Talk:New Media Strategies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Present At the Creation[edit]

The creation of this page culminates a couple months of work to bring this page up to notability and NPOV standards. This article, which I have created with input from more experienced Wikipedia editors (see the conversation beginning here), is about my employer. Therefore I am not strictly neutral on the subject, but I have worked hard to remove marketing language and subjective judgments from the article.. Now that it is live, I will exercise caution in editing it further. My goal only to maintain a fair entry about the company, and I expect others will have input about it. --WWB 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why has info about the competitors of NMS been taken out?[edit]

Previous versions of the article said this company competes with Nielsen//NetRatings and with Cymfony. That information is no longer in the article. Have they stopped competing? Have those other companies left the business? When judging whether an article is too promotional or not, it is good to see that competitors are being mentioned.

Another concern I have with the neutrality of the article is that it uses promotional language:

  • The Rosslyn headquarters are complemented by a half-dozen satellite offices across the country
(Would they bother having satellite offices if they didn't complement the main operation?)
  • engage in the Web 2.0 environment..
(Web 2.0 is essentially a term of advertising or promotion; say what you mean specifically)
  • New Media Strategies positions itself as an industry leader
(Please. What's the content of that statement?)
  • pioneer in online intelligence
(This needs a citation to a neutral third-party that describes the firm that way)

If I'm exaggerating the problem, please let me know. Otherwise I think a rewrite is needed to fix the promotional tone. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I didn't have this on my watchlist and wasn't aware of recent changes (aside from the one I made yesterday). As you'll remember, you helped me knock this into shape and demonstrate the firm's notability.
I think you have some good points, and I'm not sure why that section was removed. I'll look for ways to reword some of the less encyclopedic-sounding phrases and restore the other sections when I get another free moment. --WWB (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re-added the information about competition, in addition to someone else's updates. There is a citation for "pioneer" out there -- it was an article in Washington Business Forward several years back. The publication is now defunct, but I can find it, and it will be added as soon as I do. WWB (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NMS and the Koch Brothers (and careless Tweeting)[edit]

These guys did indeed engage in Koch brothers whitewashing (wikipedia's had a huge sockpuppetting discussion about this). They also got canned for Tweeting a bad word (which was the last straw as far as Chrysler was concerned). What source would be good enough, chzz, if thinkprogress isn't? These are going to come back to haunt these guys -- NMS I mean -- so it would be nice to see just what is good enough to be cited here. kctipton (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fired for F-Bomb Tweet:

http://hosted2.ap.org/apdefault/078cb2e3ddf040899e2ea4ce560c257a/Article_2011-03-10-Chrysler-Obscene%20Tweet/id-be17fde4995345229ab20da5d4493d93 http://www.autoblog.com/2011/03/10/new-media-strategies-loses-chrysler-contract-f-bomb-tweet/

  • Chrysler Slams Pete Snyder, CEO, for revealing Super Bowl Commercial:

http://blogs.forbes.com/joannmuller/2011/03/11/say-nice-things-about-the-motor-city-or-else/ http://adage.com/article/digital/chrysler-splits-media-strategies-f-bomb-tweet/149335/

  • Wikipedia Sock Puppet Scandal for Koch Industries

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/new-media-strategies-get-yer-koch-sock-pupp http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/09/koch-wikipedia-sock-puppet/

  • Official Statement on Koch from NMS that was removed once Chrysler Story Broke via Google Cache

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:U2Vyy0Ylo6MJ:nms.com/blog/post/setting-the-record-straight-on-nms-koch-industries-and-wikipedia/+NMS+koch&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

  • Past Washington Post article Questioning NMS Transparency Disclosures with examples

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802905_2.html

  • Response to Washington Post Article

http://nms.com/blog/post/transparency-trust/

Thinkprogress is widely cited, and incredibly respected. And, the citations are merely the reporting of Wikipedia's *own* investigation into the fiasco.
This edit has been rightly restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.23.210 (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had removed that section because, as I said in the edit summary, a) thinkprogress.org does not appear to be a reliable source b) claims in that article are factually incorrect c) WP:SELFREF
I stand by those claims. I won't get into an edit-war over it; instead, I'll ask other neutral parties to please look into this. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  04:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business#New_Media_Strategies and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#New_Media_Strategies.  Chzz  ►  04:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Chzz (remove); one borderline RS is insufficient for notability and verifiability, and in any case its description of the meta-issue has proven to be flawed. Rostz (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that this "fiasco" section (itself a loaded word that didn't appear in any third-party analysis of the event) is unsuitable for Wikipedia. The Center for American Progress Action Fund (which publishes "ThinkProgress") is a 501 (c)(4) organization dedicated to achieving progress through action. It is by definition a POV-pushing organization, not a reliable source for a matter of this type. Frequency, the other source cited, is nothing more than a social discovery platform for video, like YouTube or Vimeo. Let's not use Wikipedia as a means to "get back at" corporate entities, let's use it to document encyclopedic content that is supported by notable third-party and independent documentation. - Wacomshera (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following comments were copied over from RSN with explicit permission to do so [1]. copied from this version Chzz  ►  16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first source may not be acceptable per WP:SPS. Think Progress is less clear. According to the About page[2], they have a staff of credentialed editors and writers, including the author of this post. It may meet the exception in SPS, which disallows "any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." I guess one reservation I have would be WP:WEIGHT. Mainstream media haven't reported this, even though it's been widely covered in liberal blogs. I see that you also argued SELFREF but I don't see how that applies. Personally, I'd not put this in Wikipedia at this time per weight, and per the source being a liberal blog, but it's not crystal clear that policy supports my opinion. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned WP:SELFREF because the edit concerns an internal Wikipedia sockpuppet investigation, which seems only reported on blog-like sources. And, as I mentioned, the article referenced is purely factually wrong, e.g. administrators flagged the MBMAdmirer account as a “sock puppet” - see ANI - the user is not blocked.  Chzz  ►  17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: TimidGuy, would you mind if we copied this over to the article talk page thread, to avoid this discussion being split? (If so, feel free to do so and note it here, or I can do it) - thanks.  Chzz  ►  02:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, feel free to copy my comment to the relevant Talk page. TimidGuy (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And given the factual inaccuracy, I'd say that this particular post not be used as a source. TimidGuy (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{uninvolved| Close | 2=Please evaluate consensus, close and if appropriate, remove disputed section. If you think consensus is not established, perhaps suggest a way to get more input. I removed content [3] and it was reinstated [4] and the above discussion began on 20 March. I sought input on RSN and WikiProject Business.  Chzz  ►  14:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)|answered=yes}}[reply]

Needs more input. I suggest a Request for Comment ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 23:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edit Request re: Outdated Sentence[edit]

{{request edit}} Hello, The second sentence of the Acquisition subsection reads as "Snyder remained as CEO." However this is now outdated, as Snyder stepped down from the position of CEO in December 2011.

Could someone change this sentence to read: "Snyder remained as CEO through December, 2011." and cite this news article as the source?

Note that I would do this myself; however I am currently an employee of the subject of this article, am aware of WP:COI, and therefore I prefer to refrain from making direct edits to this article. Would an uninvolved editor be willing to make the edit requested above? Regards, Jeff Bedford (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done SmartSE (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Media Strategies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Media Strategies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Media_Strategies&oldid=1199545150"