Talk:ABBYY

Untitled

The straightforward ABBYY title has also been protected since June 2022 [1]. AllyD (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@AllyD and Bbb23: The article was rewritten from scratch by translation from https://uk.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Redirect/revision/39216011 Then the article was significantly revised to strengthen the demonstration of the notability of the article's subject. It is really notable company:

• It has a long, more than 30-year history
• It has developers offices in the USA and several European countries, including Ukraine, Germany, Serbia
• It has representative offices in 15 countries
• It has 1000+ employees
• It sells its products to almost 200 countries worldwide
• It has partnership agreements with PwC and many others huge companies
• The article about the company exists in 19 Wikipedias, including German, French, Spanish, Polish and others
• The importance and notability of the company in its global market segments (IDP, Process Intelligence, OCR) is recognized by leading analytical companies
• Its notability has been demonstrated in the article by citing substantial coverage in many secondary independent sources like Bloomberg, Authority Magazine, Knowledge Management World, Robotic Process Automation Master, VentureBeat, Information & Data Manager magazine and many others
• Most of the citations in the article are from publications that appeared after April 2020

P.S. Google Search for ABBYY demonstrates 7 500 000 + results --Perohanych (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Er... putting a promotional link in your contribution to the Talk page does suggest you're not entirely unbiased. Deb (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

"to let Wikipedians know about a really powerful tool to share free knowledge" That's a textbook definition of promotion. Deb (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Deb: Well, it was my sincere wish to share my experience and my knowledge with the aim to empower Wikipedians. People write articles about notable actors, they love, I wrote an article about a notable company, I love. Where is a bias? From now on, I will never express my attitude to the subject of articles on their talk pages. I did not know that it was forbidden. I have hided the paragraphs, you may delete them.

Is there any policy explaining how to remove protection from an article so that the {{Db-move}} template can be placed? --Perohanych (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You won't be able to do it yourself but I am willing to do it as long as you understand the guidelines. I will be watching it to make sure it remains neutral. Deb (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

So what should I do? --Perohanych (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Just follow the guidelines, on everything. There are no exceptions. Deb (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any specific comments? I just want to understand what exactly I should do next. --Perohanych (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I propose to delete a {{notability}} template from the article and move the article to "ABBYY" --Perohanych (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

2024 transformation

All 5 references to sources in the "2024 transformation" section refer to the X and Telegram social networks, or to assumptions or feelings that arose from someone who was laid off.

Any quantitative estimate (200, 300, or 500) of those fired is speculation.

And in general, is it worth using Russian sources for this section? The company has no presence in Russia at all. In the context of dismissal of seemingly only Russians, Russian sources cannot be reliable or even neutral.

All information about the latest events in the company is based on anonymous sources and is at least guesses, assumptions, etc. Perohanych (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources, in particular Russian Forbes, refer directly to witnesses of the events. These are respectable media, including those independent of the Russian authorities and opposition ones. It is a former Russian company and Russian-language sources are relevant. Anton n (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I doubt the independence of Russian sources Forbes Russia, in particular Russian Forbes, especially after reading this article in The Washington Post: Russian tycoon claims he is behind Forbes purchase, audiotapes show --Perohanych (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

All the sources are based on an assumption. One unnamed employee of the company does not know who was fired and who was not fired. This is non-public information, and usually companies cannot publish it. But that person can see the list of people who attended that meeting and make an ASSUMPTION. But a guess from an anonymous employee is by no means a reliable source. Also take into account the influence of personal emotions. --Perohanych (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

We can rightfully doubt the information of these mass layoffs based on citizenship; it is contrary to the EU treaties, and we would then have sources in Hungarian (always under scrutiny when it comes to EU rules), and Cyprus confirming the information. Furthermore, even if this information is confirmed, the propaganda comments by State Duma deputy is not relevant. Jmjfat (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Now there is the Ukrainian source in the article but you are trying to eliminate it anyway. Wikipedia is not proving correct what media says, Wikipedia is reporting what is stated by sources. Your assumption that Hungarian media are more reliable than Ukrainian is not based on the rules, it is your personal bias. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news aggregator. Furthermore, the source you used is a simple retranscript of the same sources that we rejected previously because they are exclusively based on anonymous testimonies of pretented former employees. If you find an article about a lawsuit being started in Cyprus, Serbia or Hungary for unlawful discriminatory termination of employment, I would have no problem with including this in the article. But without anything more substantial than rumours, we will not let it pass. Jmjfat (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Who are these "we"? You edit from a fresh new account. Are you working for ABBYY? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

