Talk:Sageworks

Website

Hi, I just wanted to change the website address in the top right box on the page. The new web site address for Sageworks is www.sageworks.com. 24.206.46.166 (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That was  Done. --doncram 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Article content

The article appears to have been written for purely company promotional purposes. Several edits seek to disguise the fact that Sageworks both offers software services and at the same time repackages and resells for profit customer supplied private company data.

Web based software companies run significant risk of data loss due to security data breach. Sageworks exacerbates this by deliberately reselling the customer data.

No indemnity for data loss is offered to the customers.

This article is about a non-notable private company and should be deleted.--Slowestonian (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

These views were expressed by editor Slowestonian in the AFD that Slowestonian opened in January (linked from a box above), and which was closed "No Concensus". There is more to add to the article based on the AFD discussion (including academic paper/appendix about the Sageworks database which I commented about in the AFD), and the article is different now, too. Slowestonian is free to raise new/continuing issues, including re-raising any of their concerns expressed here, and is doing so in sections below. But let's consider this one section to be done, though, okay? --doncram 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I may "hat" this or mark it as a closed/finished discussion. Anyhow, please address new/continuing issues below. --doncram 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

editors associated with the subject?

(section split out and titled by me. --doncram 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC))

The article is persistently manipulated by what appears to be a number of sockpuppet accounts. The following accounts appear to have been created solely to edit this article only:

77 woodmont

Roamingeditor222226

--Slowestonian (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

An additional editor whose sole contribution in Wikipedia is to provide distorting contributions to this article is:

Entrepreneurship58039

These editors appear to be associated with Sageworks and seek to turn Wikipedia into a commercial promotion soapbox.--Physitsky (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Those are pretty strong statements!, perhaps over-statements. I was contacted at my Talk by User:77 woodmont and invited to comment here.

It is okay for editors who have an association with a firm to edit the article about the firm, although they should be directed to familiarize themselves with wp:COI policy and to abide by it. As I recall, the Conflict of Interest (COI) policy includes that editors should generally disclose their relationship, and they can definitely participate freely in Talk page discussion and make specific suggestions of passages to include in the article. COI editors are allowed to edit in the article. But if there are disagreements they should generally back off and discuss issues at the Talk page, only, (except they can continue to make uncontroversial changes like correcting the company's website) and they should allow non-COI editors to make edits where things are controversial.

Have these editors all been advised of wp:COI? I'll follow up to them and will comment further soon. --doncram 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe the article is a self-promotional piece that is being pushed with the fervor of someone associated with this insignificant company. The point I was making with my edits is that Sageworks engages in the practice of collecting and reselling private customer data that is typically jealously protected by business owners. Its business model along with its web-facing systems are prone to cyber attacks.

This business model and customer data loss risk must be clearly stated in this article. Hiding this from the reader is a disservice to Wikipedia visitors. --Physitsky (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, slow down! Let this discussion section be about wp:COI issues and charges of sockpuppeting. I and others can respond to your concerns in discussion sections below, okay?

Specifically I will contact the 3 editors named above: User:77 woodmont, User:Roamingeditor222226, and User:Entrepreneurship58039, whom I roughly understand to have edited on the "positive" or "promotional" side, perhaps, though it may be they are uninvolved, non-COI, and just trying to use sources and follow policy.  Done

But, also there has been suggestion of possibility that editors on the "negative" side might have associations with Sageworks' competitors, which I think would also be a wp:COI that should be disclosed. It would be good to clarify. So can I ask that everyone participating make a note here in this section, disclosing their association with Sageworks or any competitor, if any, or indicating they have no associations? Including User:Physitsky and User:Slowestonian and User:Harald Forkbeard, please? Also could anyone please name firms that are possibly considered competitors? --doncram 22:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

