Jump to content

Talk:Fortinet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fw rulez (talk | contribs) at 14:27, 27 May 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Should something be done about the links to the Myamar government site because it's down...oh yeah, they cut off internet access to everyone.

There are presumably blogs that have reproduced the info, if you want to look them up. Sdedeo (tips) 19:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Question for Sdedeo: Why do you continue to remove information and external links that are a) not marketing materials b) have third-party verification or c) provide the same background as companies similar to Fortinet in the security industry (i.e. Cisco, etc.). Would appreciate some guidance, if you're open to such. Thank you. Mediaphyter 00:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)mediaphyter[reply]

The point of wikipedia is not to catalog every business venture that Fortinet has gone into. It is not a place to reproduce marketing materials (this is why I removed the massive list of press releases at the end of the article.) Finally, everything in wikipedia needs to be written in a neutral tone, and much of the language that I have removed is highly promotional in nature.
An important question to ask in a wikipedia article is "is it notable?" That means finding outside, significant, neutral, third-party coverage of some aspect of the company. Simply because Fortinet does a press release that is reprinted or summarized in a trade journal does not mean we should cover it. Ideally, we would source information in this article to major journals and newspapers.
I am happy to provide guidance. My suggestion is that you (and the anonymous IP who also shows up to delete material) work on other areas of the wiki for a while; whatever your connection to Fortinet, you will learn a great deal by working on something other than this single article. Sdedeo (tips) 15:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I cannot speak for the anonymous editor, but I've personally added information rather than deleted information, nor have I ever tried to omit any of Fortinet's more perceivably "controversial" information. Rather, try to add third-party verified information to round out the story (as I have done with other wiki pages, under an old username -- the password for which I've lost and no longer use the email addres son file). So, if I'm to understand correctly: third-party articles -- ok. Third-party articles, however, summarizing a press release, or a press release itself summarizing third-party verification of a company's achievement -- not OK. Correct? I also understand the deletion of the product "catalog" as it was previously called in some notes, however there is information that was omitted (and not marketing focused) that would be educational and informative to experts on network security. And those are the people that would likely be researching Fortinet and its competitors. So in order for Wikipedia to truly provide third-party, non-marketing information that truly helps its readership, that type of educational material should be allowed, correct? Otherwise there'd be very little reason for a senior technologist to turn to Wikipedia for background. Just trying to determine the right divide. Thanks.

Mediaphyter 21:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)mediaphyter[reply]

As a former Fortinet employee, we received emails from the Fortinet marketing department instructing us that they were using Wikipedia as a vehicle for their marketing campaign and that we should under no circumstances edit it. When I attempted to correct the inaccuracy that Ken Xie was the CTO and *not* the CEO of Netscreen as documented in numerous articles on the Internet, such as http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1998_Nov_17/ai_53230275 it was promptly removed by Fortinet corporate marketing (mediaphyter). Wikipedia will be a lot more useful for researchers if it is not viewed as an additional marketing vehicle by the vendors to advance their skewed and often untrue mythologizing.

There's indeed no need to reproduce the list of company's products here. Nor the list of certifications. The reason being is that the notable fact about either is that they exist, and not their details. Details tend to change frequently, so the natural place to look for them is not the Wikipedia, but the vendor's website. Alex Pankratov 22:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just one editor, and I recognize that the content here needs to reflect consensus and not just my POV. But: I take a hard link about extlinks on articles about companies. I struck the ICSA and NSS "certifications" from the extlink list. An extlink is a consensus endorsement that an external site adds significant value to the article. These links don't qualify.

Generally, anything valuable in an extlink (short of a link to Fortinet's home page) is better off summarized in the article and then referenced (extlinks are not references). So I don't object to a short graf saying that Fortigate has obtained ICSA and NSS certification (although I'll probably snipe a bit at the wording).

--- tqbf 22:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

boo

i don't like it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.111.70 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fortinet&oldid=215280443"