Esoteric Rogue

sigsaver: --EsotericRogue Talk 09:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

softwaretop100.org is not a reliable source

Softwaretop100.org is not a reliable source for companies ranks by software revenue, since it omits Sony, which I estimate to be in 5th place.

Regarding my subjective estimate of 5th place, I have found two sources of Sony software revenue as follows:

Sony 2008 Annual Report: page 90: Sales and Operating Revenue by Business Segment: Game: Total 1 284 243 000 000 Japanese yen ~= 13379.2436 million U.S. dollars "game" likely includes hardware and exludes non-game software. (Non-game software should be significant, as demonstrate by the popular product names at http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/). Yet even a small portion of 13,379 million is significant when compared to the 228 million of #100 Corel.

http://www.emsnow.com/newsarchives/archivedetails.cfm?ID=20542 "Sony Corp. in the third quarter [of 2007] generated $1 billion in gaming software revenue for its PlayStation 3, PlayStation 2 and PSP..." This likely exludes software that is not PS related. Again, 1 billion quarterly times 4 equals 4,000 million annually, which is enough for 7th place. Esoteric Rogue (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Cnet cites "IDC recently published its annual report on software industry market share, which ranks software companies by revenue."Esoteric Rogue (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally finished removing all Softwaretop100.org citations and Softwaretop100.org has sent an e-mail today stating "We will publish the new Software Top 100 within two weeks, and Sony will be in there." Still with such a notable omission, I do not suspect we can claim it as a proper source.Esoteric Rogue (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the self-published niche website "softwaretop100.org" is not reliable, I think you should review our policy against original research. Best of luck! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that refers to original research for content of an article. Claiming that we cannot research the reliablity of a source is silly. The above information is solely to discredit a source, and not to be included in any article.Esoteric Rogue (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Esoteric Rogue on both points;

• It is demonstrably not a reliable source, and
• The OR policy relates to article content, not to an RS discussion. Similarly, it is not OR to use Google to find sources, to walk to a library, or to visit a plaque to verify cited information.  Chzz  ►  04:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I finished removing all (~25) softwaretop100.org citations. Practically all (only the first few I didn't examine) citations were made by one user last year, and a different user around the beginning of this year. Esoteric Rogue (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As the editor of the Software Top 100 I would like to provide some feedback on the above. Our yearly list is made according to a published methodology, relying on verifiable data (mostly from annual reports) and reproducible calculations. The methodology adheres closely to Wikipedia's OR policy. Like Wikipedia, the Software Top 100 is overseen by a not-for-profit foundation, aiming to publish the best information possible to the public. As stated on our website, errors do occur and should be brought to our attention so they can be corrected. In this light, we corrected the Sony omission (thank you for that contribution!) and other errors in the last years. Like Wikipedia, we acknowledge the Software Top 100 is not 100% correct and complete, but we certainly have the ambition to make it so, and it improves every year. The point I want to make is, that one or two errors in a big body of work do not render the work useless or unreliable. If verifiability, objectivity and comprehensiveness are the criteria, there is no better source available online in the world today, ranking the world's largest software companies. Many software companies now use the list as a point of reference. I hope this changes the reader's perspective on www.softwaretop100.org. BalderV (talk) 5 August 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for explaining why you are not WP:RS so well. In the future, please fill up your own talk page with your patter, and just put a comment with link on mine. -- EsotericRogue Talk 15:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have posted several messages on your talk page in the past year, to which you never replied, Esoteric Rogue. And since you started the discussion here... The Software Top 100 is a verifiable and objective source. As for the omission: Sony has long been added to the Software Top 100 list. Wikipedia needs good sources like the Software Top 100. Instead of deleting all links to Software Top 100 based on self-justification, why not first discuss? Please come up with arguementation, or even a better source? That would really help Wikipedia forward! You discredit Software Top 100, but Forbes and Software Magazine, which are other sources mentioned on http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/World's_largest_software_companies, you leave unspoken. Did you notice they STILL do not mention Sony? --BalderV (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"several messages"? The entire content is here, and I see one message. And that message had one reply. Such exaggeration does not entice me to converse. You are ranting: Software Top 100 is the subject. I am one man, an not responsible for verifying every source. Here's how the wiki works, if you feel Forbes and Software Magazine are not reliable, you remove them. You seem unwilling to discuss what a reliable source is, and rather try to deflect discussion to irrelevant ramblings -- such as "published methodology". All I did was point our that Software Top 100 does not meet WP:RS standards. I'm not going to read the standards to you. If you feel your website is being treated unfairly, I would suggest 'simply' contacting a WP administrator (There's probably an established procedure, but I'm not going to look that up). As I had discussed this RS issue with other wikipedians, notably Chzz as seen above, I believe the concensus is that your website is clearly not RS. I have little interest in teaching you what RS is; I only had interest in annotating my edits. -- EsotericRogue Talk 20:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Upon second thought, I did as you requested and kindly invite you to my talk page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:BalderV --BalderV (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll offer one point there. -- EsotericRogue Talk 20:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer: BalderV asked me to revisit this matter; I was not quite sure whether to respond here, or on User_talk:BalderV - I chose here, because I am chiefly responding to the questions raised above.