And, also I will contact any editors who participated in the AFD, who have not already be contacted, to participate in discussion on this page. Editor 77 Woodmont contacted me and two other editors to invite us to participate, but the others should be invited too, so I will do so. Done 77 woodmont is a new editor and doesn't know all our policies yet, of course, please note. They have so far only participated on this topic, which is fine, you have to start somewhere. (And it is fine if they are associated with the company, too, but per wp:COI should make some disclosure.) --doncram 22:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Also I asked, at User:77 woodmont, for them to explain how User:77 woodmont, User:Roamingeditor222226, and User:Entrepreneurship58039 all got started at about the same time and have so far edited on Sageworks topic mostly. I assume they are connected, either one person not understanding yet about our policy on using mulitple accounts, or three friends or whatever who have the same interest for some good reason. Will expect for any discussion about that to be at User talk:77 woodmont. --doncram 23:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Association(s)?

• I have no associations with Sageworks or its competitors. --doncram 22:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Nothing to do with this company or competitive firms either. --Physitsky (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• I had never heard of Sageworks (and don't know who its conpetitors are) until I got involved with the AfD. As far as the on going discussion, I may have little, if any, time to participate. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Competitors

• Hoover's would be one competitor.--Physitsky (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• IRS also publishes corporate financial ratios. This is collected from public filings made by companies that must report such data under the Securities Act of 1933. --Physitsky (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Dunn & Bradstreet was mentioned as comparable to Hoover's in the AFD --doncram
• BizComps, named as a data service with implication it has a private company database, by User:Harald Forkbeard, in the AFD --doncram
• Pratt's Stats, named as a data servicewith implication it has a private company database, by User:Harald Forkbeard, in the AFD --doncram
• Done Deals, named as a data service with implication it has a private company database, by User:Harald Forkbeard, in the AFD --doncram

- It's worth mentioning that Dunn and Bradstreet owns Hoover's. Also, the Pratt's Stats and BizComps are private business sale databases. The information is either volunteered by business brokers, with express permission of the business owners, or obtained from public sources such as EDGAR database which records private business acquisitions by public companies.

There is no risk of inappropriate data disclosure for customers using these databases as the private businesses usually are wound up and dissolved upon a sale. --Physitsky (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

further comments on "editors associated with the subject"

• With no replies from User:77 woodmont, User:Roamingeditor222226, or User:Entrepreneurship58039, and other hints, I think now that it was one Wikipedia-experienced paid PR consultant editor who created 3 throwaway accounts, selectively canvassed at my Talk page and at 2 other AFD participant pages, and who will not return as they got what they wanted: more attention to this article probably leading to removal of negative stuff. Feeling a bit used, oh well. --doncram 18:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• The persistence in suppressing the 'bad press' on their business model and legalese to defend against potential customer claims, makes this an obvious attempt to promote Sageworks while hiding the dirty details from the reader. I can't see how such distorted presentation serves the best interests of Wikipedia readers. --Physitsky (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• And Jackochs is another throwaway account used to frustrate one of the previous deletion attempts. And maybe there were more. Physitsky, i think you go too far about asserting data security problems and that the data sharing arrangement is unethicals, but I am coming around towards thinking this article is not worth the bother, and that maybe it should be deleted after all. And if so, with a solid record of shenanigans saved permanently in an AFD record. In the AFD, i was strong on the Keep side, however, how reconcile that? Hmm, maybe the topic could be notable, but we choose to delete this version anyhow, on grounds there is no substantial content and its promo/advertising. And plan to watch/delete any new versions under name variations. (And maybe that would cost the paid editor their commission, in the bargain.) I dunno. --doncram 23:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• And possibly User:Jclemens Mdascola, who User:Cryptic figured out was the one objecting to another deletion, with this diff at Talk:Jclemens. Jclemens has edited in other areas, though, has participated in 2,344 AFDs, per afdstats report. User:Mdascola has just 3 edits, brought in Jclemens, a lot like i was used by 77 woodmont. --doncram 23:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds about right. --Physitsky (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And from reviewing contributions in the article, this Talk page, and the AFD, I see more sockpuppets, likely all being one paid editor. Their edits include a few edits to other articles, to enable them to claim they are not a sockpuppet, they edit other articles, as one did on this Talk page. Small edits to some India articles, e.g. this edit to an Indian high school article, suggest, or are meant to suggest, some Indian association of the editor. One or more suggest some Bridgton, Maine association, and interest in NCAA bball.

