Talk:Call centre

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

UK English vs. other forms[edit]

In geographically-neutral articles such as this one, it is Wikipedia traditional and policy to keep the article's spelling in the same language variant as the original author. In this case the original spelling was International English (i.e. centre not center), and in the main body of the text continues to use this spelling. However it was located at "er", so I moved it for consistency. I suspect that it was moved erroneously sometime in the past, but this can't be detected using the history function. Pcb21| Pete 15:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article is about American technology that is predominantly in use in America. I think that the modern spelling ("center") should be used. Rmisiak 20:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"Center" is not the modern spelling, it is the American spelling. And this is not American technology, it is, as Pete said, "geographically neutral". It should remain as it is. Coffee 07:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
The article is not about American technology. There are European companies creating this technology. I work for one, and know of many other international players. Tetrode 22:31, 12 September 2005 (GMT+1)
Is there some dialect neutral term that we can use instead of "call centre" or "call center"? I understand that the naming is ambiguous as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English, but that same article also suggests that you can use a neutral word. As it is, this article is just very jarring to read as the word "centre" appears about 29 times, and particularly inconsistent because our article at Centre redirects to Center. Anyone have any suggestions? --DDG 22:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
And it'd be just as jarring for the other half of the English speaking world if it said "Center". Leave it where it is, for that is policy. --Kiand 22:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a reminder -- assume good faith on the part of editors that innocently slip into American English. Brit-writers don't always know or remember to stick to Yank-writer conventions and vice versa. Also, new editors, unaware of the guidelines, may quite innocently "correct" an entire article for "misspellings". Be sure to fix the Yank-speak but I encourage you to be extra tactful. I continue to be amazed at how quickly arguments over such a petty topic turn into major battles (see Talk:Under the Umbrella Tree#Canadian vs. American spelling which eventually led to an RfC process. (My own thoughts are encapsulated in my RfC comments there).
You can console yourself with the notion that 99.99% of readers understand what's written regardless of the version used in an article (just be careful when writing about "shag carpets) --A. B. 14:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

American/British spellings seemed to have become mixed together again ("Unionisation of call centers" being perhaps the most amusing)--changed to British spellings throughout as that seems to have been the previous verdict of this discussion.evildeathmath 15:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "International English" and the etymology of "call center" has not been traced, as far as I can see, although even then, we don't necessarily use the "original spelling," otherwise we'd only use Old English spellings. It's not an issue of which is "correct," but rather consistency across Wikipedia. As there is no "original author" here, do we judge by prevalence among native speakers (American English?), non-native speakers (British maybe? Who knows? there are a million bastard dialects like Globish and I couldn't find a proper survey in a quick search), or something else? I think the simplest standard of all is that, lacking the word having some particular ownership or regional specificty, it should just be based on global prevalence. Although this discussion should probably be moved elsewhere, merely linking here. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Calltech Edits[edit]