We, the community of Wikipedia editors, write Wikipedia based on multiple authoritative, neutral sources, we do not base on the rumours of offended detractors. --Perohanych (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Lawsuits are not the standard for inclusion of a supposed labour dispute. WP:RS mentioning it is sufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no mention of any labour dispute, only the testimony of "a former employee". All sources that have been provided so far as references can be traced back to this single rumour, and should therefore not be accepted. Jmjfat (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not up to us to interpret reliable sources this way. Pravda Ukraine says this happens. We attribute this statement to them rather than put it in wiki-voice but there is no requirement that we do a third-party validation against court documents. Simonm223 (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The Ukrainska Pravda lists its sources on the top of the page, and they can all be traced to the same rumour launched by a former employee. This is not reliable information. Jmjfat (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

"...they can all be traced to the same rumour launched by a former employee". Where is your reliable source for this statement? If it exists, then it can be included as a counterpoint to the current content.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I followed the sources listed at the top of the Ukrainska Pravda. One is the testimony of an employee, the other an article from Radio Liberty in Russian, which itself has only 2 sources: a post on social medias, and the same anonymous testimony of an employee. Jmjfat (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

If a newsmedia outlet such as Ukrainska Pravda chooses to report the statements of their source as fact and you are unsatisfied with that and want to demonstrate their fact-checking makes them unreliable you have to do some legwork. We don't just declare a source unreliable on vibes or WP:OR. Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I did the legwork, and demonstrated in the talk section of the article. Jmjfat (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• There were a lot of sources retelling this story in this version of the article - all of them in Russian but part of them more or less legal in Russia while other ones extremely oppositional and more or less banned in Russia. On October 10 all of that was deleted from the article by unregistered editor as "Russian propaganda", then restored, then again removed by unregistered editor - and at this point, on October 11, the newly registered user Jmjfat appeared to defend this article from quite important and heavily sourced information, and since then this is their only task in Wikipedia. I don't believe in good intentions of this editor and hereby ask the community to prevent them from disruptive activity in this article. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Ukrainska Pravda makes it clear in their report Source: employees of the company, so it should be attributed as — In September 2024, Ukrainska Pravda reported that, according to employees of the company, all ABBYY employees with Russian citizenship had been dismissed on the basis of their Russian passports in branches in Serbia, Hungary and Cyprus. And the claim needs additional sources as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  • It's not only Ukrainska Pravda. It was in a dozen of different media. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

    All these other media were using the same testimomy to base their information, or citing each other. In particular you mention "Russian opposition media", I suppose you mean Radio Liberty, but I went to this article and their source was the same testimony as Ukrainska Pravda. Jmjfat (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

    Ukrainska Pravda also does not report the employees were dismissed solely based on their citizenship, this is an extrapolation. The article strictly says russian employees were dismissed, which does not exclude that other employees were also dismissed. Jmjfat (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, dozens of different media all reporting the same thing - "according to employees of the company". I'm not saying it should be excluded, but it should be properly attributed to who is saying it - "employees of the company". Isaidnoway (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

    I'd be 100% OK with attributing the statement to employees of the company. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

    Opinions of unidentified employees can not serve as a source for a Wikipedia article. --Perohanych (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

    It's normal for newspapers to use anonymous sources. Simonm223 (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

    Perohanych it is not your business to decide if the testimonies of unnamed employees are significant enough: a dozen of media already decided about this. Your personal opinion means nothing against it. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

    I found this source; https://theins.ru/news/275002, which suggests that Ukrainian and Israeli employees were also dismissed, not just Russians. Can we then at least nuance the information on the Wiki page? Jmjfat (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

    I would say we could add a rider to the extant copy saying "while the Insider reported the recent round of mass-firings included both Russians and people from other countries." with that source appended. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    Seems good to me. Maybe it would be interesting to also report the reason given "security concern over data from US customers"? Jmjfat (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    Jmjfat, you are misleading the editors who are not able to read Russian. This source does not claim that Ukrainians and Israelis were also fired. It says that Russian citizens have been fired even if they also held Ukrainian or Israeli citizenship. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

    My bad, I misunderstood. However, Abbyy did comment on the layoff: that were global and not targeted specifically towards russian citizen; https://medium.com/@mqpjohnmiller967/abbyys-business-transformation-sparks-concern-a-look-at-the-real-story-1a773d242248. This Wiki page was even mentioning it in this version;**:::::::https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=ABBYY&oldid=1250985735, however preferred to enforce the "discriminatory" angle propagated by the dismissed employees testimonies.

    Furthermore, I have second hand knowledge from a source who is helping the dismissed employees and they did mention that not only russians were dismissed, but others as well, and that the cause is most likely economic (however this testimony can obviously not be used as a source on Wikipedia). Jmjfat (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

    Your second-hand knowledge is irrelevant to this article as it would be counted as WP:OR. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

    I agree 100%, and even stated so in my previous reply.

    Can you give your appreciation of the following though.