The ones identified before are:

1. User:77 woodmont
2. User:Roamingeditor222226
3. User:Entrepreneurship58039
4. User:Jackochs13
5. User:Mdascola

Now add:

1. i.p. 67.244.102.145 is the same as User:Roamingeditor222226, it appears by sequence and timing of edits on this Talk page, and the I.P. only edited this article and talk page.
2. i.p. 24.206.46.166, includes a few other edits to mislead, but is Sageworks sockpuppet too
3. Ronald_M_Creatore_Esq., solely devoted to Sageworks
4. Financepro123, solely devoted to Sageworks, created the Sageworks article
5. 66.108.227.59, solely devoted to Sageworks
6. Sageworksinc, of course, which is blocked.
7. Wulftown, probably too.

I'll open sockpuppet investigation to get these recorded, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sageworksinc, under the Sageworksinc name as that is descriptive. --doncram 19:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I've made a disclosure at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sageworksinc, and I wanted to make that known on the talk page as well. --77 woodmont (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Pinging editors participating in this section: Slowestonian, Physitsky, VMS Mosaic. Disclosure of socking given in last edit, but you most likely would have missed it as it was marked minor. See the SPI. --doncram 02:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Investigation completed with result that the suspected current sock puppets are all confirmed and blocked. Some of older ones are stale accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sageworksinc/Archive.

 Done --doncram 09:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Editorializing and Evading the Key Issue with the Article

An editor "slowestonian" has consistently editorialized and violated both WP:EDITORIAL and WP:WEASEL on this page. Please desist. It's clear from his/her editing history that he/she has run run into this issue with other users and pages before.

Cannot speak for the other account mentioned, but if you'll look at my history you'll see that I've edited several other entries. Thanks. --Roamingeditor222226 (talk) 30 December 2014 (UTC)

All my edits are referenced using the Sageworks own policies posted online, such as their privacy policy and terms of use. You appear to be attempting to disguise the fundamental issues with this article, namely that it is an attempt at a self-promotion by a non-notable private company. Please refrain from rote quotes of WP:EDITORIAL and WP:WEASEL, as they are clearly subject to interpretation.

The article needs to be reviewed by senior Wikipedia editors for possible deletion. --Slowestonian (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article could benefit from some senior editor eyes (although if you look at the editing history, you'll see that it has received attention from senior editors). I'm ambivalent about the existence of this article, but as long as it does exist and you continue to editorialize and use misleading language, I will continue to correct it. Thanks for understanding.

--Roamingeditor222226 (talk) 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to focus on the simple fact that this article is a thinly disguised attempt at self-promotion. It serves no other purpose and should be deleted from Wikipedia. --Slowestonian (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, i don't know if I count as a "senior editor" or not, but everyone who participated in the AFD is being invited to participate here. Please, can we cool it down here? Please try to state your concerns clearly, and try not to over-state anything, okay? And let's try to focus on the article content issues specifically, and not on the other editors, okay?

On the content issues here, hey, could someone please explain what they see as "the Key Issue with the Article"? And/or what is the nature of "editorializing" perceived to be going on? When i looked at the article, I did't see anything very obviously promotional, but the article has been changing. And I will say that there is probably too much about the data privacy and disclosure and so on, to leave in the article, but that is a good topic for Talk page. Please use small words for me. :) --doncram 22:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The key issue with the article is that it seems to be a thinly veiled attempt to promote this company. The company has nothing of note compared to other, more prominent resources.

In addition, Sageworks appears to engage in two profit seeking enterprises at once:

• Collecting private company data, as part of its web-based service offerings.
• Repackaging and reselling this same data for an additional profit.

Anyone can turn a buck so long as it's legal. Visitors reading an impartial article in Wikipedia should be able to spot the potential conflict of interest (data collection and resale) and the risk of private business data exposure to theft by hackers.