Reversed suspicious edits that removed reference to organised labour and other technical information that was perfectly valid without stated cause and without so much as a user page.--Achim 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed Link Spam. Adding links to a site under construction adds no value to Wikipedia. Use discussion to get a consensus rather than adding POV and such links. Calltech 14:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversed Calltech's supicious edits. In the first place, the link to Local 6520 is not under construction. Secondly, many construction sites keep such graphics because they are subject to frequent alterations, encouraging repeat visits. Thirdly, a local union office is not a commercial enterprise in this sense. The contents underline issues related to the unionisation of call centres, which IS HAPPENING. That is not POV, it is simply a matter of fact. While Steelworkers are not the only union to organise a call centre, they are certainly expanding organising efforts and they are meeting with success, simply because of the common complainst by call centre workers, many of which are outlioned in this article. I find it in particularly poor taste for Calltech (short for Call centre technology or something?) to issue "instructions" about using the discussion page. Many items get edited without doing that first and just exactly what is so distasteful about stating facts with regards to the unionisation of call centres? We're all editors here, equal of rank. Everything I have added is pure fact and can be substantiated. The local union's website is merely proof of the facts. If anyone doubts this, it is easy enough to verify through contacting local union executives on the website. So, if you're going to simply remove it, you better have a good reason, because I know I'm right and will stand my ground. I have proven my points with public references. I invite Calltech to contact me via e-mail through my user page to settle it. Failing that, we can get an arbitrator.--Achim 00:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, removing link spam to site under construction with advertising that Ahering chose to place in this article twice. Clearly a local union website in Canada that Ahering has some personal affiliation adds nothing to this article and he choses to continue to add it back without submitting to discussion. Removing SPAM and POV comments is not "suspicious activity", it is everyone's responsibility who takes Wikipedia seriously. However adamently Ahering protests, he is advocating a POV which is detracting from the content of this article.Calltech 01:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Both of you should slow down a little, take a deep breath, and keep cool. Both of you are treading on 3RR territory here. Perhaps post the content of the (suggested) inclusion here in the talk page for discussion before adding it to the article itself. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 01:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
My feeling is that specific local unionization information should not be provided here. A general comment about unionization is fine, but this article has suffered for many many links to all sorts of organizations over the years and the article should be kept Encyclopedic instead of regionally specific union links, or external links in general. In fact the article needs a good rewrite from the start, it doesn't flow well at all. --Kitsonk 02:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Make sure you fill out the RFM request properly and notify Calltech of the mediation request. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 02:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Note: - You can also try the Mediation Cabal, if the request isn't responded to in a timely manner. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 02:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried, but he's a new user and has no user page and no listed e-mail address. That is also why I invited him to an e-mail exchange with me, so this would not have to be so public. His response was to simply revert my edit and make his remark below.--Achim 03:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Click on the Calltech link in my previous edit. That will take you to his User Talk page, which is where another copy of the RFM needs to be placed. If he reverts it, that's something else entirely. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 04:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If Calltech has such problems with unionisation and the mention of specific unions and links, perhaps he should opt to "revert" HIMSELF to another sight. A public forum with the capability to "(edit)" is an invitation to do so, unless you OWN the Wikipedia (tm), you have no business interfering/meddling with others entries that are not profane or offensive. Does anyone else see the irony with this SINGLE PERSON'S self-righteous authoritarianism from a "PRO-UNION" pretense (leads me to believe that said person is not exactly pro-union, quite the opposite, and with a name like Call-Tech, takes an unhealthy amount of pride in the profession)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clemenz 10 (talkcontribs)

Full stop, right there. Ad hominem attacks aren't a good way to make a point. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 02:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Another thing to note. Wikipedia doesn't allow Original Research into its articles. As well, we need to provide citations from reliable sources for additions to content. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 02:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
That comment was Clemenz 10's first edit at WP. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 02:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request[edit]

Hi, I am not an official mediator but I will try to help.

Calltech, please remember don't bite the newbies and try to explain patiently to Achim why you feel his links do not belong here. Once Achim understands your position he can decide how to respond and perhaps we can have a discussion. --Ideogram 07:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to make these suggestions and try to open a discussion. I will attempt to be more patient in my response to this user. The reasons for removing his links have already been spelled out for User:Achim in the [Mediation Request (Response)].
Although this user is relatively new to Wikipedia, it appears he has already been blocked from editing another article for adding external links [User Talk Ahering (Comment)]. Both myself and User:Torinir suggested using the Article Discussion to gain peer consensus but so far User:Achim has declined.
Thank you for your patience. Achim, please respond. --Ideogram 15:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ideogram! I just looked at your page. I used to live near San Francisco myself for a while. If you can help - great. I would recommend that you take a look at the latest evidence I posted on the mediation page. I think it speaks for itself. As far as the high and mighty response from Calltech, I think it's more of the same. Again, I suggested direct communication with this individual to avoid the public forum. I remain firmly convinced that he lacks the backbone for that and that this is the reason his user page is empty and he has not posted an e-mail address to reach him. I could care less for his "patience". Who has he convinced himself that he is? If he had any balls whatsoever, he would have communicated directly before getting his nose out of joint. Also, if he had anything of substance to contribute, this would show in his contribution record - it doesn't. All he does is remove and revert with reasons that don't stand up to the remotest scrutiny. So, I will gladly accept your offer to mediate and I respectfully request that you take a look at the evidence I just added - in particular. Achim 01:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Full stop. There is absolutely no need for personal attacks. If you disagree with the position of Calltech, bring it up in a civilized manner. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 03:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to Torinir about civilised manner[edit]

Calltech has called me childish and his tongue is firmly in cheek with his responses, which are not responsive, really to what I am saying and the evidence I'm providing. If that is politically correct, is that appropriate to you? Achim 00:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Achim, I apologize for calling your statements childish.Calltech 13:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello Achim. It is not my job to look at and evaluate the evidence both of you have presented. I am here to try to help you have a productive discussion. You should each read the evidence the other has provided and use that as a basis for further discussion.
I will not pass judgement on any evidence either of you present. I will only serve to remind you when you violate Wikipedia policies or make statements that are not productive.
Therefore I must echo the words of Torinir that you have made some personal attacks which are not productive. Please comment on the content and not the contributor.
Calltech, have you read the evidence Achim mentions above? Do you feel Achim understands your position? If not, please try to clarify. --Ideogram 17:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello Ideogram. I have read the evidence Achim has published. I do not know if Achim understands my position. I have cited 4 specific Wikipedia standards violations I believe Achim has violated, quoting the specifics here[Mediation Request (Response)]. I will attempt to clarify my position here again.
Quoting from Achim, "What User:Calltech challenges is the authenticity of the subject of unionisation of Call centres". This is his opening statement to this mediation request. This is not true. I have never asserted that unions are not active or present in call centers. That appears to be the thesis for most his evidence. Achim does states in the article "Due to common complaints by call centre agents, a growing unionisation is beginning to emerge to represent the needs of workers". This is a POV that seems to have gone unauthenticated. A citation was requested, I believe, in the call center discussion area above prior to Achim placing links to his website under this topic. I did not, however, remove this POV (it is still in the article) but recommended that this POV be removed if it is simply Achim's POV. None of the evidence presented appears to address this assertion. Whether there is a growing or declining unionisation of call centers or whether this is just beginning to emerge or had happened already in the 90's could be argued. Again, I have no knowledge that any of this is true or false; it simply should be reliably cited or removed. This is not my point of contention with Achim's contribution to this article.
I HAVE continually stated and emphasized that I thought the links to Achim's own website were spam and I cited the specific Wikipedia standards. These are spelled out clearly in my response. I did not see any evidence provided by Achim quoting Wikipedia that supported his links - simply his opinion that his website should be in the article. Looking through the history of this article, there are numerous link spam removals and comments by other editors as well. I am sure all of the contributors and webmasters for these websites believe their sites provide valuable information relevant to Call Centers and they probably are all good sites. However, they were judged to be inappropriate links based upon Wikipedia's standards. Placing a link to a local Toronto union that Achim either controls or makes contributions, not just in the article body, but also in a separate, "External link" section is a red flag. Achim's website promotes his own local union and has a single line with links to what appears to be a call center organization and also a link back to this Wikipedia article. That's it, as far as call center information is concerned. Considering the volumes of websites, webpages, articles, tutorials, online training, etc, dedicated entirely to call centers and published on the web today (Google estimates 32 million pages), it is difficult to believe that Achim's site warrants a link from this article once, let alone twice.
Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, I have questioned the relevance of call center unionization to the overall call centre article and believe it is extremely small. The Wikipedia standard is clear [Undue Weight] which is what I researched and documented in my Response. This makes the addition of the link to Achim's website even less relevant. I understand the importance of this topic to Achim since he is an active union member promoting the unionization of businesses and organizations. However, this topic has a very small relevance to the overall theme of call centers and readers of this article. I recommended that, at best, a one line statement regarding call center unionization be placed under an existing heading, perhaps "Additional Issues" with a neutral POV. Another Wikipedia editor has made that same recommendation in the discussion above.
Hopefully this is the type of clarification you were looking for. Calltech 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Calltech. Let us take these issues one at a time. Achim, do you understand Wikipedia's policy on external links and why Calltech feels your links do not qualify? --Ideogram 20:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to Ideogram[edit]

I understand what he writes as well as what he puts between the lines. I am also growing tired of the back and forth with this individual. Let's get to a solution, shall we? If ANYONE would care to look at the evidence I provided, it can be stated that efforts are underway to unionise call centres. Evidence clearly points out that United Steelworkers have organised a centre in Sudbury and in St. Catharines. I know of two more in Winnipeg, which were organised by United Food & Commercial Workers Canada Local 832. In fact, the Telespectrum centre in Winnipeg moved away after 2 years of being organised. Then its former staff began working for two other centres in that town, both of which were organised by Local 832. Whoever disputes this, can contact Local 832 through its 1-800 number to check. In St. Catharines, efforts are underway to organise two other centres in town. Of course you don't find websites all about that. Organising efforts are not widely publicised. Employers genetrally resist organising efforts and are always FORCED into becoming unionised by a court of law. One local does not go and organise another centre. This is always an international effort by either the international or a regional office of the trade union. Anyone who is remotely familiar with the topic knows this. OK, so these guys manage to concoct verbiage in accordance with chapter and verse Wikipedia rules by which you can ban links to a local's website. Fine. It is, however, impossible to argue that unionisation of call centres is proceeding in NAFTA, at the very least. With the changes in the global economy brought about by international trade agreements and the shrinkage of the manufacturing base and its middle class jobs, it must be a foregone conclusion that unions will attempt to grow into the service sector, of which call centres form a part. Granted, not the majority of call centres are organised. But the fact that this is growing is self-evident. With United Steelworkers' success in two centres in Ontario, it is obvious that its professional organisers are seeking further targets. They are as likely to advertise these identified targets as a poker player is to reveal what cards he has or as a manufacturer is to reveal his proprietary information for the competition to see. So, how about this for a compromise suggestion:

Title: Unionisation of call centres
Proposed Text: Efforts two organise call centres are beginning to gain ground in the Ontario and Manitoba, each of whom has seen two call centres becoming union shops. United Steelworkers are actively seeking to grow that part of its membership.

How about that? No link to Local 6520 but a mention that there is an effort?

Achim 00:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Calltech, how do you feel about the proposed text? --Ideogram 05:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed text reponse[edit]

I believe this topic should be opened for a more neutral and global perspective as suggested by User:Beland below. I also recommend that the topic be removed until a global statement (if any) can be published. I researched and found the following information (some of which is posted below).

1. Canada has 13,400 call centres employing 570,000 workers (circa 2000).

2. USW in Canada states it only represents hundreds of call center employees (circa 2004). Even if this increased 10 fold, the presence of USW in Canadian call centers is very small.

2. US has approximately 50,000 call centers employing 2.5 million workers (circa 2004) and is declining (both number of call centers and number of employees).[[1]]

3. Offshore outsourcing is creating a growing call center population (more than doubling from 2004 to 2008) and India is the number 1 offshore call center location.[[2]] India currently employs approximately 160,000 call center workers).

4. UK employs approximately 500,000 call center workers (circa 2002).

5. I found several articles (including ones published by USW) highlighting the LOSS of call center union jobs, in some cases blaming companies outsourcing jobs overseas, particularly India. [[3]] [[4]] Achim has even acknowledged the loss of Telespectrum in Winnipeg.

I do not question the accuracy of Achim's proposed statement. But the proposed text of User:Achim involves only a handful of call centers in two Canadian provinces. Further, per USW own website, USW has a very small presence in call centers (at least in Canada).

This is really about scope and scale. The statistics above indicate that Achim's statement is giving undue weight to his (and another's) union activity within the topic of "call center unionisation", which itself is given undue weight under the overall topic of "call centre".

To get the most accurate, neutral and relevant statement as possible, I suggest that Achim's statement be presented in a RFC or simple discussion in this talk page to get further input from other editors and neutral parties. Since User:Beland has already weighed in on this by "neutralizing" the existing statement, this process may already have begun.Calltech 13:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh Come on, please[edit]

The fact remains that the movement is growing. The ones I stated are the ones I can personally prove, which does not mean that this is all there is. The article already states the deplorable working conditions in most of the centres, which is the cause for organisation in ANY work environment. If workers were treated fairly and equitably, nobody would bother with any union. The people who are likely to go to this page definitely include the thousands of call centre workers, because this is what they do for a living. Yes, it's small, yes, it's growing. Calltech: Please, read the article I provided. It is 100% true. Our local alone is averaging 1.333 grievances per week. The same operation when it was running in Winnipeg came to 20 grievances over the span of two years - which is a lot. Why not have a statement that provides a beacon of hope for the people who work there? It is certainly not inaccurate, though only in its infancy, so far as I can prove. Who goes to this page on Wikipedia? Probably a lot of those who work there, those who own them and those who buy from them. The workers are more people. Your numbers alone prove that and I'm not disputing those. Please understand that it is not just a matter of unionisation for the sake of that, or to give employers a hard time. It is very hard work in there for very few rewards. As an example, recently, a lady who was active signing people up at another call centre in St. Catharines was, of course, fired, just like the kid in the article I uploaded. Steelworkers supported this lady in front of the labour judge. The company's response for the unjust firing was this: "Since we opened this centre, we have fired over 700 people. So what is the problem here?". The labour judge did not see the humour in this and she's back at work. People don't stand up to their employers for the fun of it. It takes a lot of courage and grave personal risk in a fickle job economy, especially in the small towns where the centres flourish, particularly since the decimation of middle class jobs over the past few years. So, my suggestion above is limited to that which I can personally prove. Why not settle for that? It is accurate and it can give the workers some hope in this very bleak work environment. Achim 17:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:V, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Addhoc 17:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Granted and the proposed change is verifiable, with proof amply offered in here, for you to read.
For user Addhoc: the version right now seems OK, except that you state that a citation is needed. The existence of, references on as well as the article I uploaded on the mediation page should suffice for triple citations. Do you disagree with that? Achim 04:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Achim 02:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Just remember that another side of verifiability is reliable sources. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 02:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Whom or what are you declaring to be unreliable? Achim 04:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is the links you have provided are primary sources. Could I suggest you have a look at WP:V and WP:RS... Addhoc 10:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I did and the sources I stated are what I have found so far. The article I uploaded is an from independent organisation:

