Talk:Markmonitor/Archive 1

Keep this article

I'm sure the folks at MarkMonitor would like this wikipedia entry "disappeared". But they are certainly notable enough to be here. My evidence is plenty enough, see link here. Cowicide (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I'm going to remove the Notability tag. While this article definitely needs more sources, I don't think it's notability is legitimately in question. A simple whois search will reveal that MarkMonitor is the registrar for Yahoo, Facebook, eBay, Netflix, YouTube, Blogger, and Google... some of the biggest names on the internet.Warthomp (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Need more detail

So what exactly does MarkMonitor do? As of today the article states MarkMonitor "is a company that provides Internet access outside the firewall security and Internet brand protection services." What does that mean, and why are they a notable company? This article needs to be expanded. --danhash (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Paid COI

I have a financial COI with MarkMonitor (see disclosure on my user page) and have prepared an updated article for review and feedback by neutral editors, which I think addresses concerns about completeness, notability, advert, etc. I'd like to see if someone already interested in the subject area will review my proposed draft for neutrality and/or puffery and move it to the mainspace at such a point the article is deemed encyclopedic. Corporate (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So this is paid editing?

Your draft seems mostly fine. You didn't mention Apple or me.com. I have to imagine this came up in your research. Any reason for the omission? If not, could it be added in? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, this is definitely some form of paid editing. I guess this is still a grey area here.

Your "Items & Services" section seems like it can cut completely (or reduced to a single sentence). Having a whole section listing out services like that isn't the purpose of a general reference encyclopedia. This isn't a listing in the yellow book or some other kind of directory. That section can be boiled down to "MarkMonitor broadly participates in four categories of brand protection services: ... .[cite]" And done. Plus "Items & Services" as a header violates the Manual of Style, but that's really just a minor point for a section that will soon no longer exist.

I like the research section, I think.

It'd be somewhat nice to have a clear side-by-side comparison of the current and rewritten intros and history sections (and any other sections that can be cleanly compared), but I'm too lazy to create such a diff, so I can't really expect you to. Though maybe you can just bill it back to your client? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MZMcBride.

• I shortened the Items & Services and see how it was a bit puffy. Let me know if you feel this version is more encyclopedic.
• I actually did a copy/paste of the original and edited from there, so the diff can be seen here.
• This is my first time hearing about Apple or me.com. Link?
• Wikiproject Cooperation has some information on paid editing as well as the Paid Editor Help page. There have been repeated failed attempts to actually create a paid editing policy, however the COI guideline discusses "financial COI" and Jimmy Wales encourages us to stick to sandboxes, Talk pages and {{edit COIs}}.
• Of course I'm aware of WP:own ;-)

Appreciate you taking the time to discuss. Certainly feel free to edit the draft or provide additional feedback Corporate (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be very generous to call the current situation surrounding paid editing "nebulous." A quick look reveals that I'm not new around here; I'm quite familiar with the history and controversy surrounding paid editing. Slowly people are crawling out of the woodwork and into the sunlight. Radical transparency and a "well, if I do it in plain sight, you can't come back and say it was wrong!" attitude. And I'm not sure a more euphemistic and/or propagandist name has ever been devised than "WikiProject Cooperation." Oy vey.

But to the point at hand, the revised "Items & services" section is better. The header is still off. Maybe look at how other articles treat this kind of section? Maybe just "Services" or something? I don't know. The current header still feels awkward (particularly as ampersands are almost never used in section headers).

Overall, I'd say your current draft is good enough to sync live. It's an improvement over the current version, which is all we really ask for here. Killing the ugly white background in the logo would also be nice (or maybe your contacts at MarkMonitor can provide an SVG or an Illustrator version of the logo?).

And regarding me.com + MarkMonitor, I'd assumed you'd come across this story as it came up high in most of my quick googling on the subject. Scroll through this to see what I'm talking about. It just seemed strange to mention high-profile clients such as Google, Facebook, etc., but contain no mention of Apple/me.com. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

{{request edit}} I'd like to request the revised article here be synced with live space. It has new sections for Research, Corporate, Controversy and Products and services as well as a company information box. MzMcBride's feedback was implemented to shorten the product section. Work was completed as a paid contributor. Corporate 00:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved the rewrite from your userspace to Talk:MarkMonitor/Draft. I feel that the draft should be permanently attached to this article.

I synced the pages in sections. This is supposed to make it easier to diff, in theory, but I don't imagine it helped too much. Oh well. You're all set.

I would thank you for the rewrite, but I suppose your thanks will come in the form of a paycheck. A shame, really. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever about paid editing, would it not be a more important objection that the current version of this page looks like a company brochure rather than an encyclopaedia article?--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

MarkMonitor registrar of Google, Apple, Yahoo!, Facebook, MSN, ...

