Misplaced Pages

Talk:MicroStrategy

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WWB Too (talk | contribs) at 20:15, 20 March 2018 (→Reply 18-MAR-2018: I'll clearly have to try something else). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:15, 20 March 2018 by WWB Too (talk | contribs) (→Reply 18-MAR-2018: I'll clearly have to try something else)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MicroStrategy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 15 days 

WikiProject iconCompanies Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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:
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.
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.

Request to update Awards and recognition

It is requested that edits be made to the following semi-protected pages:

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 Recognition Forrester Research named MicroStrategy a leader in its 2013 report "Forrester Wave for Enterprise Business Intelligence Platforms", citing its architecture and mobile business intelligence, and in its 2017 report "The Forrester Wave: Enterprise BI Platforms With Majority On-Premises Deployments" for its focus on business intelligence and cross-product integration. Gartner named MicroStrategy among the leaders on its Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence and Analytics Platforms in 2014 and 2015. Gartner said MicroStrategy was one of the companies that typically ranks high in governance, administration and scalability. Recognition markup

==Recognition==

] named MicroStrategy an industry leader in its 2013 report "Forrester Wave for Enterprise Business Intelligence Platforms", citing its architecture and mobile business intelligence, and in its 2017 report "The Forrester Wave: Enterprise BI Platforms With Majority On-Premises Deployments" for its focus on business intelligence and cross-product integration.<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=22 January 2014 |accessdate=9 February 2018}}</ref><ref name="Backaitis17">{{cite news |title=Forrester Raises the Bar for Enterprise BI Platforms With Latest Wave |last1=Backaitis |first1=Virginia |url=https://www.cmswire.com/analytics/forrester-raises-the-bar-for-enterprise-bi-platforms-with-latest-wave/ |newspaper=CMS Wire |date=13 September 2017 |accessdate=5 March 2018}}</ref> ] named MicroStrategy among the leaders on its Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence and Analytics Platforms in 2014 and 2015.<ref name="Henschen14">{{cite news |title=Gartner BI Magic Quadrant: Winners & Losers |last1=Henschen |first1=Doug |url=https://www.informationweek.com/big-data/big-data-analytics/gartner-bi-magic-quadrant-winners-and-losers/d/d-id/1114013 |newspaper=] |date=26 February 2014 |accessdate=9 February 2018}}</ref><ref name="Henschen15">{{cite news |title=Gartner BI Magic Quadrant 2015 Spots Market Turmoil |last1=Henschen |first1=Doug |url=https://www.informationweek.com/big-data/big-data-analytics/gartner-bi-magic-quadrant-2015-spots-market-turmoil/d/d-id/1319214?piddl_msgorder=asc |newspaper=] |date=25 February 2015 |accessdate=9 February 2018}}</ref> Gartner said MicroStrategy was one of the companies that typically ranks high in governance, administration and scalability.<ref name="Henschen14"/>

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

no 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)

Hi Spintendo, a few clarifications:
  • FWIW, these aren't "awards" per se, which is why I'd suggested to remove that word from the section heading.
  • The recognizing bodies are Forrester Research and Gartner, which anyone in business will tell you are two of the most important market research companies around. Naturally, their analyses will be "closed, industry-specific" and even "subjective"—it's not necessary that you or I think them correct, but to allow that they are taken seriously in the business world.
  • I also dispute your description of the sources provided: of course they have "deep connections to the industry"—they are trade publications, after all. It's silly to hold the source of their authority against them. And InformationWeek has even had its own Misplaced Pages article since 2006.
For these reasons, I'd like to ask you to reconsider this hasty declination. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply 18-MAR-2018

"Of course they have 'deep connections to the industry'—they are trade publications, after all." These awards/recognitions, having originated in trade publications, are more suited to the readership of those publications than they are to Misplaced Pages's readership. Pedagogically speaking, Misplaced Pages's readership audience is much more diverse, in age and understanding. Many readers would likely have no idea what any of these subjective evaluations meant. If you're able to locate the specific methadologies used in each instance to arrive at the rankings shown in the proposal — including detailed descriptions of the data and metrics used to rank these recognitions — then I would be more than happy to reconsider. Regards, Spintendo      15:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I'm sorry, but you are inventing requirements for inclusion that do not exist in Misplaced Pages guidelines. Nevertheless, it's clear to me that you are not going to reconsider. Consider yourself free of any obligation to continue this discussion. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Categories: