Open main menu


Please allow reinstatement of articleEdit

It seems ridiculous that this page redirects to the Benchmark (venture capital firm). Zendesk is a major player in the customer service software space: hundreds of employees, thousands of customers, etc.

Why do Instagram, Zillow, Zipcar, Zendesk, Yelp (all Benchmark-funded companies) have articles but not Zendesk? There are many articles for companies that are smaller and less significant than Zendesk.

This might have been the right call three years ago, but not now. Please allow reinstatement of this article. --Crandmck (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The original article was deleted in 2010, but was recreated in 2013.My Gussie (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Security section is questionableEdit

" In March 2014 the company announced SOC 2 Type 1 compliance," IANAIAP but isn't "soc 2" just an audit report? I don't think you can certify compliance with it. Most of that section sounds kinda like sales copy. (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


@Barbequeue: good on you, I didn't even know you could get paid to do this kind of work. I will say, only small parts of this have some promotional tone. But overall, impressed with the changes. - Scarpy (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section interestingEdit

Should this article be extended with a controversy section? Please see read the article for additional information: - Jonasbn (talk) 15:28 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jonasbn: If it's just one article documenting it, the argument against it would be that it's given undue weight according to Wikipedia guidelines like WP:UNDUE. Are you aware of any others? - Scarpy (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Added. It's not just one article documenting it. There are a few of them in a period of around two years. I included as sources, Forbes and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (publication order). --MarioGom (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Article toneEdit

I came here to find out about Zendesk. While the article is comprehensive it does read like a sales brochure. Some of the feature sections could prehaps be combined rather than explaining them in the detail that they are currently in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 08:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I confirm the above, this article clearly has significant portions copied from sale materials. I have worked in enterprise IT for 20 years, attended many, many sales presentations and the claims are obvious marketing puffery. It degrades Wikipedia. It should be rephrased in objective terms.


Why are you removing references to Networked Help Desk from this article?Edit

It's verifiable, wikilinked internally and notable. - Scarpy (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


COI HeaderEdit

@PsychoMaple: The COI header was there prior to your edits, and you removed it without giving an explanation. If you want to remove it for another reason, please explain here. It's a separate issue than the other contentious edit regarding Trump. - Scarpy (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

COI Header was there because you (and only you) felt it needed to be there. Paid edits do not necessitate COI Headers and I can provide plenty of examples...that is why I removed it. PsychoMaple (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@PsychoMaple: I noticed you removed the COI template [1] and then later removed the advert template [2]. I'm sympathetic to companies that want well-written encyclopedic articles and are willing to hire someone to help them, but this is really not acceptable. Examples of paid editors working on articles without COI notices is a WP:OSE argument. My attitude here, which I believe is shared with other editors, is that this article while well-sourced contains significant and obvious POV as well as undue weight on several points. I believe everyone would be happy to work with you here to make the article more encyclopedic, but continuing to remove templates with out addressing why we're putting them there is not going to help. - Scarpy (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@ This was not removing a typo - Scarpy (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Zendesk out of business?Edit

Founded in 2007, Zendesk had 2,000 employees and served 119,000 paying customers in 150 countries and territories as of 2017.

Well, I thought so for a fraction of a second at word number five.

If you move "as of 2017" to the front of the sentence (where it properly belongs), then the verbs can shift to present tense, and the corporation can sound like a going concern.

But you'll have to give up the marketing tactic of stuffing a random factoid in front of a comma at the outset of the sentence to sound all breathlessly important—which is anyway somewhat subverted if the reader is asking "bankrupt?" at word number five. — MaxEnt 07:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Return to "Zendesk" page.