See for yourself:

• www.who.is/whois/google.com/
• www.who.is/whois/apple.com/
• www.who.is/whois/yahoo.com/
• www.who.is/whois/facebook.com/
• www.who.is/whois/msn.com/
• www.who.is/whois/hotmail.com/
• www.who.is/whois/wikipedia.org/
• www.who.is/whois/wikimedia.org/
• www.who.is/whois/amazon.com/
• www.who.is/whois/ebay.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.184.4.44 (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that fact should be reflected in the article. See also www.pastie.org/3867284. --130.133.110.146 (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC) --130.133.110.146 (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Allwhois.com (who owns website search engine) now forwards there as well but I can find info on why. Guess because other registrars providing that info. Just curious but probably not very notable. CarolMooreDC 16:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You can add Amazon Technologies Inc to the list.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Request Edit

{{request edit}} I did a quick search, but was unable to find any sources to verify this edit placing the Priddy brothers as co-founders of MarkMonitor. I did notice that MarkMonitor founder Hepworth had previously worked with them and am under the understanding that they were early investors.

I would like to request an impartial editor consider changing the founders back. Corporate 21:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an IP corrected it. Corporate 14:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Second draft

Hi All. I support MarkMonitor in a public relations capacity on Wikipedia. I previously submitted content for consideration on the Talk page about one year ago, which was accepted as an improvement to the article, but still left much to be desired. For example, we introduced a Controversy section, rather than merging the controversies into other topics, and added a bulleted Research section when a more concise paragraph-format would have been better. There was also some pre-existing promotion we could have corrected.

There have also been many updates with new research and the company being acquired. A year after the first draft, I would like to offer a second draft of our work (below). I realize it's difficult to compare drafts to article-space, so I've annotated it with notes in bold red text. In the future, I suspect the article won't need as much work, so I can point out specific issues instead of using entire article drafts. Much of this is counter-COI, making it less promotional and more concise, but the following areas may require attention by an impartial editor:

• The Controversy section I originally introduced being split up and re-written
• Reintroducing supporting 50% of the Fortune 100 - may sound promotional to the passerbyer, but sources suggest this is an important part of their reputation/identity

I appreciate your taking the time to consider my request. Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 21:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

draft

MarkMonitor Company type Private Founded 1999 Founder Faisal Shah and James Hepworth Headquarters San Francisco, CA, USA Area served Worldwide Products Domain management Brand protection Anti-piracy Anti-fraud Number of employees 400 (2012) Website www.markmonitor.com Re-wrote the lead to take cites out of the lead, make it more concise and update it as a part of Thomson Reuters post-acquisition. MarkMonitor is a part of Thomson-Reuters. It develops online brand protection software and services. The company's software is sold in four components: domain management, brand protection, anti-piracy and anti-fraud. MarkMonitor was founded in Boise, Idaho in 1999. It acquired a domain management company, AllDomains.com, in 2001 and an anti-piracy company, DtecNet, in 2010. MarkMonitor was acquired by Thomson-Reuters in 2012. The company conducts research reports on piracy, counterfeiting and domain squatting. External links Official website BrandJacking Index Reports

Lead and History sections

Hi Corporate, in response to your request below, I have edited the lead and history sections. I've incorporated some of your suggested changes while ignoring others. Let's discuss the changes I've made so far and then consider moving on to other sections. I don't like to approve or incorporate changes en masse, especially on an article that I am new to. So...... Are you OK with the lead and history sections as they stand now? comments? suggestions? Cheers, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

MarkMonitor does publish reports, but it's not a product offering. We should also take citations out of the lead and improve some of the editorial (ie "along the way"?) CorporateM (Talk) 18:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those are some valid suggestions. If its OK with you I'd like to leave the cites in the lead till all the other changes are complete as I don't want to lose those cites or orphan a short cut <ref name=xyz> if you know what I mean. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've monkeyed around with the lead and history sections. Can you take a look and see what you think? I hope they are succinct and accurate now. Thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The original proposed was ok, but your version is actually more concise and better-written. Up to you if the ICANN commentary and the pre-history at Richardson Labs belongs in the article. The fact that it doesn't mention the founders by name should help resolve the mild edit-war I've seen going on between a MarkMonitor employee and John Priddy over who to name as founders. What's next? CorporateM (Talk) 00:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Corporate, For me, the ICANN sentence's notability and sources were marginal so I'm inclined to leave that out. But if some other editor wanted to include it I wouldn't have a strong objection. The pre-history seemed off topic IMHO and I generally exclude names of people who are not notable preferring to say "founders" etc..... I have some other things on both my real life and WP to-do list but in the next day or so I'd like to move on to the next section with you. Feel free to ping me if I forget :-) and if another editor comes forward, by all means proceed with or without me. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'll see you next week. CorporateM (Talk) 16:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Software and services section

