User talk:CorporateM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Your GA nomination of SAS (software)[edit]

The article SAS (software) you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol unsupport vote.svg; see Talk:SAS (software) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hahc21 -- Hahc21 (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that it was actually passed but the scripts are fickle. CorporateM (Talk) 16:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Your AfC contributions[edit]

Hello CorporateM. I'm a "frequent stalker" of yours and I think your work is an excellent example of good COI editing. I was curious, though, to see that you have recently been reviewing some AfC submissions. Would you care to provide your perspective in this matter? As an outsider, it doesn't seem like AfC reviewing would be appropriate for a COI editor. Couldn't your past financial conflicts perhaps bias you against particular types of organizations or subjects, leading you to decline or accept a given submission based on past/previous interests rather than content standards? And would you ever accept an AfC submission on behalf of a paying client? I know your work is valued here, and I'm sincerely curious to hear your thoughts. (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't make very much sense for me to submit something to AfC if I was going to accept it myself. It would be curious why I submitted it to AfC in the first place.
I am probably more prolific as a volunteer than as a COI. I guess I'm not connecting the dots on how my COI on other articles would make me unfit to review AfCs where I have no COI. I have always chipped in at AfC every now and then. Maybe you can explain a bit more what you mean? CorporateM (Talk) 19:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that you would submit to AfC and then accept it yourself, but that perhaps a company might contract you to review and edit a submission that they had submitted. That's not crazy, is it? But that's sort of secondary to my other question, which is really less of a question and more of a request for you to share your perspective about how your past financial conflicts may or may not influence your reviewing process. For example, say you were hired to write an article about a very notable financial technology company, and you became very familiar with the company, its members, its services, and the particular coverage it had received (also, they paid you). Couldn't that experience influence the way you perceive a smaller financial technology company or even financial technology related concept that was waiting for review at AfC? Or do you filter out subjects with which you've had a previous financial connection? I guess I'm just trying to see the line at which point the COI editor hat comes off (where you're asking for editors to review your work) and the reviewer hat goes on (where you're reviewing another editor's work, which might itself be COI editing). (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding covertly approving a client's article, we should be able to be naive, AGF and not speculate about volunteer accounts being bribed for astroturfing purposes, but so long as these manipulative tactics are common and done on a massive scale, there will be this problem. The solution is to remove such astroturfing tactics from the site effectively-enough so that we can return to being naive and so that such speculations can't be credibly made in all but the most extreme cases. This requires a great many things: higher content standards, legal intervention, more education among marketers and so on.
I think the argument you may want to make is that I spend a substantial portion of my day listening to companies push their point-of-view. I am basically a professional POV-pusher manager. This means hours and hours of exhausting, tense work listening to marketers push their point-of-view, exaggerate their company's significance, and so on. This may create a pro-business bias after hearing their arguments for so long, or I may use Wikipedia as an outlet for my frustrations with my day-job and have the opposite bias. This is something that can reasonably be compared to how every editor has minor biases related to their background, their motivations for editing, and so on. CorporateM (Talk) 18:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for entertaining my questions, Sir! To be honest, I think you need a long beach vacation. Happy editing! (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 16, 2014)[edit]

Renfair entertainers.jpg

Entertainers at a festival

Hello, CorporateM.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:


Previous selections: Lobamba • April Fools' Day

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Evad37 (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

Studio One[edit]

Hi CorporateM I am the one responsible for the Studio One Wikipedia page: My question is why the body was edited so heavily. I understand the Award Section (I was about to delete it after talking with the help desk.) I am interested in adding the below to the current article. If you disagree can you please state a reason why.

Studio One (Marketing Company) is an award winning [1], full-service content marketing company [2] based in New York City. Studio One creates branded or brand-aligned content in a variety of formats that is distributed across a network of websites. [3] Studio One is a long-standing member of the Interactive Advertising Bureau [4] chairing the Content Marketing Task Force. [5]

History Bob Blackmore and Andrew Susman founded Studio One, formally known as Studio One Networks, in 1998. Previously, Blackmore had served as Executive Vice President for NBC TV Network and Chairman of the American Advertising Federation. Susman is a former Marketing Director and Director of Business Development at Time Inc. [6]

American Honda [7] and Nestlé USA were among Studio One’s first clients. In 1999 Studio One and American Honda announced plans to produce and distribute the first series of syndicated programs for the internet. [8] Over the years, the company has gone on to develop content programs for many of America's best known brands, including Intel, Bridgestone [9], Pantene [10] , Iams [11] and Kellogs [12].

