Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:45, 5 March 2018

Companies Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Crysb (talk · contribs)

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. WWB Too (talk · contribs) has been paid by Beutler Ink on behalf of MicroStrategy.

Article needs help.

This is a really light article and reads like an advert for the company. Besides having a small market share and a fraction of the customers of many other vendors in the space, MicroStrategy has a tumultuous financial history that goes far beyond what is listed in the two lines of this article. In fact, MicroStrategy signified one of the most significant breakdowns in corporate governance at the time. They are also one of the few companies to survive and thrive after a reverse stock split. Their financial history is far more interesting than the products they sell.Research guru 100 (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Working on updating page to include more recent information and news. Crysb (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks Crysb! --CvS 18:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisvonsimson (talk • contribs)

Made a number of edits and additions to the article. Please feel free to advise if you spot any missing/inaccurate information. Thanks all! Crysb (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I just removed a garish POV advert from this page. It appears that Microstrategy is a business analysis software package. It would be helpful if someone with knowledge of this package could write it up a bit.

I've read the article. It is quite precise, indeed. There is not much to tell about Microstrategy without going into products descriptions - and that is too much fine-grained. It is a OLAP tool suplier, who uses it to assemble a limited set of Business Inteligence solutions (it does not have Data mining, for instance). All that are to be told about what it do is already written in some other article. 161.148.37.170 13:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (Gaeta).

Typo Just fixed a typo - Micto to Micro.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.90.34 (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Any similar log analysis tools?

I used Microstrategy's Web a lot in my previous company (which is a very large web company), but now I'm working in a relatively small company which can't afford Microstrategy's Web. I'm just wondering are there any similar tools for log analysis?

Tools like AWStats or Webalizer are simply not my choice. What I need is much complex analysis tool. For example, I can

• query one specific URL's Refeffers, sessions and PVs,
• use filters to find the right data, let's say...find one specific URL's sessions and PVs given by one specific Refeffer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix Ding (talk • contribs) 04:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You could try the free version of MicroStrategy. I think it is called MicroStrategy Desktop or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.255.81.34 (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Curiosities

• The distance between the headquarter of Microstrategy and the CIA in Langley is about 8.6 Kilometer.
• In Munich the distance to the BND is 16.6 km. (with the subway its about 30 minutes)
• In Cologne the distance to the BfV is 29.6 km (about 22 minutes)

--HAH (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No User Review/Critical Reviews

This article makes it look like Microstrategy was downloaded straight from the heavens. No shortcomings? No glitches? Is this real? Burhan Habib (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest concern

See this COI noticeboard post for discussion. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Steps toward improving this article

I just made a pretty bold edit removing a lot of content, so I'd like to explain it. :) An editor representing this company, User:WWB Too, has confirmed the problems I described in my COI noticeboard post and invited me to help him improve this article - see the "Microstrategy" section of my talk page. I agree with his assessment that the article is a "very long mess" that needs a rewrite, and I decided that a reasonable first step for the meantime would be to cut the content sourced to press releases (or unsourced), including redundant and excessive details. Since the COI editors who added that content also added other content sourced to secondary sources, it seems likely that the content sourced only to press releases was less significant. Usually I prefer to preserve poorly-sourced information if it's potentially verifiable, but in this case, improving neutrality means removing some detail. As far as I can tell, the primary contributors to this article were working for the company, and the company is unhappy with the current state of the article, so I don't think that this will be controversial despite it being a huge edit, but I'm definitely open to discussion. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

New proposed draft

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at A. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

As Dreamyshade mentions above, I approached her to ask for help improving this article, with a view to making it a better overview of the company's operations in line with Misplaced Pages guidelines. As the warning tags on the current version correctly observe, MicroStrategy employees had directly edited the article before, however they are now very aware that they should not have done this. I've been working with them on a new draft for the article, one that trims out the promotional material from the current article and focuses on encyclopedic details about the company's history, activities and products. It's taken longer than I originally expected, but I've now been able to add the complete draft article into my userspace (note that the categories and non-free logo are disabled, and would need to be re-enabled if moved to the mainspace):

• MicroStrategy (proposed replacement draft)

Overall, I've condensed the article into three main sections: Overview, History and Products, streamlined the introduction and removed the jargony "Technology timeline". In more detail, the draft I propose includes the following:

