Talk:InnoCentive

Neutrality

This article fails to convince readers of InnoCentive's active role in enforcing protection of IP rights and awarding the solutions that meet the requirements. This article needs cleanup. Chmyr (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Merely an advertisement

This page is merely an advertisement for Innocentive. It serves no other purpose than to inflate Innocentive's rankings in Google. --Lamar57 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Lamar57

I don't think you understand the content you have deleted. Your assumption of its like innocentive PR is also far from the truth. The information I have put into is useful to understand InnoCentive as a company as well as the open innovation model it represents. BTW, I don't work for InnoCentive.

I would also agree that the page should stay. It is mentioned in Wikinomics and I wanted some additional insight into the innovation marketplace InnoCentive presents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.218.66 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To user with IP 18.97.7.225

You just reverted a slew of changes I made to this article. The version of the article you reverted back to is:

Not in the standard wikipedia format/style;

Is full of almost meaningless cooperate speak;

Reads like it was written by an InnoCentive PR person to persuade people to buy stock in it.

It has POV statements like: "Hopefully, one day in the future, Innocentive will be a valid approach to solving any R&D challenge." and "While Yet2 is an inherently a weak competitor, its presence in the marketplace complicates Innocentive’s message to potential clients and may diminish the perceived value of open innovation." and "These competitors also leverage an online network of professional problem solvers in the name of open innovation. However, none have a basic value proposition similar to or as powerful as Innocentive’s." etc. (there are many more examples of the sort of phrase I removed...)

If you honestly think that I have cut out some genuinely encyclopaedic and NPOV analysis, then please incorporate them back into the more wikipedia style version of the article I have constructed; or discuss them on this talk page.

For the moment am reverting back to the wikified version, if we can't agree on this then we can try and bring in some other editors in order to reach a consensus. Tomgreeny 17:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

My opinion: Of the two versions, Tomgreeny's is more encyclopedic. 18.172.7.61's version reads like it was copied from a corporate investor report or an application for investment. Wikipedia is not propaganda or advertising. 18.172.7.61, I suggest you review Wikipedia's policies and the Manual of Style. While you may not work for the company, you could still have a conflict of interest if you are connected with the company in other ways.

Also, in the future please follow the standard practice of placing your text below the comment to which you are replying, and "sign" your message using four tildes (~~~~). Anomie 21:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The article, in its present state, has but one non-trivial source which is the WSJ article. The sections on Competitors, Competitiveness and Future are without sourcing and sound like a press release. You make comments about competitors without properly sourcing them. I would strongly suggest you add footnotes to the article throughout. Were it not for the fact that you have the WSJ cite and that you are working on it, it would be looking at a speedy delete. As Anomie said, be careful using corporate sources. You must also be aware of copyright issues. See WP:COPY for more. I would suggest you completely rewrite the above mention sections and I would delete the Future section. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:WWIN but a reporter of verified facts. Any of us will be glad to assist further if you need us. I know you have put work into the article and want it to do well. I think it would be good for you all to state your association with the company, past present or future, direct or indirect. Hope this helps. JodyB _talk 21:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input guys. BTW I have absolutely no association with the company; I stumbled on this page purely by chance and had never heard of this company before. Tomgreeny 22:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I am all set from a failed experiment here. I won't want to continue wasting anyone's time, including my own. Just want to make it clear that I don't have ANY conflict of interest here with my postings. It's interesting though to experience a community like wiki. Have fun!

Cleaning up the backstory on Innocentive

The founding of Innocentive can not be tied to the Santa Fe Institute. While it is true one of the originators/inventors was an active participant in Santa Fe institute activities, there was no relationship to SFI and the brainstorm that led to Innocentive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.218.255 (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Broken Link

The first reference which purportedly links to a story on the New York Times is broken. The Times has likely changed their structure and altered the URL.

Mark Eggleston (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Current Facts and New Sections

Hi,

This page has been modified to reflect current facts such as changes in the management board. The existing content was edited to reflect a neutral point of view. The following are the new sections that were added:

1) Business Model 2) Solutions of Note 3) User base 4) Research 5) Similar Organizations

Section 'Concept Model' was removed as it was a misnomer and its information was included in the 'Research' section.

Also, a new table of company facts has been added to the 'Company' section.

The company logo was added to the infobox.

More links and citations were added.

Please let me know if I can improve upon these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nncntv12 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

أريد بيع فكرة

فكرة جيدة ورااااءعة 102.169.14.197 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)