Talk:Website Pros
Primary sources template
Regarding the primary sources template set by User:Jreferee. The article references 13 (thirteen) third-party sources like Yahoo! finance reports, Motley Fool analyses, AP reports and so on. Most of the other references derive from the Annual Report and SEC filings. By a NASDAQ listed company these reports usually have high accuracy and reliability. So can you please elaborate why you want more sources?--Peter Eisenburger 06:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the template I posted was wrong. I meant to post one that said use less primary source information. Too many uses of primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article take away from the article being an accurate encyclopedia article. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. See sources. If you removed all the information published by Website Pros or republished by sources affiliated with Website Pros, would there be much information left in the article? I don't know much about Yahoo! finance reports. Does Yahoo! have a staff that compiles the information or is it information merely republished from Website Pros? For the statement "Both services offer web sites based on a wide and steadily updated collection of templates that are customizable. Unique solutions are also available. Lately, WSP markets a service called "SmartClicks", which for an additional fee and depending on industry-type and location - guarantees traffic from major search engines." the article cites to Website Pros' 2006 Annual Report. Does NASDAQ have regulations regarding such statements so that it can be considered accurate and reliable or are Annual Report written by publicists and lawyers to put the company in the best POV light? Also, who says it is best known for the eWorks! web design service? Who says it always reaches growth that is substantial? How can we verify that they are "dedicated" to strategy of mergers and acquisitions? The article does read as though the information was take from Website Pros rather than from a third-party source. There are plenty of third-party sources for Website Pros information, so there should be little need to use primary sources. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- You see that behind some sentences there is a decent grade of if not criticism but neutrality. For instance "based on templates" means that they are not individually designed. (Can't be for that prize.) Or "substantial growth through acquisitions". That means, and every business man will understand, not organical growth (own growth) which of course would be preferred.
- Regarding the Annual and Quartal Reports, after Enron a lot has changed. I really wouldn't see an Annual Report of a NASDAQ listed company as "in the best POV light". The whole board will be taken to court if the facts published in the reports are not accurate in a high degree.
- If you do a Google research you will see that most of "3rdparty sources" are nothing else than derived from the An. or Qu. reports and PR releases. I would prefer to give the link to the primary source in the first place. But that's a general topic of discussion regarding Wikipedia's guidelines of sources at the moment.
- Regarding the growth the numbers. 12 (2004), 21 (2005), 29 (2006) can be described as "substantial growth" - but mainly through acquisitions as the references say and as I write.
- However, you are wright in some cases and the tone should be adjusted like GogoDodo said before, i.e. "wide and steadily updated collection". I will immediatley start working on it. No need to tag again.--Peter Eisenburger 08:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Name change
Regarding the announced name change to Web.com I suggest to:
- keep the content of this article as is - but with the new title Web.com and certain explanations ("earlier under the name of Website Pros..")
- change the name of Web.com to "Web.com (1995 - 2007)".
Note that it is only the change of the name! WSP is the bigger company which acquired Web.com. Comments welcome.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)