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

More detailed corporate history[edit]

See this link: It has a longer narrative describing THREE founders from the Stanford community.

Corporate information is missing[edit]

IBM just purchased SPSS for $1.2 billion. It would be nice to have some information in the article about SPSS the company/organization: sales, employees, leadership, etc. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sociology's most influential book[edit]

To quote Wellman, P71: "I propose the SPSS manual (Nie, Bent and Hull 1970) as our most influential book, for it was the SPSS statistical package that in the early 1970s revolutionized how sociology was done." Other books may have been proposed by other people but the statement is true. It could perhaps be modified to proposed as sociology's most influential book. Pterre (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Move page (to PASW)[edit]

This page should be moved to PASW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StatisticalSoftware (talkcontribs) 07:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? SPSS has a 40+ year history as SPSS before IBM took it over. If you would like to start a new page for PASW that's fine. Pterre (talk) 08:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it is not called SPSS anymore. The SPSS software has ceased to exist and is now called PASW instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StatisticalSoftware (talkcontribs) 10:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

But this is an Encyclopedia, not a catalogue of current software. I'd say expand the PASW article from a redirect, if there is sufficient material yet. Pterre (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with User:Pterre. The story of SPSS should remain in the SPSS article. A new PASW article could start, linking both to SPSS and IBM. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Unless this page is to stagnate and become solely a history lesson on what came before, and not something that is current, this should become the PASW page, with SPSS redirecting to it. That is in the nature of what happens with encyclopedias too. You would look up SPSS and find a reference to PASW. Greyskinnedboy  Talk  21:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
IBM took over SPSS last October and have changed the PASW product names back to SPSS (or rather "IBM® SPSS®"). See their product naming guide. So there's no longer any reason to move the page. Qwfp (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Good call -- so that should be in this page, and the PASW page should redirect here instead -- ah ha -- that's already been done -- hoorah! Greyskinnedboy  Talk  21:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ownership history[edit]

The first sentence of the section "Ownership history" reads: "Between 2009 and 2010, the premier vendor for SPSS was called PASW (Predictive Analytics SoftWare) Statistics."

As far as I remember this is wrong and (more or less) backwards. For many years SPSS was both a product name and the name of the company which had SPSS as its original and main product. At some point between the launch of SPSS v. 17 which was called SPSS (according to my software archive) and PASW(/SPSS) v. 17.0.2 which (I believe) was the first version to be called PASW, the company SPSS decided to change the name of its main product to PASW and keep SPSS as the company name. I believe that SPSS wished to send a signal about being into "Predictive Analytics" (which they saw as a "hot" topic). They said something about that in the marketing and explanations for the name change.

Soon after they announced that IBM was buying the company SPSS. Later IBM changed the software name from PASW (back) to IBM SPSS.

Needs to be simplified[edit]

Could somebody please simplify what precisely SPSS does? Each sentence links to another page which explains a different term.Can somebody just simplify everything by, for instance, explaining in simple terms what 'linear regression' is. I keyed on 'linear regression' to find out what it was and then I had to see what an 'affine function' was, and so forth. I'm still none the wiser as to what 'linear regression' is so could somebody put what these things are in parenthesis within this article? At present, the article is top heavy with terms when it should be explaining things to us, the general reader, who have to familiarize themselves with the program. Thanks. (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As the lead says, SPSS is a computer package for doing statistical analysis. For an article that explains what statistics is in simple terms, try simple:Statistics. --Qwfp (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be updated[edit]

The logo is that of "SPSS an IBM company", which according to the text no longer exists. Is there a quotation to verify this? Also Version 20 is shown in in the whateveritscalled on the right, but not mentioned in the versions subentry. I would correct this myself, but I am german and likely to get the details wrong. Tolloller (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Version 19.0 is referred to as IBM SPSS in the list of versions, but in the information overview box at the top of the page, it is referred to simply as SPSS. That is inconsistent.2MSE2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of biographical details[edit]

I would not quarrel with the removal of later details, but the fact that Nie was a political science postgraduate at Stanford when SPSS was developed seems perfectly relevant - SPSS was not developed by a software company but within the social science community. What were the other developers doing at the time? Pterre (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about changing the first sentence[edit]

I am a novice wikipedia author, so I want to check with the community before making a change to the first sentence of a page. I propose adding the current product name in parentheses to the first sentence. I think that this might help people who are new to the statistics field; as they might wonder if "IBM SPSS Statistics" is the same thing as "SPSS". My proposed first sentence would read: SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics) is a computer program used… What do others think?Karl (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Be Bold! Your idea sounds like a good improvement, although IBM SPSS Statistics (SPSS) might be the better solution (first official name, then the abbr.) mabdul 19:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Added information to clarify first sentences, product name, and links.Karl (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Claim of being "among most widely used statistics programs" needs a citation[edit]