Private company data is a high value target for cyber criminals. Sageworks stores such data on web-facing servers. They know the risk, so they demand a hold harmless clause as part of their service agreement. In other words, if Sageworks loses the customer sensitive data, its customers are left holding the proverbial bag. Worse yet, the third party claims their terms of use refer to is to protect them against the irate business owners who realize that their sensitive business data was released to Sageworks by their professional advisers who might be using the services, and may have skipped over the fine print.

A group of editors keeps trying to sweep these issues under the rug.--Physitsky (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Okay, to me that sounds like 2 issues: promotional tone and concerns about data usage/security/Terms-of-use-disclosure/etc. Seems to me that promotional tone can be addressed easily by editing, later, but what the article is to say about data needs to be decided here, first.

Physitsky, you seem to be knowledgeable about general web-based data security stuff and more that I don't happen to know much about, but do you have any specific knowledge about security lapses at Sageworks? It would probably be relevant for the article to report if there have been any reported data losses. However, even if we know about something, in general we can't write about it in an article unless we have published sources supporting everything said, that we can reference, per, i guess wp:Verifiability. It's also possible sometimes to explain some general, well-known facts without specific referencing, IF we really believe the assertions are true and well-accepted AND IF there is no disagreement amongst editors about the assertions. Here there is disagreement, so everything needs to be sourced.

Editor 77 woodmont questioned, specifically, the following passage:

The growing threat is evidenced by the report published by Kaspersky Lab information security company [15] on major customer data security breach suffered by financial institutions who store customer critical data and are under constant threat of cyber attacks of increasing sophistication. Given this level of success demonstrated by cyber criminals against the well funded financial companies, there is doubt that Sageworks, a private firm with limited resources, can successfully defend customer data given its storage on web accessible systems. The growing threat is evidenced by the report published by Kaspersky Lab information security company on major customer data security breach suffered by financial institutions who store customer critical data and are under constant threat of cyber attacks of increasing sophistication. Given this level of success demonstrated by cyber criminals against the well funded financial companies, there is doubt that Sageworks, a private firm with limited resources, can successfully defend customer data given its storage on web accessible systems.

References

Physitsky, am I correct to assume that you wrote/added that? I am not checking. That passage cites a source that we'd deem reliable (AP news story published in NYTimes), but the source doesn't mention Sageworks at all. So it's a general concern, and no specific concern for Sageworks, right? I wonder if Sageworks has in fact had any data thefts, or has any substantial data security risks, or whether it has any statements on its security measures? But if we don't have any specific sourcing about Sageworks, I have to agree with 77 woodmont that the passage needs to be dropped from this article. It is relevant, I agree, for the article to talk about Sageworks' protection of data, as it is a potential concern. --doncram 00:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote that. This recent report by Kaspersky Lab is yet another reminder of the ever growing cyber threats. Financial institutions affected involve some of the best protected companies on the planet. Needless to say, Sageworks is far more vulnerable.

Sageworks has made some statements in their security policy. To my knowledge there is no independent oversight as to their secutity policy and implementation.

We are talking about several issues here: vulnerability to customer data loss from outside threats, as well as the malicious data theft risk by insiders. Private company data is a closely guarded secret, so the whole data collection and assignment of responsibility for keeping the data safe must be clearly discussed. --Physitsky (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The point is not whether Sageworks is mentioned in Kaspersky Lab report. The point is that they are vulnerable and that their customer data is at risk. Their practice of collecting and storing private company data makes them a high value hacker target. It is a matter of time before a breach occurs. --Physitsky (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

One more report on the recent cyber theft affecting a number of banks: . It seems the initial impact has been underestimated. Breaches of companies' data collection servers were the main target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physitsky (talk • contribs) 01:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Making the entry more readable & avoiding WP:EW

There's clearly some disagreement on this page. Some parties have voiced that this article is too self-promotional (though I believe the majority of those instances have been corrected). Some, like myself, have voiced that there's too much editorializing on the part of an editor (though I believe most of those instances have been corrected as well). As stated above, I think this entry could benefit from attn from senior editors. However, if the entry remains, it needs to be more readable. It currently reads as a product of bickering (see WP:EW) rather than anything informative.

