Talk:Pixetell

Proposed overhaul

I would like to propose an overhaul of this article, which hopefully addresses the concerns noted at the top of the current version. I am an employee of Ontier. I (and my company) value Wikipedia, and have no wish to use it for inappropriate promotion. My initial edits to this article have met some resistance, so I have made a point of reading through relevant policies, guidelines, and essays (such as WP:COI, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest, as well as Opera (web browser) (as an FA about a software product). I have also sought out advice from long-time Wikipedians. Please take a look at my proposed replacement text, which I hope you will agree is an unbiased and thoroughly cited improvement. I have found more references for the material in the article so that, when completed, every fact will have a citation to support it. I just haven't added them all in yet. Dan Cook 23:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the problem with conflicts of interest is that it affects people more than they realise, no matter how rosy their intentions. Your draft is quited biased in several places. WP:COI strongly discourages you from COI editing, which is for a very good reason. Haakon (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Haakon, thanks for the feedback. However, it would be a great deal more helpful if you could either identify the bias you see in the article, or simply edit the version in my user space to remove the bias. Here are the concerns that were raised about the original article, initially written last year:

1. It needs additional references or sources for verification.

(My proposed replacement includes 10 inline citations, compared to the current 5; I believe they all comply with WP:RS. Do you see any points that require still require citation, or do you feel this point is adequately addressed?)

2. It is written like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view.

(I have endeavored to use simple, factual language. Do you feel it is still written like an advertisement? If so, what sections need to be changed?)

3. It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

(I have attempted to meet Wikipedia's quality standards as best I can in the current revision. While I understand it may not be feature quality, I believe it is in line with general standards of quality. If it's not, could you specify what needs to be addressed? Perhaps in terms of the good article criteria or featured article criteria?)

4. A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.

(Of course, it's beyond my ability to address the first part of this concern; I am employed by the company, and have disclosed this fully. But is there additional cleanup required? If so, can you tell me -- or other Wikipedia editors -- what needs to be done? I intend to become a regular contributor to Wikipedia to articles where I do not have a conflict of interest and appreciate any mentoring I can receive from experienced editors.)Dan Cook 17:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDcook (talk • contribs)

A conflict of interest can make you blind to glaring NPOV problems. Take these:

• "It permits subscribers to easily produce and deliver screencasts" -- "permits" is a very positively loaded word. "Easily"? Not only positively biased, but also your personal opinion. "Deliver" is also marketing language.
• "an online "business card" that presents vital information" -- again, positive (your product can present vital information!)
• "The software fills a niche" -- says who?
• "Pixetell messages facilitate demonstration" -- "facilitate" is another of those marketing words to avoid.
• "may be viewed from any operating system" -- really? There are countless operating systems out there. I doubt your product works on QNX or Genera.
• "The software is available as a free 3-week trial; subscription pricing is $9 or $19 per month" -- no, Wikipedia is not your sales brochure.
• "Pixetell messages may be stored on Pixetell's server for convenience" -- oh yes, our product is so convenient!
• "they permit a representative to quickly provide a highly customized demonstration of a software feature to an end user" -- Quickly? Highly customized? End user? It's OK to use such language in your sales brochures and websites, but this is an encyclopedia; perhaps you can see how this is not neutral language.
• "One reviewer emphasized the ability for teachers to "develop a more structured approach to verbal feedback to students."" -- a classic COI example of cherry-picking. Product endorsements do not belong in encyclopedia articles.

Again, I think your COI is a major problem. It's not a personal criticism; it's just that you are subject to the same human nature that all of us are, which is precisely why Wikipedia has the COI guidelines which strongly discourages you from editing on articles relating to your company. Every COI PR representative swears to be squeaky neutral, and every single one I have seen in my seven years on Wikipedia has failed. Haakon (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much, this is excellent and very helpful indeed. So if I go through and address each of these issues, will you take another look? I agree that having a COI can blind one to unconscious marketing verbiage and bias. But I do believe that, with your guidance, this page can be presented in a neutral voice. Again, truly appreciative of the time you've taken with this! Dan Cook 19:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDcook (talk • contribs)

I'll take another look. And, of course, once changes are incorporated into the Pixetell articles, I and other editors will try to fix issues. Haakon (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll get back at it soon. Dan Cook 02:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDcook (talk • contribs)

Haakon, I have rewritten the Pixetell page using your guidance; I have also consulted with other Wikipedia editors and writers prior to making the most recent revisions. Citations have been added, including a recent CNNMoney article, to bolster certain sections. I agree that COI is inherently problematic with these kinds of articles. I hope you and other editors will identify remaining elements and act on them. As for the cherry-picking response, I would gladly include negative reviews of the product but so far as I can discover, we have not had one yet. The one used is but one example of many positive reviews. If we do receive one, I will include it. If you review your list above, I think you will find I have made an effort to either eliminate the offending language or substantially bolster the references behind them. In fact, I considered your objections to be overwhelmingly valid, and your received confirmation from others I spoke to as well. Thank you again for your guidance and, on a larger scale, for introducing me in such a positive fashion to the Wikipedia process. I anxiously await your further feedback. Dan Cook 21:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDcook (talk • contribs)

link to article draft

Again, here's a link to my draft: User:DDcook/Article draft Thanks, -216.99.208.232 (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

link to Conflict of Interest Noticeboard post

Haakon: I have sought comment for the Pixetell article on the COIN page. I have received one bit of feedback from the community and would appreciate your input. Here is the link to it: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard Thank you in advance for your input and, again, I appreciate the time you have devoted to this article. Dan Cook 21:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDcook (talk • contribs)

Removing COI tag from Pixetell page

Greetings to the Wikipedia community! After many months of working with this community to understand the Wikipedia process, I believe we have communally arrived at the point where the Pixetell article can be posted without the Conflict of Interest tag. If you visit the COI Noticeboard at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 43#New version of article you will find a supportive review from an experienced Wikipedia editor. I have followed his counsel, posted requests for comment in various public places, and have received no further suggestions for improving the article. Therefore, I am going to remove the COI tag. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further. Again,thanks to all of you who took an interest in the Pixetell article for your encouragement, support and counsel. Dan Cook 17:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDcook (talk • contribs)

But you do have a conflict of interest, and it is my opinion that it shows very clearly in the article. I will be working on mending this in the time ahead. Haakon (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I agree I have a conflict. I have acknowledged it. Thanks for the time you've put into this. It has been an invigorating process. This has taken me back to my days as an investigative reporter, where research and sourcing ruled. The rigors of academia are even more demanding than most newspaper editors. I am eager to work on an article where I have no inherent conflict, although, as we all know, conflicts can be buried deeply, cleverly disguising themselves, and still surface to work their "magic." Dan Cook 04:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDcook (talk • contribs)

hm. Special:Contributions/DDcook. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Updating

I worked with Dan and Ontier, supporting their efforts to fix the problems flagged on this article. Since Pixetell was acquired last year, this article is now significantly out of date; I'm going to update it a little. Just to be clear, in spite of my past connection with the company (which no longer exists), I'm doing these updates purely as a volunteer, to keep the article accurate. -Pete (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pixetell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090217063244/http://pixetell.com:80/ to http://pixetell.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)