Jump to content

Talk:ABBYY

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

@AllyD and Bbb23: The article was rewritten from scratch by translation from https://uk.wikipedia.org/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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So what should I do? --Perohanych (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just follow the guidelines, on everything. There are no exceptions. Deb (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I propose to delete a {{notability}} template from the article and move the article to "ABBYY" --Perohanych (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 transformation

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"...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.-- Ponyobons mots 20:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I did the legwork, and demonstrated in the talk section of the article. Jmjfat (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ABBYY&oldid=1256833183"