Talk:Concurrent Technologies Corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pennsylvania (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Attention needed[edit]

This page gravely needs the attention of a Wikipedia expert. User Contributor955 continues to replace the page with an obvious company-produced puff piece. This company was one of the subjects of a recent New York Times article on government corruption and as such deserves monitoring. Corruptiondog (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like both parties are in the wrong here. The first thing I notice is that both parties seem to be using single purpose accounts to advertise a POV while edit warring. Just because there was an article in the NYT about the company doesn't mean the company is corrupt, nor does it mean it is innocent of accusations. It's all about Neutral Point of View here. The answer is to expand the article with the positives and negatives AND sourcing the information. Corruptiondog's version is at least sourced, while the current version looks like a cut and paste job from CTC's website. I also believe it is generally frowned upon, if not a direct violation of policy for company computers to edit articles about the company like here. Angrymansr (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree that both of those early contributors seem either side of NPOV. To be noted, there's previously undisclosed WP:COI editors here, some noted above. Widefox; talk 15:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but this "article" looks like it's written as a company advertisement. While trying to learn more about this company, I find the article is next to useless. Mostly modest (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)