010, but was recreated in 2013.My Gussie (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Security section is questionable

" In March 2014 the company announced SOC 2 Type 1 compliance," IANAIAP but isn't "soc 2" just an audit report? I don't think you can certify compliance with it. Most of that section sounds kinda like sales copy. 4.35.160.126 (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Paid contributor notice

@Barbequeue: good on you, I didn't even know you could get paid to do this kind of work. I will say, only small parts of this have some promotional tone. But overall, impressed with the changes. - Scarpy (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section interesting

Should this article be extended with a controversy section? Please see read the article for additional information: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/05/zendesk-and-art-trademark-trolling. - Jonasbn (talk) 15:28 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jonasbn: If it's just one article documenting it, the argument against it would be that it's given undue weight according to Wikipedia guidelines like WP:UNDUE. Are you aware of any others? - Scarpy (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Added. It's not just one article documenting it. There are a few of them in a period of around two years. I included as sources Sfgate.com, Forbes and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (publication order). --MarioGom (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi @MarioGom:, @Scarpy:, and @Jonasbn:. My name is Taylor and I work in marketing for Zendesk. I apologize I am just now jumping into this two year-old discussion string regarding the "Controversy" section. There are two points I wanted to make regarding that section:

• WP:CRIT says "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints."
• The argument higher up in this discussion string was that the controversy deserves substantial due weight because there are many press articles on it. However, one of the articles is labeled "Commentary" (i.e. opinion) and another one is from a Forbes contributor "content strategist" (i.e. guest blog) (see here). This leaves only one reliable source that meets Wikipedia's standards.

I realize I may be biased as I work for the company. Thank you in advance to anyone more impartial that takes a thoughtful look at my comments. Tskillin (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tskillin: I was bored and made some changes. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

holy shit how many people does zendesk pay to shill on wikipedia for them 174.54.140.30 (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Article tone

I came here to find out about Zendesk. While the article is comprehensive it does read like a sales brochure. Some of the feature sections could prehaps be combined rather than explaining them in the detail that they are currently in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.81.113 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I confirm the above, this article clearly has significant portions copied from sale materials. I have worked in enterprise IT for 20 years, attended many, many sales presentations and the claims are obvious marketing puffery. It degrades Wikipedia. It should be rephrased in objective terms.

Why are you removing references to Networked Help Desk from this article?

It's verifiable, wikilinked internally and notable. - Scarpy (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I found this page because Wikipedia referenced it as the place to send questions about donations. But there is nowhere to ask questions. The page is just an information page, with no feedback option. Wikipedia, on their contact page, say "Due to the volume of inquiries we receive, we use Zendesk as a donor response platform." . Clearly donors cannot respond on THIS page! 90.244.6.36 (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)IH, UK, Dec 202090.244.6.36 (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

References

COI Header

@PsychoMaple: The COI header was there prior to your edits, and you removed it without giving an explanation. If you want to remove it for another reason, please explain here. It's a separate issue than the other contentious edit regarding Trump. - Scarpy (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

COI Header was there because you (and only you) felt it needed to be there. Paid edits do not necessitate COI Headers and I can provide plenty of examples...that is why I removed it. PsychoMaple (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@PsychoMaple: I noticed you removed the COI template [1] and then later removed the advert template [2]. I'm sympathetic to companies that want well-written encyclopedic articles and are willing to hire someone to help them, but this is really not acceptable. Examples of paid editors working on articles without COI notices is a WP:OSE argument. My attitude here, which I believe is shared with other editors, is that this article while well-sourced contains significant and obvious POV as well as undue weight on several points. I believe everyone would be happy to work with you here to make the article more encyclopedic, but continuing to remove templates with out addressing why we're putting them there is not going to help. - Scarpy (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@132.3.65.79: This was not removing a typo https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zendesk&diff=prev&oldid=777177723 - Scarpy (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Scarpy:. My name is Taylor and I work in marketing for Zendesk. I wanted to extend my sincere apologies that Zendesk's PR firm previously violated Wikipedia's rules, and frankly, was just downright rude. Removing the COI template was totally inappropriate.

I know this discussion is years old, but I have a few suggestions on how to delete what promotional content is left on the page in order to address the COI tag's content-based concerns:

• serves 119,000 paying customers in 150 countries and territories as of 2017.
• ,who had experience with customer service software
• from Charles River Ventures and Benchmark Capital
• announcing premium AI chatbot partners including Netomi and BotXO.
• the technology that Zendesk now uses to power its platform
• Suggestion: Trim the Key People in the infobox to just the CEO

Would love any feedback you feel like offering. I will do everything I can to make sure nobody at Zendesk behaves like that again. Tskillin (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tskillin: thanks for making these changes. I'll read over the article again. The biggest issue I recall is the WP:PEACOCK and similar language. - Scarpy (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Zendesk out of business?

Founded in 2007, Zendesk had 2,000 employees and served 119,000 paying customers in 150 countries and territories as of 2017.

Well, I thought so for a fraction of a second at word number five.

If you move "as of 2017" to the front of the sentence (where it properly belongs), then the verbs can shift to present tense, and the corporation can sound like a going concern.

But you'll have to give up the marketing tactic of stuffing a random factoid in front of a comma at the outset of the sentence to sound all breathlessly important—which is anyway somewhat subverted if the reader is asking "bankrupt?" at word number five. — MaxEnt 07:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Still heavy paid contribution, COI and PR

I have removed some ugly PR content.

I leave pruning of such bits:

The tech support process is part of the native experience on the site or application.[48]

to the other contributors. Yuck.

The article should be rewritten and protected against COI contributors. User:Zezen 29 July 2019. Signed by scope_creep^Talk 11:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Trademark Disputes contains ambiguity

Trademark disputes: "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has denounced this practice as trademark trolling" Which practice? The practice of filing the lawsuits, or the practice of registering the additional trademarks? Needs to be reworded to be unambiguous. User:GaryAitken. Signed by scope_creep^Talk 18:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @GaryAitken: Why don't you try and rewrite it. It is also worth signing your entries with ~~~~. The four tildes will be

be converted into a signature by Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 18:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I didn't edit it initially because I didn't know the answer. Thanks for the prod; done. GaryAitken (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed edits for review

Hi. I work for Zendesk and would like to help improve the page following WP:COI. The current page relies heavily on press releases, includes a lot of detail about individual investors/partners, and doesn't include even a short description of what Zendesk does.

I would like to offer a proposed draft that can be used in part or in full to expand and improve the page. Compared to the current page, the draft is more complete, reduces reliance on press releases, adds better citations, and so on. My hope is an impartial editor will incorporate all or part of the draft they think would improve the page.

I do want to point out the draft does not address the Controversies section at all, which I discussed separately here. However, I invite editors to participate in that discussion separately. Tskillin (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cerebellum: You previously implemented some content I proposed with a conflict of interest, but omitted the "Software and services" section I shared, because it was too promotional. I was hoping you could take a look at this second attempt at a "Software and services" section if you're willing. Tskillin (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)