In 2007, Studio One helped founded the Internet Content Syndication Council (ICSC). [13] The mission of the ICSC was to promote the growth of the content syndication industry by improving the understanding of its impact on the advertising, media, creative and consumer communities. [14]

Two years later, Studio One formed Studio One Networks Ventures, which made equity investments in media and technology companies in exchange for participation in the company's programming. [15] In 2012, Studio One launched its Content Asset Management Platform (CAMP) to help brands track content performance.[16] Also that year, Studio One launched a journalist certification program in a bid to assure the production of quality content. [17]

In 2013 Studio One founded the Content Marketing Task Force with the IAB. [18]

References Jump up ^ Outstanding Websiteretrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ Here's The Entire Content Marketing World In One Bafflingly Complex Chart by Jim Edwards; at Business Insider/ published September 14 2012; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ Content is King by Anne Sherber; at Digiday; published November 14 2011; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ General Members retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ Content Marketing Primer by IAB; published December 16, 2013; Jump up ^ Studio One Touts 'Decade of Delivery' by Fern Siegel; at MediaPost; published August 20 2009; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ American Honda Motors Co Inc by Jonathan Graw; at LA Times; published June 8, 1999; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ IQ News: Honda to Sponsor Syndicated Content by Sloane Lucas; at AdWeek; published June 7, 1999; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ Studio One Touts 'Decade of Delivery' by Fern Siegel; at MediaPost; published August 20 2009; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ Google Warns Brands To Be Up-Front About Native Ads by Laurie Sullivan; at MediaPost; published May 31 2013; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ Content Syndication Gets More Targeted and Niche-Oriented by Ellie Behling; at eMedia; published August 27, 2010; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ [1]retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ ICSC BOARD OF DIRECTORSretrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ [2]<April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ Studio One Launches Ventures Division published September 9, 2009 retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ Studio One Launches Content Management Dashboard Platform to aid brands in publishing branded material by Charlie Warzel; by AdWeek; published June 11 2012; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ It's Hard Out There for Freelancers by Charlie Warzel; by AdWeek; published May 7 2012; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ Content Marketing Primer by IAB; published December 16, 2013;

Thanks for all of your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia.mielczarek (talkcontribs) 17:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stop editing the article and discuss your suggested changes on the Talk page of the article one at-a-time. CorporateM (Talk) 17:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment on recent edits[edit]

@CorporateM: Good morning, afternoon, evening.... I received an email notification of changes to the Husain Haqqani article, section that you edited. As I read the edits, they have now biased the article's NPOV again to skew facts to make it appear as if Haqqani is free and clear of all that mess. The editor has a long history (based on review of Contributions) dating back several years in editing this and other articles about subjects close to Haqqani and his sphere of influence. I thought I'd ask your opinion and see if you feel the edits are neutral (each in its own right is, but when taken together with the rest of what is written, they bias the point of view, in my judgment). As I am a conflicted party, I can only raise questions, but not intervene directly to edit the article. Would you have a look please? --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to these edits made by Bill Thrace? From what I can tell the edits look minor, acceptable and do not appear to skew the content in a specific direction. Maybe you can point out a specific change you object to? CorporateM (Talk) 15:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@CorporateM: That's why these type of things need more than one view and one pair of eyes. I agree that in and of themselves, the edits are all neutral and presented properly. But this particular deletion below was a carefully worded sentence to make clear the Supreme Court lifted a BAN and ALLOWED Haqqani to travel. What is left out of all this editing process is that Haqqani made a hard commitment to the Supreme Court to return on 15 days clear notice, and when the Supreme Court asked once, twice, three times, he did NOT do so. That is very different from what is in the article now -- which makes it seem that all is hunky dory that he doesn't go back and may never go back to face the findings of the Judicial Commission. The edits have now re-written this important aspect of the history as it actually occurred, and therefor I believe it is inaccurate as presented in the whole. I will find you a reference in a few minutes that clearly states his requirement to return at the Supreme Court's first demand.
In January, 2012, Pakistan's Supreme Court lifted the travel ban and allowed Haqqani to leave the country.[1]
  1. ^ BBC News Asia "Pakistan 'memogate': Husain Haqqani travel ban lifted", BBC, 2012-01-30. Accessed 2014-04-16.
--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@CorporateM: Relevant phraseology from credible reference [1] and more recently [2] is:
Haqqani's lawyer Asma Jahangir yesterday filed an application in the Supreme Court which asked that the bar on him leaving the country should be withdrawn as he had fully cooperated with the judicial commission investigating the alleged memo which had sought US help to stave off a possible military takeover in May last year. In its order, the apex court said Haqqani would be allowed to travel out of Pakistan on the condition that he provides details of his visit to the registrar of the court and that he would be bound to return on four days' notice if his attendance is required by the judicial commission or the court.
Hope that helps make the point I think has been lost in the article as it stands now. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I was wrong, it was "four days' notice" not fifteen. Apologies --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
We don't need all the details when using summary style on a topic with a separate article, but I corrected it so it didn't make it sound like the lift of the travel ban was permanent. CorporateM (Talk) 16:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

(unindenting)@CorporateM: I respectfully disagree. May I suggest one other fix that will perhaps make the point at the end of the section? If the last sentence of the section, which now reads like this:

Haqqani, who had been permitted by the Supreme Court to travel freely, has not returned to Pakistan, citing threats on his life.[23]

were to read like this:

Haqqani, who had been permitted by the Supreme Court to travel, has not returned to Pakistan as required under his initial undertakings to the court, citing threats on his life.[23]

then I would say it is accurate and reflects the gravity of his undertakings that he has failed to accept thus far, whether for legitimate reasons or not. This is surely an important point in summary formats -- an oath given that was never fulfilled. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)