OK, I've made changes based on your draft but I added some inline attributions and changed the section titel. Please have a look and give feedback as needed. I'll look at another section tomorrow. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As a couple editorial knits, it might be better to say "according to MarkMonitor" rather than "MarkMonitor reports," since they are not a reporting organization and the word is overused in the article a bit. The quote from the Idaho Statesman is a bit awkward and I usually try to avoid quotes, but it's fine however you prefer it. I don't mean to micro-manage though, and I think the article has bigger problems to focus on anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 17:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the jingle on my talk page. OK, I fixed the SM reports, phrase. Regarding the quote from Idaho Statesmen, WP prefers summary rather than quotes but since this is a significant claim and its only made by one source, I felt it best to quote and let some other editor summarize if they so desire. I'll find some time to do more tomorrow. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Parking sources removed from article

1. Cooper, Elisa (August, 2011). "Protecting IP Right in a New gTLD World". Law Journal Newsletters: e-Commerce Law & Strategy. Volume 28, Number 4. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. Kuchinskas, Susan (August 4, 2011). "ANA Fears Confusion, Brand Squatting in ICANN's New Domain Plan" (PDF). LClickZ. Retrieved January 28, 2012.
3. Felman, Frederick (January 18, 2010). "MarkMonitor Expresion of Interest, Pre-registration Model Comments". New gTLD Program – Draft Expressions of Interest/Pre-Registration Model (Mailing list). Retrieved March 7, 2012. {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help) — Keithbob • Talk • 17:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Parking content removed from the article

1. MarkMonitor has remained neutral on SOPA. --Says who?
2. The company says they support legislation that protects the rights of intellectual property and trademark owners, without harming the free and open internet-- unsourced and tagged as such since Dec 2012
3. MarkMonitor research has been used by pro-SOPA backers like the US Chamber of Commerce to establish the level of existing copyright infringement. As a result, some have criticized the research as obvious or flawed or scrutinized the use of the data to support SOPA.Masnick, Mike (January 13, 2011). "Highly Flawed 'Piracy' Report Used To Support Positions That Are Unrelated". TechDirt. Retrieved January 25, 2012. ----This is an opinion piece of limited value. If it is going to be used it should attributed and ID'd as such.
4. None of the research by MarkMonitor advocates a specific policy or government action, but does establish how prolific certain copyright issues are.--this is a primary source and it does not support the cited content.

• • -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Research section

I have added as much of the info from the proposed draft as I'm comfortable adding (except for the research section). I have also removed some content that was either unsourced, poorly sourced and/or non-notable. As always other editors are free to disagree with me and add or change my work as they wish. I will pause here to see if there is any feedback, comments or discussion before proceeding on to the final unrevised section called: Research. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Keithbob. Since MarkMonitor was acquired by Thomson-Reuters, it no longer has a board. Naturally the organization is now overseen by the parent company. CorporateM (Talk) 13:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We have a source for the acquisition but does it say, the board no longer exists? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In general I don't think it's valuable to readers for us to list board members, even if the information were accurate. However, the best source for the most up-to-date information on a company's organizational structure is the company website[1]. Common sense should also take precedence. Thomson Reuters has a board[2] and its silly to think that a division of it would have its own separate board. It would be very odd in general for a business unit to have its own board. CorporateM (Talk) 16:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I also do not think we normally include a list of board members, , except possibly for the very largest and most important companies--the ones that are not merely notable, or even very notable, but famous. I know I have almost always removed such lists as a matter of routine from every company and organization article I have encountered. CorporateM is correct about what people would assume, in any case. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I bow to consensus.  Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Research section part II

That same year, MarkMonitor published a second report that estimated 1.2 million suspected counterfeit sports jerseys were sold each year. A November 2012 MarkMonitor Shopping Report found that[31] one in five shoppers for luxury and apparel products had unknowingly visited sites selling counterfeit goods as they shopped for bargains. and that one in five shoppers had unknowingly visited sites selling counterfeit goods as they shop for bargains.

• The content above has been suggested for insertion. I am parking it here as in my judgement its inclusion gives undue details and weight to annual reports published by the company. If another editor feels differently then they are free to add it to the article. Cheers. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Keithbob. We use "according to" twice in a row in the Research section. Can we change the second sentence to "The report found" or something similar (just as an editorial knit). CorporateM (Talk) 03:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Good catch,  Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the TechDirt report. The tone of the author seems clearly opinion to me. Its not objective reporting in any way to my eyes, even if he publishes daily. To me its a blog written by an expert which has limited use on WP. As for the context of the criticism I don't see that in the Tech Dirt source but please give me a quote if you see something I don't. Or maybe there is another source. Comments from others, are welcome as always. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)