I'd like to slightly rearrange the sections of the piece over the next week, while preserving the content, in order to make the piece actually readable/informative. I'd ask that other editors on the page assume good faith as I rearrange these sections. If the article is deleted (as stated above, I'm ambivalent on that, and would differ to senior editors) that's one thing, but if it remains, it should be readable. Roamingeditor222226 (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent idea. It would be appropriate to state what we know about the rather questionable business model. It would be illuminating for Wikipedia readers to realize that Sageworks offers both the software services and then resells customer-provided private company data as a second line of business. Non-disclosure and loss prevention of such critical data entrusted to the software provider is a fundamental element of the contract between itself and its customers. Where a profit incentive clearly exists to disclose such data in some form, a mention of the potential conflict of interest must be made.

Without proper explanation, this fact is concealed, thus misleading the reader as to the actual business practices employed by Sageworks.

This is important as the practice of offering a service and then mining the contents for additional financial gain is a significant observation that a Wikipedia reader should be able to make after reading this article.--Slowestonian (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor Roamingeditor222226 continues to try to conceal the facts behind the Sageworks attempts to shield itself against third party claims arising from its use of customer provided data. This begs the question as to what level of responsibility for customer data protection Sageworks assumes. Looks like not much. --Slowestonian (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If you read my edit you'll see my qualm was with the phrasing, after I reviewed the cited clause more carefully. Your rephrasing of the section may more accurate, but I'm planning to review the source/clause once again to ensure that it is, in fact, accurate. I'm not trying to conceal anything, I'm aiming for accuracy. I'd advise you to review some of the Wiki policies more closely, in this case WP:GF. --Roamingeditor222226 (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As a secondary note, I'm fascinated by your tendency to use misleading language in this entry, as well as your laser focus on what appears to be a fairly standard terms of use clause. Have you ever read a privacy policy or terms of use clause? Do you see direct wording of these kinds of clauses on other company pages? I don't. It all comes across as very strange. Part of me suspects that you may be working for a competitor of this company, but again, I'd like to assume good faith. Just know that I am planning to watch your edits on this page extremely closely. Thanks for understanding. --Roamingeditor222226 (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you continue to miss the point I am making, namely that Sageworks is duty bound to protect the customer data it collects. Instead, it engages in dubious practices of repackaging and profiting from the very data it is expected to protect. Disclosure of such data may cause major harm to its customers, yet Sageworks seeks to shield itself from all responsibility for such harm by legalese. At best, it is a highly disingenuous practice, at worst, a rather brazen attempt to profit from its customers in unethical ways. --Slowestonian (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

clear

Clear reference from somewhere above:

References

Re-posting a discussion from talk page

Reposted from talk page of Physitsky, who replied on that page. Reposting here, b/c discussion should probably happen on company page.

---(begin copied passage)--- Hello. I believe you need to brush up on the following policies, as evidenced by your disruptive and unsubstantiated edits to the Sageworks page: WP:NPOV, WP:WORDS, WP:WEASEL to name just a few.

For example: you cite a report that talks about financial institutions being at risk for cyber attack. You then point to the fact that the company has financial institution clients, so therefore they are a high risk target. The source is "reliable," but it has no bearing on the company in question, and it comes across as a very thinly veiled attempt to make a baseless allegation.