1. Overview provides a summary of the company's business activities and its organization, including some of the information currently under Company in the live article. However, I've removed the details about the employees' training program and companies ex-employees have gone on to found. I also did not include here the recognition by Forbes, which I've instead placed into the History, nor the company's placement in Gartner's Magic Quadrant, since I did not find any third-party sources covering it. I have also trimmed the mention of the MicroStrategy World conference.
2. The History section largely covers the same material, but corrects and clarifies the details around the 2000 SEC investigation and charges and removes the extraneous details regarding Michael J. Saylor's press appearances and publication of his book. I've also left out the patent-infringement suit, which was settled in favor of MicroStrategy, since such patent suits are not uncommon in the software industry and was not a major event in the company's history. Where relevant, I've included details of the company's software developments, in place of the separate "Technology timeline".
3. Products in my draft incorporates the information about products currently in the article's introduction and details from the existing Products section. As much as possible I've tried to eliminate the jargon and removed promotional details, such as the mention of the positive review of version 9.3 of its business intelligence software. I've removed the long list of activities currently found at the top of the section, replacing this with a summary of the company's products. Below that, I've included a short but complete description of each product or service

The draft turned out longer than I originally expected it, so if it would help I'm open to working through changes section-by-section. On the other hand, if others would prefer to compare the draft and current article as a whole, that works for me. Although I've tried hard to balance MicroStrategy's interests with Misplaced Pages's, I'd like to have others to review this from a neutral, disinterested perspective. I'm happy to answer any questions, and if you'd like to make changes directly in my userspace, please feel free. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made some initial comments on the draft at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help#MicroStrategy and Michael J. Saylor. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

For posterity, here's a working link to Qwyrxian's comments: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help/Archive 3#MicroStrategy and Michael J. Saylor. I just put a modified version of WWB Too's draft into the main article - here's a diff of his draft and my version.

First, I toned down the language to be a little more neutral and less corporate. To address Qwyrxian's comments that listing customers is unusual for corporate articles, I moved the list of notable customers out of the lead (into the "Overview" section), I removed the somewhat trivial examples of using Wisdom, and I also removed notes about specific customers from the "Products" section. I agree with Qwyrxian on removing those details from "Products" partly because that information is more about the company's sales than about describing the actual products. I also trimmed a few less-important details from the Products section.

A neutral list of competitors seems OK to me; as a non-expert reader, it helps me understand the company better. I removed a sentence that implied that MicroStrategy was the best of the competitors though.

I added back a couple details from the existing article about the post-SEC investigation stock drop, and I removed a couple details that seemed fluffy ("200 Best Small Companies in America", "best business apps of the year").

The current article seems reasonably straightforward to me, and at least an improvement in readability and "generally making sense" over the old article, especially since the old article was mostly written by people from the company anyway. Hopefully sticking this into main space will encourage further improvements! Dreamyshade (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Second proposed draft

Hello again, Dreamyshade. As I mentioned Friday, I've just uploaded my second take on the article. Here are two links that should help its consideration:

• Updated draft in my userspace
• Diff between my first and second version

Some of my changes are based on recent developments or better consistency—for example, Angel is no longer a subsidiary of MicroStrategy, so I've removed it from the infobox; I've also replaced "&" with "and" in the infobox, for the sake of consistency. Overall it is broadly similar to the version you posted Friday; not surprising, perhaps, given that we were both working from Qwyrxian's comments. For example, we also both merged the discussion of competitors into the Overview section, although we did so in slightly different ways.

We also both removed discussion of companies that use the various MicroStrategy products from the Products section, instead focusing on the products themselves. One reason to prefer the newer version of this section: I think my first attempt on it was a bit list-y, and the new one I think flows better; it's also just three paragraphs, closer to Qwyrxian's suggestion of two.

The other biggest difference between this version and yours is that I've added in an Awards and recognition section, and moved the detail about Apple's recognition of them here. I also made sure to stick with unambiguously RS citations for the details now added.

I realize you made some additional changes, so you may want to consider my draft on a section-by-section basis. I'll also ping Qwyrxian and see if he's interested in having another look. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This has now been completed following a longer explanation and brief discussion at WikiProject Cooperation. There is a small outstanding matter: the logo still needs to be re-enabled, but otherwise I consider this page complete. Anyone who comes across this later, and has any questions or comments, should feel free to ask me on my user Talk page. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Note re: COI

Recently, I saw that this article had been edited in response to a claim made on the Help Desk that individuals from MicroStrategy have been editing this page. I'd like to clarify that the current version of the article was written by me and moved live following discussions with a number of editors, per the above sections on this Talk page. I was working for MicroStrategy at the time that I prepared the draft, and I disclosed this COI and did not directly edit the page at any point. At the time that I started work on the article, individuals from MicroStrategy had previously edited directly, however I explained to them that this was not best practice and to the best of my knowledge they have not directly edited since then. I understand if editors disagree with any specific wording used in the article, but I want to make clear that others previously reviewed and agreed with that wording. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted that the Headquarters and Based in Locations do not match. First Paragraph placed organization in Washington State and Sidebar places organization in Virginia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.250.221 (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with MicroStrategy Analytics

