Talk:Epic Systems/Archives/2015

POV pushing

Several editors, who don't seem to understand what POV is, have been repeatedly inserting a paragraph about an Epic Systems installation at Cambridge University Hospitals. Why is this POV? 1. Because it's cherry-picked. There are hundreds (thousands?) of Epic installations. So why pick on this particular one? What point is being made? 2. Because it's an example without a general abstraction. There is no overarching framework in the article for the example to illustrate. Why insert a random news clip about a random health care system? Again, what point is being made? 3. This article has been the subject of POV pushing for months, from those who wish to demonize the company to those who wish to exonerate it. The only reason for inserting a random news article (WP:NOTNEWS) is to make a point. Stop trying to push your POV, both sides of this issue! 32.218.35.93 (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The installation in Cambridge is the first in the UK. The UK health system has its own peculiarities. We just had perhaps the biggest IT disaster NHS Connecting for Health in the world when the government tried to computerise the whole thing. That is why its significant. The other 200 hospitals in the NHS are watching this, and some have been to visit to see what lessons they need to learn. I'm entirely neutral about the merits of Epic systems as opposed to the competition. I'd be very happy to hear examples of Epic installations which have gone smoothly. My only POV is that the NHS is lagging behind in computerising its hospital systems. And that I am looking from the UK. People from other countries may not appreciate the context, And if anyone wants their contribution to the debate to be taken seriously they should log in so we can see their POV for ourselves.Rathfelder (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

32.218.35.93 you, yourself obviously have a WP:COI by either working for Epic or being closely related to them, thus blowing your POV criticism of others (who are not related to Epic nor each other) out of the water.--Penbat (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Removing criticism of the company from as reputable a source as the New York Times, without providing any evidence to refute it, is clearly biassed editing. If the NYT is wrong please provide evidence to say so.Rathfelder (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Rathfelder, you've been making a lot of major edits to the page. It would be helpful if you posted your suggestions to the Talk page in advance of posting, so that it can be discussed and refined prior to being posted. The New York Times article is a critical article with a negative opinion (you said so yourself -- it's criticism), even if it is a reliable source. (WP:RSOPINION) Thus, it shouldn't be stated as fact, but rather as the author's interpretation. You've also clearly shown that you have a WP:COI with an Epic customer (the NHS) based on your page contributions. You should get the opinions of other editors prior to posting more content or reverting others' edits. [[Malt12nigh (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)]]

There is no requirement for editors to put stuff on talk pages first. Wikipedia does not work like that. If anyone wants to refine my contributions, that's fine. I have no conflict of interest. My medical records are not held by EPIC and I have no interest in the company beyond what I read about them. It's no concern of mine whether the NHS uses EPIC or some other software. Nobody has an interest in the NHS except insofar as they are a citizen or a patient. Its perfectly proper for an encyclopaedia to refer to criticism of a company or its products if it comes from a reliable source. It's also perfectly proper to rebut the criticism, and if what the NYT says is unjustified then I am sure we will get a refutation. If we don't we will draw our own conclusions. If you want to enter a dialogue, Malt12nigh, I suggest you should log in properly. Rathfelder (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a requirement -- just good editing practices (WP:CAUTIOUS), especially since your posts have repeatedly been identified as controversial in the editing history for the page. Also, here's an article that challenges the criticism in the NYT article. Up for discussion. Malt12nigh (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I prefer WP:BOLD. WP:CAUTIOUS applies better to altering existing content. The fact that some people with their own agenda may have objected to previous material is no reason to be unduly cautious. I have no reason to worry about my point of view. I don't have one in respect of EPIC. I had never even heard of them until I read the Addenbrookes story. Why don't you put in a reference to the venturebeat article, which looks very helpful? Rathfelder (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Glad you thought it was useful. I've added a couple of notes based on the info from that article. Malt12nigh (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Rathfelder and Malt12nigh, according to a company source, the $5,000 estimate from the Venture Beat article is no longer accurate. 2600:1008:B15C:575A:C129:E0D8:C6E3:5590 (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

a company source won't do.Rathfelder (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

untitled

Epic Systems Corporation was (apparently) featured in an article on TheDailyWTF.com, a web site about poor programming practices: http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/A_Case_of_the_MUMPS.aspx