Does this not count? Achim 11:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The book mentioned does count... Paths to Union Renewal. Broadview Press. 2006. ISBN 1551930587.  Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help); horizontal tab character in |id= at position 5 (help); |coauthors= requires |author= (help) Addhoc 15:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Call Centre Unionisation Promotion[edit]

Achim wants to promote call centre unionisation using Wikipedia as a medium. He wants to mention specific gains of unions in Canada, but not the loss of jobs that are a direct result of unionisation efforts. Here is a quote from the United Steelworkers website:
"A recent Manitoba Labour Board ruling in favour of Marusa Marketing, which launched an aggressive anti-union campaign in response to a UFCW organizing drive, suggests that it is difficult, even for the Labour Board, to distinguish between unfair labour practices and business as usual in this industry. The highly mobile technology used in the call centre industry, furthermore, enables employers confronted with a union to simply close up shop and move their operations elsewhere. This was the response, for example, of Marusa Marketing (re-named Teleperformance USA) and Telespectrum Worldwide (Canada), both of which closed their Winnipeg operations shortly after organizing drives."[[5]]
There are two sides to every story. How many jobs were lost at these 2 centers? Here is the headline a few years prior (1997) from a Winnipeg government publication[[6]].
                     700 JOBS ON THE WAY
                   AS TELESPECTRUM EXPANDS
                            - - -
             Winnipeg Call Centre will be Largest
           In Canada for Leading Teleservicing Firm
Where is the compassion for the ordinary worker as mentioned above when call centre unionisation efforts result in the loss of his/her job? I thought this was interesting (same government publication):
"TeleSpectrum is working with the provincial departments of Family Services and Education and Training to provide job opportunities for Manitobans who currently rely on employment and income assistance. Selected candidates will receive call centre training through a program developed in partnership with Red River Community College's Market Driven Training Centre."
I know I'm getting off topic with this research, but I could not let Achim's statements above go unchallenged. Calltech 13:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The promotion notion[edit]

A number of you are

Article Rewrite Discussion[edit]

Being a Call Centre Architect for over 10 years, I am truly disappointed in this article. It doesn't read well at all, is generally a hodge podge of different tibits of unreferenced information that have been hobbled together over the years and doesn't truly represent the best of Wikipedia. I know that the defense against Spam on this page over the years has probably contributed, but it really needs a overhaul. I am proposing that I take a stab at a total rewrite, trying to incorporate as much the information that is here in the article, but really try to flesh it out, deal with citations if possible, etc. What are peoples thoughts on this? Kitsonk 12:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with your thoughts about this article. Too many disjointed topics. I would welcome your efforts to rewrite it.Calltech 13:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Great idea. By the way, as a recent "spam-defender", the primary way the volunteers at WikiProject Spam‎ try to identify and delete spammy material is by following spammy editors through their contribution histories. So if we see that someone blatantly spams 4 articles and then writes something borderline in a fifth, we'll usually delete that fifth statement. 98% of the time, that probably improves an article in the eyes of an disinterested third party, but I'm sure I've made mistakes along the way.
As you rewrite the article, I strongly suggest staying away from mention of (and links to) individual products and companies. Even if your own edits are disinterested, such mentions tend to encourage others that are less disinterested to put their promotional edits and links in. Then those get reverted but more stuff gets added and pretty soon you have a spam-baiting mess.
Also, from looking at the talk page arguments, it's apparent call centres are controversial, so I hope you will be sure to include a neutral section on the various controversies. From my experience, even if you don't agree with some of them, if you avoid mentioning them, it will leave a vacuum that gets filled with something very biased pro or con, which will, in turn, lead to reverts, new biased material in the other direction, wars, etc. From the above material on this talk page, it looks like that has already happened here. Staying "encyclopedic" by following the rules heads most of that off:
Thanks for taking this on! --A. B. 13:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's a good discussion of how articles spiral out of control: Wikipedia:Spam Event Horizon -- once an article gets far enough out of control, the links and POV snowball. --A. B. 16:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say have at it if you like. I was thinking of contributing to the substance of this anyway but can await what you may come up with. --Achim 02:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Very intersting discussion from beginning to end! Some good efforts on both sides, but definintely heads are locked. A harsh word can sometimes be a big turn-off! --- Achim, I like your last response. I do not take it as a resignation, but rather, putting the ball into their court and stepping back. A wait and see position can sometimes be just as revealing, or even more so, as a confrontation. Wait what they come up with. Sometimes, giving your oppontent some slack can turn out to be "just enough rope to hang themselves with". Alles Gute. Let's see where this goes. --Danni R. 21:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Arghh... It is taken me a while to get back around to this, but the article has not improved much in the past 8 months or so. It still needs a rewrite. Since I seem to have picked up some agreement from folks, I am going to give it a go tomorrow. Kitsonk 20:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of call centers[edit]

This section needs serious reorganization and citation. It appears to be a collection of individual and personal experiences rather than encyclopedic. If there is a unique and common problem among many call centers, this should be described with citation rather than listing personal complaints, many by anonymous users. Calltech 13:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well there's the rub isn't it? Call centres aren't exactly forthcoming about their dehumanising practices. Anecdotally I can describe the above criticisms as being akin to describing World War II as "a misunderstanding" but oddly enough, highly micro-managed corporate environments aren't very big on allowing research that demonstrates they employ demoralised and unskilled workers to pay lip service to client requirements. If there's one thing I've learnt working in call centres, it's that large organisations are emphatically not trustworthy sources of information. Currently I'm employed working for a technical support desk for a financial brokerage and I know for a fact that my agency have faked my security clearance with my desk manager's knowledge. Csgbh 12:26, 3 April 2007 (BST)

More such back-up can be found on, as an example. Wikipedia rules and regulations, all well intentioned, are keeping any negative information from appearing here as the only "published" information is courtesy of the operators who stand to gain from this business and they are not likely to publish anything that could remotely be considered negative. Therefore, it is easy for the proponents of these questionable and immoral practices to make themselves look like the "guardians of good" by citing chapter and verse of Wiki protocol to nix any sliver of reality that truly describes conditions in many call centres. --Achim 02:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This section makes it seem like everyone hates working for, or calling a call centre. I am not management, nor do I have an interest in promoting call centres. But some of the practices criticised are beneficial; e.g. listening to calls, which maintains the standard of customer service provided. Also, monitoring official or unofficial breaks, which helps to prevent time being wasted and therefore reduces wait times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The followings maybe considered as the topic relevant[edit]

but the standards have not been reviewed thoroughly from Google scholar point of view

  • ISO/IEC 14846 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC) -- (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • ISO/IEC 21410 -- (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • ISO/IEC 21411 -- (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, call center professionals know what to chose from the following and hopefully these can be reviewed soon -- (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Terrible management from Standard persons don't name the files with different names. A same doc with two language versions should be differentiated too. I'm not talking about people's personal slaking style, I'm talking about company style ^___^-- (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The history of the edition for this topic.....[edit]

-- (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

From the following links, it can be seen that the texts described by the above are fairly true -- (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

However by looking at IP address location, it was not real, as the above original writing was done at Port Headland and South Port Headland rather than Northern Territory, in which secondary references are retrievable if those reference holders are up to international standards and the intergrity of the holder ethics are not compromised -- (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is shown how important a reliable WHOIS should be -- (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Guidance document[edit]

-- (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that if a code of a document contains TR (technical report), it is usually not reviewed by academics until it is upgraded to a formal guidance document -- (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Contact centre (business)[edit]

included in scope of Call centre Widefox; talk 01:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This is done. Forbes72 (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)