2 articles covering the same material, with significant duplication DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely familiar with this but I agree in that there's no much to suggest separable articles and Analytics seems to be summarized nicely at the MicroStrategy company article. Considering this, I'll likely support (preferably redirect instead though) but I'd like to hear from others (please ping). SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm on the fence here. I created this article, thinking others more familiar with the product would put in more detail. My model was how there are very detailed technical ex:Microsoft Excel articles showing coding samples, in addition to a Microsoft article. I think the history of paid editing has discouraged other editors from contributing. If we were to add a corresponding amount of info to each of the MicroStrategy products, the article could start to become unwieldy. As it is now, because the info in both articles is so similar, you could probably get away with merging the articles, and adding the software screen shot. Merging the history sections will be slightly more problematic but since it seems to be the flagship product, it's not a surprise that most of the history is about it. If more info is eventually added, the Analytics standalone article can always be restored.Timtempleton (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

There's avery considerable difference in the importance of the two products. One is a special purpose program; the other the most widely used general purpose spreadsheet in the world. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Request to update article

It is requested that edits be made to the following semi-protected pages: P (edit · history · last · links · protection log) Requests No. 1 through No. 5 were approved. Request No. 6 was declined. See below for additional changes made. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Greetings! On behalf of MicroStrategy, I have drafted a handful of edits to help bring this article up-to-date. I have outlined my proposals below, but generally I'm looking to include basic factual updates, add a couple major company milestones, and include a small amount of recent recognition. Since I am here on behalf of MicroStrategy and have a financial conflict of interest, I will not edit this article directly and am seeking other editors' input and assistance in posting these edits.

History

• (Req #1) In fitting with how this section is listed in chronological order, can we add the following between the current second and third paragraphs?

• (Req #2) Can we add the following between the current fourth and fifth paragraphs?

• (Req #3) In the paragraph that begins "In January 2014," there is a typo in the company's name. The S in MicroStrategy should be capitalized.

• (Req #4) The very end of this section is missing two major updates to MicroStrategy 10 (versions 10.9 and 10.10). I propose the addition of the following:

Products

• (Req #5) Can we add Microstrategy 10.10 at the end of this section's introductory paragraph?

Awards and recognition

• (Req #6) Lastly for now, this section is quite outdated. The most-recent recognition is now five years old. I have prepared the following for consideration:

Forrester Research recognized MicroStrategy as a leader in The Forrester Wave: Enterprise Business Intelligence Platforms, Q4 2013, and The Forrester Wave: Enterprise BI Platforms With Majority On-Premises Deployments, Q3 2017.

] recognized MicroStrategy as a leader in The Forrester Wave: Enterprise Business Intelligence Platforms, Q4 2013,<ref name="Roe14">{{cite news |title=Forrester names SAP, IBM, SAS, Microsoft tops in BI |last1=Roe |first1=David |url=https://www.cmswire.com/cms/information-management/forrester-names-sap-ibm-sas-microsoft-tops-in-bi-023837.php |newspaper=CMS Wire |date= |accessdate=7 December 2017}}</ref> and The Forrester Wave: Enterprise BI Platforms With Majority On-Premises Deployments, Q3 2017.<ref name="Logisticsit17">{{cite web |url=http://www.logisticsit.com/articles/2017/09/13/forrester-names-microstrategy-a-leader-in-enterprise-bi-platforms-report/ |title=Forrester names MicroStrategy a leader in enterprise BI Platforms Report |date=13 September 2017 |publisher=Manufacturing & Logistics IT |accessdate=7 December 2017}}</ref>

It is my hope that these edits are NPOV and will serve readers with accurate, updated information. Thanks for your consideration. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Takahashi, Dean (17 February 2009). "Alarm.com buys out its owners for $27.7 million". VentureBeat. Retrieved 7 December 2017.
2. Garcia, Winifred (1 December 2017). "Microstrategy Inc (NASDAQ:MSTR) Institutional Investors Quarterly Sentiment". BZ Weekly. Retrieved 7 December 2017.
3. ^ Sargent, Jenna (11 December 2017). "MicroStrategy 10.10, Talend's new developer courses, and UC Berkeley future learning robots". SD Times. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
4. Roe, David. "Forrester names SAP, IBM, SAS, Microsoft tops in BI". CMS Wire. Retrieved 7 December 2017.
5. "Forrester names MicroStrategy a leader in enterprise BI Platforms Report". Manufacturing & Logistics IT. 13 September 2017. Retrieved 7 December 2017.
6. Henschen, Doug (26 February 2014). "Gartner BI Magic Quadrant: Winners & Losers". InformationWeek. Retrieved 7 December 2017.
7. Henschen, Doug (25 February 2015). "Gartner BI Magic Quadrant 2015 Spots Market Turmoil". InformationWeek. Retrieved 7 December 2017.

