Talk:PC Connection

PC Connection, Inc.

Removed the draft

I have removed the draft text as it has been largely merged into the main article by another editor. If you need to see it, you can find it at the last 2013 edit of this talk page. I did not remove the comments but I did change the "indentation level" of the comment thread. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Any issues with these proposed changes?

I haven't edited the PC Connection page because I am affiliated with the company. I've tried to follow all of the Wikipedia rules for editing such an article. Please approve, amend, or advise if I have missed any steps. Thanks! Glc1066 (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for using the talk page to declare your conflict of interest. Unfortunately your draft, while it looks better than the article itself, is to a large degree based on problematic sources. For example, their own website and press releases are not independent, and SEC filings are primary sources, but Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources such as articles published by newspapers or tech magazines. The draft will have to be revised significantly to reflect what third-party sources say about the company, not what it says about itself. Huon (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I will address the use of press releases. However, all of the information is factual, void of opinion or promotion. The sources are, in fact, in line with existing articles on Wikipedia. Please see how often the company's own website and press releases are referenced on IBM's page. Wikipedia even references its financial statements on its own Wikimedia article. Please advise if I can continue to use SEC filings as references or if the Wikimedia page needs to be revised significantly. Thanks! Glc1066 (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was busy over the past few days. The draft still has significant problems; it reads like something straight from PC Connection's PR department. Even though the draft is vastly longer than the current article, it actually says less about what the company does. What exactly does "provides IT solutions, including technology products and services" mean? That seems a flowery way of saying "they sell hardware, software and support services". "It offers customers access to more than 300,000 products" is similarly vague. Do they lease those products? Do they sell them?

Despite these problems I have added the draft to the article, removing some of the spammier parts, clarifying others, and tidying up the first few sources. I think some additional copyediting is required, though. Huon (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries on the time, I appreciate your help. Apologies if the phrase in question seems vague; I didn't want to include too much on specific offerings for fear of seeming promotional. Your understanding is correct. Essentially, products (Hardware, software) + services = a complete IT solution. Just as an FYI, companies that only sell IT products are generally referred to as "resellers" while those that offer the services to design/implement/support projects are known as "IT solutions providers." As an example, it's the difference between someone selling you a wireless access point and someone mapping your wireless network, testing for interference, letting you compare various models, selling you one, and then setting everything up and troubleshooting it for you. This company is the latter. Yes, "access to" implies the ability to both buy and lease, but also includes other steps in the purchasing process that might be more visible to businesses/governments than everyday consumers (compatibility with eProcurement tools, contract availability, etc.). It's not just purchasing something, but also having the ability to purchase it. I felt it best not to include too much extraneous info, but let me know if I'm wrong. I also noticed a few things didn't make it into the article that probably should (Previous CFO still listed on the sidebar, mention of subsidiary companies without explanation of their relationship to parent company). I can go through and copyedit. Thanks again for your help! Glc1066 (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)