We clearly don't see eye to eye on this subject, which is why I've asked several senior editors to review the page. Regardless, I'd advise you to review the policies above before making further edits to the page. --77 woodmont (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

For reference, this is the passage in question, that I'm hoping a senior editor can review. I'm holding on reverting. "The growing threat is evidenced by the report published by Kaspersky Lab information security company [15] on major customer data security breach suffered by financial institutions who store customer critical data and are under constant threat of cyber attacks of increasing sophistication. Given this level of success demonstrated by cyber criminals against the well funded financial companies, there is doubt that Sageworks, a private firm with limited resources, can successfully defend customer data given its storage on web accessible systems.The growing threat is evidenced by the report published by Kaspersky Lab information security company [15] on major customer data security breach suffered by financial institutions who store customer critical data and are under constant threat of cyber attacks of increasing sophistication. Given this level of success demonstrated by cyber criminals against the well funded financial companies, there is doubt that Sageworks, a private firm with limited resources, can successfully defend customer data given its storage on web accessible systems." --77 woodmont (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

As long as we are reposting from my talk page, let's repost everything, per below:

I'd advise you to cease persistent attempts to disguise known risks posed by Sageworks services. As long as you continue to distort the picture, I will continue to rectify it. --Physitsky (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Kaspersky Lab report clearly indicates the danger of storing private customer data on web-facing systems. It stands to reason that Sageworks, which does store such data on web-accessible systems, is a high value target for cyber criminals, posing a known risk for its customers.

In addition, Sageworks seeks to evade resposibility for possible data breach by putting up a hold harmless clauses in its Terms of Use. Clear evidence of the confidence level in their ability to safeguard customer data. --Physitsky (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Classic 1 + 1 = 14 logic, in my opinion, but we'll see what a few more seasoned editors have to contribute here. --77 woodmont (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

My logic is simple - the article is self-promotional in nature and seeks to hide known risks. I will continue to expose these risks for the benefit of Wikipedia readers. --Physitsky (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

---(end copied passage)---

Okay, noted. Can we consider this Talk page section done, and discuss these issues in other sections already started? Thanks for sharing. If no one objects I may mark this section as done/closed. --doncram 00:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I can not see that the security concerns in the last paragraph here are the least bit unusual. Surely they apply to all companies that collect business data. The NYT ref is not about this company, but the general problem; it mentions few companies as examples, but not this one. I therefore think the effect of the edits supported by one of the editors above is to turn it into an attack page. Unless there sources that show any such noteworthy problems at this particular company they should not be restored. .

As for the second paragraph, what's unusual about this either? They resell aggregated data. I would think all business concerns do, unless they actually claim otherwise. Unless some evidence here can be provided, I don;t see the encyclopedic relevance,so I have deleted that also.

As you know, I am among those who thought the company insufficiently notable. I'm not sure that I agree with the conclusions of the AfD, but that's another matter. Notable or not, this content is not appropriate. We don't give companies the same protections as we do natural people--if this were about a BLP I'd have protected and warned about blocking. But we do not accept attacks express or implied about anything. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• While I !voted keep, I agree with DGG as far as the appropriate content. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You missed the whole point of the argument here. Sageworks claims to collect data from private companies. But there is a problem casing doubt on their credibility: private company owners do not disclose their financial and operations data to outsiders. Indeed, they guard this info jealously. That information is extremely hard to get and very valuable if resold.

At a guess, Sageworks gets this info from the professional advisers who have neglected to secure consent from the business owners.

To protect itself against irate business owners wrath, Sageworks puts up a legal agreement whereby they would seek indemnity from their customers (i.e. professional advisers) in the event that business owners go after Sageworks for improper private company information disclosure. This fails the smell test.

Sageworks business model suffers from undisclosed conflict of interest: on the one hand, they are expected to protect private company information from disclosure. On the other, they are profiting from its resale.

Whether you think this is ethical or not is beside the point. These points are relevant, so Wikipedia readers should be able to see this by reading an informative article.