Partially implemented Additionally, the information under the "History" header has been switched to a bulleted timeline and labeled "Milestones", for clarity. The trademark symbols (™) have been removed.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  09:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Question about bulleted list format

@Spintendo: in late 2017 you answered my edit request (immediately above) to bring the article up-to-date. At the same time, though not requested by me, you converted the bulk of the History section into a bulleted list sub-section called Milestones. I always thought this read perfectly well as a series of prose paragraphs, in addition to the fact that MOS:LISTBULLET advises Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs.

I am curious, was there a specific reason why you made this change? Were you to agree with turning it back into a set of non-bulleted paragraphs, is there something you'd like to see changed about it? I believe this would bring it closer in line with how most Misplaced Pages articles about companies (not to mention most Misplaced Pages articles generally) are written. If so, I'd be happy to work on something and propose it for consideration by an editor without a financial COI (as I do). Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Request to add categories

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at A. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Greetings! Here with a request to add a handful of extra categories at the end of the article to help group this article with similar ones. Here are categories that I think should be added, which I think should be clear are relevant from the text of the article:

• Category:Companies listed on NASDAQ
• Category:Data visualization software
• Category:Big data companies
• Category:Business analysis
• Category:Business intelligence companies
• Category:Business software
• Category:Business software companies
• Category:Data companies

Since I am here on behalf of MicroStrategy and have a financial conflict of interest, I will not edit this article directly and am seeking other editors' input and assistance in posting these categories. Happy to answer any questions if need be. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply

 Done Spintendo      20:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Request to remove name from lead

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at A. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

One more, but entirely separate, request today: a few weeks ago, an IP made a good faith but incorrect edit to the introduction: adding Thomas Spahr as a co-founder. Spahr was indeed an early employee, but not a co-founder like Sanju K. Bansal; Mr. Spahr was interviewed for this 2000 Washingtonian story, where it simply says he "has been at MicroStrategy since the early days". I suggest this be removed. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply

 Done Spintendo      20:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of both, and so quickly. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Request to update Awards and recognition

It is requested that edits be made to the following semi-protected pages: D (edit · history · last · links · protection log) ADV (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Hi again. On behalf of MicroStrategy, I have drafted a new Recognition section that I think should replace the existing Awards and recognition section. Currently, material in Awards and recognition is cited to: a press release, a rewrite of a press release, and a primary source. While MicroStrategy has received plenty of recognition over time, including awards, it's best that this section focus on those which have been the subject of reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the firm and recognizing body (which, ideally, are notable themselves). That's what I present here.

Since MicroStrategy is a client and I therefore have a financial conflict of interest, I will not edit this article directly and am seeking other editors' input and assistance in replacing Awards and recognition with the following:

==Recognition==

It is my hope that others will agree the proposal here is NPOV and will serve readers with accurate, updated information verified in independent sources. Thanks for your consideration. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Roe, David (22 January 2014). "Forrester Names SAP IBM SAS Microsoft Tops in BI". CMS Wire. Retrieved 9 February 2018.
2. Backaitis, Virginia (13 September 2017). "Forrester Raises the Bar for Enterprise BI Platforms With Latest Wave". CMS Wire. Retrieved 5 March 2018.
3. ^ Henschen, Doug (26 February 2014). "Gartner BI Magic Quadrant: Winners & Losers". InformationWeek. Retrieved 9 February 2018.
4. Henschen, Doug (25 February 2015). "Gartner BI Magic Quadrant 2015 Spots Market Turmoil". InformationWeek. Retrieved 9 February 2018.

Reply 05-MAR-2018

 Declined These awards offer the results of analyses on closed, industry-specific systems, featuring subjective metrics and poorly formed or delineated outcomes (i.e., Best in industry, Most outstanding etc.). The sources you have provided are not reliable third party sources. They are from marketing and advertising publications with deep connections to the industry. Any problems suffered by the article through its current award subheading would easily be resolved — not through updating — but through deleting the entire subheading. Spintendo      19:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Unassessed company articles
• Unknown-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles
• Articles with connected contributors
• Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests
• Misplaced Pages edit requests possibly using incorrect templates