The 2nd sentence of the "Statistics program" section claims that "SPSS is among the most widely used programs for statistical analysis in social science." This claim needs a citation to an independent source. I know that the annual KDnuggets surveys and the Rexer's Annual Data Miner Survey have shown in some years that SPSS is among the most widely used packages among data miners, but I do not know of a source for saying that SPSS is most widely used among social scientists. Does anyone know of such a reference?Karl (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to verify that statement, particularly given that the related list article (List of statistical packages) has absolutely no references… It seems like we are taking these companies at their word. Anyway, in this case it is actually my understanding that SPSS is one of the most popular statistics and analyses software in use today, though I concede that my view is of no use whatsoever in terms of reliable sourcing. AGK [•] 13:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

‎Version comparison 21 to 7[edit]

An unsourced list of every features in the last fifteen versions? Seriously? Quite WP:UNDUE. If there is an independent reliable source then perhaps we could consider the highlights. Deltahedron (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Lists of addons and related products[edit]

I removed a long list of addons, related and complementary products as unsourced, undue and clear advertising. We can accept material about related products if it is discussed by independent reliable sources. Deltahedron (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Acronym or not?[edit]

I have removed the sentence "Today the name is pseudoacronymic, no longer standing for any expansion." since it does not cite a reliable source. The edit summary "I don't see anywhere at the IBM SPSS site where it claims to still stand for any expansion. If you can find such a page, I may be proved wrong" does not constitute sufficient reason to include it. If the company websiste says that it is not an acronym, that would suffice. Deltahedron (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Good faith effort recognized, but the suggestion of what evidence would be needed is not true. Well-intentioned hopes (that is, what evidence we would wish to have) aside, the way this goes in the real world today is that most companies whose names are now pseudoacronymic do not say anywhere on their site "the name no longer stands for any expansion." Instead, what they do is simply make all references to the expansion disappear—except, sometimes, for one small nod on the About pages (About or About > History), where the only hint is a single phrase such as "Founded as Apple Banana Cherry, ABC is now blah blah blah ..." That's it—the only reference to the old name you will find anywhere on their site. Often, you can't even find that one. It's the way they choose to manage their brand, although it is kind of annoying for its amnesic/disappearing quality. For example, see how many instances of the phrase "Kentucky Fried Chicken" you can find at, or how many mentions of "British Petroleum" you can find at Wikipedia is the place to come get the straight story in 10 seconds or less; their site is the place to play detective hunting for it for 10 minutes. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Let me remind you of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia:Verifiability policy mandates that any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. I have challenged this statement and your only justification for it so far is that you believe it to be true, and assert it to be true based on your own original research on what the company website does, or rather, does not say, and your assessment of what you believe to be the practice of other companies. This is not adequate support, and indeed, we do not use original research in this way. Unless you can find an independent reliable source that states that the compnay does not now regard the letters as being a meaningful acronym, Wikipedia can say nothing about it, and hence in the absence of the citation that policy requires, I shall remove it again. Deltahedron (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was going for truth, but Wikipedia must value verifiability over truth. You're not wrong about that. It's frustrating that sometimes verifiability is intentionally erased, which means that rather than contain facts Wikipedia can only say nothing about a topic. This of course is a trivial example; but I am glad we are not trying to write Wikipedia in a time and place when more sinister examples reigned. Quercus solaris (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I also apologize that it did not occur to me earlier to just write "Today, the IBM SPSS website makes no mention of an official expansion of the acronym." That presents the verifiable fact without attempting to follow it with a corollary conclusion (i.e., that no mention = no longer exists). I still think the corollary conclusion is correct, but Wikipedia doesn't need to state it. Quercus solaris (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I thought we had attained consenus here, but I have just removed the sentence "The branding no longer emphasizes the expansion" from the introduction as requiring verification from an independent reliable source. Deltahedron (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Reduced strength of a strong claim without a citation: "Among most widely used"[edit]

The strong claim in the first sentence of the Overview section "SPSS is among the most widely used programs for statistical analysis in social science" was not supported by a citation. So I reduced the strength of this claim, replacing this text with the softer claim "SPSS is a widely used program for statistical analysis in social science." I personally agree that SPSS is probably among the most widely used stat packages in social science classrooms and labs, but I feel that a citation is needed before this strong claim should stay in the wikipedia entry. I know there are several social science research methods textbooks that use SPSS for the student exercises and examples, but that is the only thing I can think of to back up this "social science use" claim - however, that is just a personal observation and not something that can be cited. If others know of a good citation for the stronger claim, please reinstate the strong claim (along with the citation).Karl (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Release history[edit]

Does this article really need a list of every release of the software? If so, there needs to be citation to a reliable source. Deltahedron (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No dissent after a month, so I'm removing as unsourced per WP:INDISCRIMINATE point 4. Deltahedron (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy to Discuss[edit]

Dear User Tayste I could not figure out why you removed such a useful link. Please explain. Bellagio99 (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:EL clearly says "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article". There's already an official link under External Links at the bottom of the page, which is where it belongs. Tayste (edits) 02:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)