In the message 5 August 2009, above, BalderV compares the website "softwaretop100.org" (henceforth "sw100") to Wikipedia itself - and therein lies the issue; sw100 is a tertiary information-gatherer, like Wikipedia. We cannot use Wikipedia itself as an RS - one article cannot cite another - because Wikipedia never claims to be 'true', but instead it endeavors to be to be verifiable. I appreciate that sw100 has similar goals, but I hope that you can see why, for similar reasons, it is not an appropriate RS.

The assertion that there is "no better source available" is a weak argument for inclusion of 'facts'; if no accepted RS is available, then the facts do not belong on Wikipedia.

There is no requirement for an editor to enter discussion before removal of material, but there is a need to discuss and obtain a consensus in order to add disputed material - the burden of evidence lies with the editor who posts it.

I appreciate your arguments about other sources currently in-use, and this type of challenge occurs frequently on Wikipedia - we call it "Other stufff exists"; in brief, we are well aware that there are vast numbers of inaccurate, badly-cited articles in Wikipedia, and we're working on it, but the fact they exist is never a good argument for adding to the problem.

Like EsotericRouge, I present the above as my opinion; it seems to me that sw100 is not an appropriate RS, for the reasons I have tried to elaborate above. If you disagree, in the first instance, I suggest that you outline your case on the Reliable sources noticeboard. Another option available to you is to being a Request for comment, which is an informal process for helping dispute resolution. Lastly, if you do feel that the organisation has been treated in an unfair way by Wikipedia, then you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly.

I hope this helps to answer your questions - and I mean that sincerely; please try to read my thoughts in the light intended; to clarify my own position and applicable policies, and to advise on further actions you can take if you disagree.

Best,  Chzz  ►  23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chzz, I have answered on my talk page in an effort to group the thread. In short summary: Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources allows tertiary sources in some cases. It is a bit subjective whether rankings are secondary sources, but I think they are; and rankings are often used as useful sources in Wikipedia, e.g. to indicate the relative size of something. Do you think rankings should be used as sources in Wikipedia? --BalderV (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Esoteric Rogue, shall we continue the conversation we started on my talk page? It's been some time since your last input, I look forward to your response! --BalderV (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Esoteric Rogue, it has been a few months since your last input for our conversation on the Software Top 100. If you have no further objections, let's conclude our discussion. --BalderV (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Test for Marco

w:Special:Whatlinkshere/Marco Polo

Spotlight - Marco Polo and sheep

Hiya. Thanks for helping out with spotlight. Your name isn't on the 'spam-list' on that page, so I haven't sent you the newsletter; but I just wanted to let you know a couple of things. Following over 500 edits from the spotlight project, Marco Polo has attained good article status. We've now started on the next article, Marco Polo sheep. Please join the IRC channel some time (quick link), or add your name to the Participants list at WP:SPOT. Cheers, --— Deon^talk_{I'm BACK!} 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

On Privacy: the fun trendy word that men aren't afraid to say

In "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy", the term "privacy" may not be the best. I adhere the desire for professionalism and sterility, but the truth is that "feelings" is more the intended thought. Of course, we can then substitute something more mundane like "perogative" or "agenda" or "desires" (which is usually "wishes"). Being more direct like that may be more efficient than sidestepping with "privacy", where a heartless person may argue, "I didn't violate his privacy, I'm just reporting what the violator discovered." After a change from "privacy" to "agenda", they may be forced to admit, "yes, I did go against the subject's agenda" and that in some case could even be proven. Still, perogatives and agendas are stable and factual or tangible things. Feelings are intangible and dynamic. "...with regard for the subject's feelings" is to the point. Look, I'm not a thesaurus. I just know "privacy" is poor ( -- indirect; dodgy; Politically Correct; an increasingly common slight misnomer; metaphoric; et al.). Okay, I am a thesaurus. "Feelings" is best. -- EsotericRogue Talk 11:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jägermeister, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. magnius (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, including a referencing to the talk page would have been better than the default edit summary, but outlandishly accusing me of "page blanking" and telling me to "go play in the sandbox" is less WP:AGF and more WP:BULLY -- EsotericRogue Talk 10:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)