    There is an article from Forbes Russia (more reliable than the medium.com source I gave in my previous reply) that seems to have a more detailed summary of the event and that gives different versions of the story;

    -from the employees who say they were dismissed based on discrimination

    -from Abbyy that denies this accusation, and talks about "transformation". This statement is actually also present in the Radio Liberty source we have on this Wikipedia article.

    -an independent analyst overlapping with Abbyy's versions on the discrimination part and gives another explanation as to why it is perceived that Russian citizens were targeted (they were a sizeable share of the staff and therefore largely represented in the dismissed employees), but citing economic reasons and relocation of activities in cheaper countries.

    https://www.forbes.ru/tekhnologii/522307-operacia-vy-vse-molodcy-abbyy-za-cas-uvolila-pocti-vseh-rossijskih-razrabotcikov

    The Wikipedia article on Abbyy only relays the version from the employees, and does not even properly report its current and only source, Radio Liberty. I believe we need to change this. Jmjfat (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

    I am very cautious about Forbes in general because they host user generated content and it's not always easy at a glance to tell which is which. I... think... that this comes from the Forbes editorial team and, as such, it may constitute a WP:RS. Medium certainly does not. Simonm223 (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

    But you agree that we can attribute this statement to them rather than put it in wiki-voice in this article?

    Or at least the direct quote from the founder of the recruiting company NEWHR, Kira Kuzmenko, which translates into english : "The thing is that historically, all of ABBYY's development was Russian-language. This is a Russian company that entered the international market and at one time moved everyone who was ready for it to Cyprus, Serbia and Hungary. And now it wasn't the Russian people who were fired, but the entire development team. The remaining employees [with Russian citizenship], for example from the business development department, remained in the company,". Jmjfat (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

    Considering, as you mentioned, that targeting employees for dismissal on the basis of ethnicity would be illegal in some jurisdictions I think we should be careful about attribution, especially to anything the company claims. However I would not object to a statement attributed to Forbes that lays out any conflicting claims without saying in wiki-voice that this is definitely the case. Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

    Kira Kuzmenko is not affiliated to Abby , and she had direct contact with people who were laid off (https://x.com/kuzmenko_kira/status/1841087091129585934). She refers on her own social media accounts to the interview she gave to Forbes ; https://x.com/kuzmenko_kira/status/1841150463313432625, and she also talked to BFM.ru; https://www.bfm.ru/news/559170.

    It is now clear that there are 2 competing versions; "dismissal based on ethnicity" and "economic mass layoffs", and since we can't come to a final conclusion with the information available, both should both appear on the wiki article with equal "weight", or neither. Jmjfat (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

    That's not quite how WP:NPOV works - however, in this case, I am OK with including the competing claims with appropriate attribution.

    However Twitter is never a WP:RS and we should avoid using the postings of a person on social media even if they claim to have direct contact with the affected people as Twitter has no fact-checking and editorial mechanism. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

    Can you explain how WP:NPOV works if not by including both competing claims, with attribution to sources, and WP:BALANCE them with equal weight when no conclusive information can be found that one version is more consensual than the other, as I suggested?

    Or maybe you were referring to the fact I also suggested "neither" should be presented? In this case I agree that this is not a proper way to proceed according to WP:NPOV guidelines. Jmjfat (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

    Yeah that's what I was getting at - "it must be both or neither" is not how WP:NPOV works because we don't necessarily assume that both sides of a disagreement are equally correct. Instead we should review the reliability of sources that contain competing claims, providing a due balance according to their relative reliability. In this specific case that means both with attribution. But it doesn't necessarily have to mean that. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

    Thank you for clarifying. Jmjfat (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hiring and firing employees, sometimes massively, are typical of middle and large private companies. As a rule, there are offended, dissatisfied people. I do not understand the encyclopedic notability of such processes and the need to write about them in Wikipedia articles about the companies. --Perohanych (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Massive layoffs are relevant to mention when they are out of the ordinary, and here it seems to be out of the ordinary since it did happen, it was newsworthy and led to a controversy, at least in Russia.

The question is then; do we report only the fact that layoffs happened, or do be substantiate by adding the competing claims of employees and employer with attribution? Whatever we chose however, this information might fit better in the "Offices & management" section than in "History". Jmjfat (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

When reliable sources report on irregularities in layoffs, particularly those that might be politically charged and illegal, that's a bit different from standard layoffs.Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

In encyclopedias editors do not write about events that "might be", but about events that "were for sure". Especially when it might concern the reputation of someone or something. --Perohanych (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Please cite the applicable wikipedia policy for this statement. My statement, above, is derived from WP:NPOV and WP:ILLCON. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:ILLCON is not relevant in this talk. We do not discuss notability of the company. WP:BLP is the wikipedia policy concerning the reputation of someone. As for the reputation of something the WP:RS and WP:ATTACK are closest. --Perohanych (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)