Talk:Lost sales

Other uses of the term

I'm no expert in this, but it seems to me that there are other uses of the term than just lost sales due to copyright piracy. It has been used in inventory and supply chain management to describe lost sales due to being out of inventory, e.g., [1] and [2]. It has also been used in the context of patent infringement [3]. --Mark viking (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, through I do wonder at what point we enter into some unencyclopedic common sense of the word. There's the entire bigger concept of "sales that would have occurred if not for... ?". I am not saying it is not encyclopedic, I am just saying that I have not seen good sources on this. But perhaps lost sales (intellectual property) which I wrote about is a subtopic of a larger concept. That's why I pinged some WikiProjects for comments, and I appreciate you stopping by! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

See Pure economic loss. The title Lost sales (intellectual property) is only necessary if there is a disambiguation page for Lost sales so a move is not necessary. See WP:TITLE. Roches (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC) I added a hatnote to clarify this.Roches (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Reworked lead

I edited the lead, although it was not badly in need of it. I left "US dollars", but note that if a figure is in the billions it does not really matter what kind of dollars are discussed; it'd be in the billions of Canadian, Australian or Hong Kong dollars too. Most of the changes were made to avoid the use of loaded adjectives or non-neutral terms, such as "baseless" instead of "totally baseless." Roches (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Citation to self-published sources

I noticed that in this article there are a few cites to a self-published source: Castells & Cardoso's Piracy Cultures lists its publisher as Xlibris, which is a vanity press. These cites should probably be removed and replaced with non-self-published refs. Neutrality^talk 19:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Ditto the cites to works published by Lulu, another vanity press. These, too, should go. Neutrality^talk 19:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Neutrality: We certainly have to be careful when it comes to self-published works, but there's more then just publisher. The lulu book is in fact published by Social Science Research Council, and the book is basically a report also available at [4]. The fact that the organization chose lulu publishing company doesn't seem particularly damning here, considering many similar reports are, well, self-published. I doubt Pew Research Center for example gets their reports published with some reputable press; most of them are just released online from their own website anyway. Xlibris book, if you look at the introductory pages, notes that "the articles from this collection previously appeared as a Special Section of the International Journal of Communication, a publication of the USC Annenberg Press, University of Southern California", and they are available at [5]. In which case this very much fits with the SELFPUBLISHED exception that " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and that's true. I would rather that we directly cite to the SSRC and IJOC links, avoiding the republisher issue altogether. Neutrality^talk 14:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I am totally fine if someone wants to update the links. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)