Otherwise, this is merely a self-promotional piece and has no place in Wikipedia in my opinion. --Physitsky (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

your argument here is what we call WP:SYNTHESIS and we do not do that. The Kaparsky report reported on a weakness common to essentially all companies in the IT business. It should therefore be discussed at general subject article. To use this to specifically criticiseone particular company because its data is subject to this problem is absurd. You need to show that either there are specific reports that have involved this company, or that some reliable source has reported that it specifically affects this company more than others.

the current article is not an advertisement. It's a straightforward description of what the company does. We permit neither puffery nor unreasonable and nonspecific criticism. There's no need to argue which is worse: both are unacceptable. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 21:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have trouble understanding the concerns about Sageworks that I have brought up above. The article must include these concerns to make the readers aware of the risks associated with their business model. If you are unable to comprehend what these risks are, then leave it to the editors who possess the background in financial services and software to make appropriate contributions.

You deleted a chunk of discussion that I deem highly relevant to this company and the way it does business. --Physitsky (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Physitsky, I think your understanding is imperfect. You say above

But there is a problem casing doubt on their credibility: private company owners do not disclose their financial and operations data to outsiders. Indeed, they guard this info jealously. That information is extremely hard to get and very valuable if resold. / At a guess, Sageworks gets this info from the professional advisers who have neglected to secure consent from the business owners.

But business owners WILL share such info, if they get get sufficient benefit. They can get useful information back, perhaps, e.g., report on various financial ratios and operational measures, on average for firms comparable to their own (useful benchmarks for them to consider making changes to own business). That's why many firms participate in industry association surveys, or salary surveys. Or they could get a discount on the accounting services that they are buying (or get a cash rebate). Of course they must evaluate benefit > cost, but it can be reasonable for them to believe their identifiable info will be safeguarded, per contract terms. Note consumers share info freely all the time, e.g. in order to get discounts when grocery shopping using store cards. --doncram 08:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sageworks does not offer any benefits to business owners in exchange for reselling their private data. Financial ratios by industry are readily available from a number of reputable sources already, such as Troy Almanac of Financial Ratios. I believe Sageworks fails to obtain explicit consent from business owners to resell their company data in any form. That is precisely why they have the highly objectionable indemnity clause trying to shield themselves from potential law suits. --Physitsky (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Look, I know this industry pretty well. The point is not whether we agree or not. The point is that Sageworks' data gathering practices do not pass the smell test for me. I think this concern is legitimate and should be clearly stated in the article.--Physitsky (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"do not pass the smell test for me", "highly objectionable", "I believe Sageworks fails", " I know this industry", etc. Total personal opinion, nothing more. Please see WP:NPOV. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Every editor, including yourself, has a personal opinion in the matter. I am expressing mine based on experience and understanding of the issues.

So far, you have not offered any cogent counter-argument to the points I have made. Indeed, I sense lack of appreciation for the issues I have outlined. What is your level of expertise in the financial analysis and software services to support your opinion here?--Physitsky (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As an editor, I need zero level of expertise, a point you completely fail to understand. As an editor, I must have a complete lack of appreciation for NON-NEUTRAL POINTS OF VIEW. All that matters is what can be shown by reliable sources. Do you have any reliable THIRD PARTY sources which support what you want to add in regard to this particular company? Your cites from the company website are nothing but pure WP:OR (i.e., original research without any reliable third party support). "I am expressing mine based on experience and understanding of the issues" is exactly what is wrong with your position (i.e., the exact opposite of having a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW). I think I have stated the Wikipedia position here as clearly as I can, so I'm going to just let WP:NPOV speak for itself from this point. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As an editor, you should stay out of discussion on the subject you do not understand. You confuse the issue with endless noise rather than offering substantive arguments to resolve the disagreement.

The analogy would be a doctor arguing with a farmer on the subject of nuclear medicine. I can see I am wasting my time on this. --Physitsky (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to drawn an analogy. Every food producing company is inherently from the nature of the business a possible subject for legal action for product contamination. Notable instances of this are of course suitable content for articles. Should we therefore in each article about a firm in the business, regardless of specific sources, discuss the problem of food contamination sand the hazards that might possibly be in eating their food? DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you should discuss the risk of food product contamination if the company in question engages in risky practices that raise such risk for the consumers.

I am appalled at your dogged persistence here. Again, we don't need to see the issues the same way. But an article to be useful must reflect all aspects.--Physitsky (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)