Notable-- everyone in Madison, WI has heard of this company. I think it has over 1000 employees. PWnsivander the Great 19:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

While the notability page for companies needs some cleanup itself, perhaps the Epic article can use some outside references. Has anyone found a reputable source to confirm the awards Epic displays on its website? A lot of the links seem to be broken, and some of the pages name the hospitals involved but don't mention Epic directly. Wikky Horse 06:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This confirms the awards from KLAS. --Afed 14:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have worked for several enterprise software companies over the years, for what it's worth. It's not uncommon for a company to list its reference customers on their website but for those customers to not mention that they use the product. Why would I expect Ford Motor Company to publish on their own website that they use some Oracle or Microsoft product? But Oracle or Microsoft would tout the customer relationship for obvious reasons. So nothing suspicious about that, not in the slightest. (Sorry to be anonymous but I don't immediately know how to identify myself here.)

I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to add content, since I work there. But suffice to say this page is accurate, and the awards listed on the web site are accurate.

Here are some pages that may be useful for a neutral party interested in improving the page:

http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=3621

http://www.wkowtv.com/News/index.php?ID=9913

http://ckp.kp.org/newsroom/national/archive/nat_030204_epic.html (A news release from Kaiser Permanente)

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0524/120_print.html (The last paragraph of this Forbe's article is about Epic)

A search for Epic + Kaiser will turn up more gossip than you likely care to wade through. Also, the TheDailyWTF.com article is factually inaccurate, assuming it was meant to be about Epic.

--JFrancis

I don't know which fact in the DailyWTF article you are disputing, but it certainly doesn't contradict anything I ever saw in my 2+ years at Epic, or anything that one of my current co-workers saw in his 2+ years at Epic. If the article wasn't about Epic, then some OTHER company crams all of its server code into a ^ROUTINES global, and puts new hires through 3+ months of training. Every programmer there who cares at all about their future careers leaves as soon as the bloom falls off the rose. (The ones who remain longer are often tied down by their work-visa requirements.) Put simply, being a MUMPS programmer is a dead-end career, and being a VB6 programmer is only marginally better.

Uh, ^ROUTINE is used by anyone using Cache'... I think whoever made that comment is also the author of the DailyWTF article, and has some sort of personal vendetta. MUMPS is just as silly as COBOL but both are still used in a lot of heavy-duty software, for banks and such. VB6 is a modern and extremely popular language even if it sucks, I don't see how that's a dead end career. Google most popular programming languages... I bet VB is in the top 10. So yeah, basically a pretty poor article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.250.220 (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I worked there for 3.5 years starting back in 2002. Some of the item in the WTF article are true, but back then most technical employees were trained on VB and could write dev projects periodically. The culture was ueber-hippie there, the pay was terrible, and the hours were pretty tough. BUT - most people back then had pretty steep careers and lots of customer contact, enabling them to leave for more prestigious customer facing jobs in the tech consulting industry. Now.. why people like me didn't get ANY equity in this fast growing company is beyond me. Many foreign nationals were tied in due to visa and green card processes. However, that looks like an awesome thing today where many companys don't sponsor foreign talent at all anymore. 66.165.176.60 (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely notable, though. Epic is one of the largest employers in the state of Wisconsin, as measured by number of suckers--er, employees.

Logfromblammo (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

^ROUTINE is an Intersystems Caché convention. There are a great deal of companies that are not Epic and store their code in a ^ROUTINE global. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.188.67 (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't offer any info that can be cited, but Epic systems is very well know in the medical informatics business field. I have met people around the country who know of the company. Plus, I think a company with 2,500 employees is inherently notable. JeffreyN 19:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say to keep this article. I'm familiar with the software and they definitely are an industry leader in Healhcare software. Just because they produce corporate software and not personal (where more people would have heard of them) shouldn't be held against them. Gopher backer 03:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I worked at Epic for 5 years, and although MUMPS might not be marketable, the GUI development skills are usable/marketable anywhere, and the large scale and high percentage of staff as programmers will give anyone great experience in software development. The only negative comments I have heard was from people who were let go because they couldn't "cut it". Michael.Urban (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)