Jump to content

Talk:Medallia

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

I agree with the addition of the tag, and don't think superficial changes will resolve the problems. There are far too many primary sources, some that are probably not reliable, and too few that are clearly independent of the company.

A good start would be to clearly state and properly source the company's notability. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that none of the subsequent edits address these problems, and the tags should be restored. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and restored them. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

I removed [Papachristos, Anna (2013-04-01). "Calculating the Customer's True Loyalty Score". 1to1. Retrieved 2013-06-03.] as a source. The site looks like nothing more than a glorified blog intent on promoting the industry in general and peppersandrogersgroup.com specifically. It's run by peppersandrogersgroup.com.

With the exception of the WSJ article, all the sources appear to be either warmed-over press releases or interviews. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed promotional language from "Company information" section and reevaluated sources. --Jahub —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for joining the discussion.
Please don't remove article tags without addressing the concerns.
I have absolutely no idea what you could mean by "reevaluated sources." There were no changes in sources, no comments on them. The only change was to remove one sentence.
As I pointed out, we do have one source that I don't think anyone would object to using broadly, the WSJ article. If this article was rewritten mostly from the WSJ article, with notability of the company made clear, I don't think we could go far wrong. Otherwise, we have a pr piece sourced almost entirely from their own pr. --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

[edit]
The result of this discussion is no consensus. North America1000 06:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Medallia acquired Kampyle (software) in October 2016.[1] Perhaps Kampyle should be merged into this article. North America1000 16:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Haggin, Patience (October 20, 2016). "Medallia Buys Customer Feedback Analytics Startup Kampyle". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 24, 2017.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"funding is only interesting to other WP:COI types"

[edit]

An overview of Medallia and a history of its funding was deleted because "Sorry, but funding is only interesting to other WP:COI types". I am not a "WP:COI type" and I am interested in the funding and overview of the company. How the company was funded is part of the company's history and is encyclopedic information. Cunard (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How and why does who funded when matter and to whom? This isn't a silicon valley gossip column. Toddst1 (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How a company was funded matters because it is part of the company's history. The article about Google talks about funding in the history section at Google#Financing, 1998 and initial public offering, 2004. If funding did not matter or if only "WP:COI types" care, then the funding information would be removed from Google's article. I do not think anyone would suggest removing funding information from Google's article. Nor should funding information be removed from Medallia's article.

Cunard (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To whom does funding matter now that they've been acquired? Just because something gets trade press in silicon valley doesn't mean it's encyclopedic.
Did you want to add the title history of the building they probably rent in Palo Alto? It was once part of Spain, and is also extremely well documented.
WP:OSE is that way and your comparison to Google is beyond absurd. Toddst1 (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"To whom does funding matter now that they've been acquired?" – Medallia has not been acquired.

"Did you want to add the title history of the building they rent or own in Palo Alto? It was once part of Spain, I understand and is also extremely well documented." And then "WP:OSE is that way." – unimportant information about the title history of the building they rent is WP:OSE. Information about funding is important because it demonstrates who owns and thus controls the company.

Cunard (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I've struck the bit about acquisition. I followed the merge link here from your puffery on Kampyle (software) ‎ and forgot which page this was. It sure does quack like you have a WP:COI given your attachment to them both and keen interest in funding.
Medallia is not Google. Toddst1 (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ihave no conflict of interest with Medallia or Kampyle. I have not added any puffery to Kampyle (software). If funding information is encyclopedic for Google (about the people who contributed seed funding of $100,000 and $250,000), why is it not encyclopedic for Medallia? Cunard (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not do. My question remains - how and why should this be mentioned outside of a silicon valley gossip column on which sexist frat boy funded which company, outdoing the other sexist frat boys in the VC club? I can't see how or why it matters. Toddst1 (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, "Information about funding is important because it demonstrates who owns and thus controls the company." Cunard (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are showing a fundamental lack of understanding corporate governance. The Board controls the company. Who funded when is irrelevant, by your own argument. Now if you want to talk about board members, that's another story. Toddst1 (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The people who funded the company control the company by choosing who can be on the board of directors. Cunard (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shareholders elect who is on the board. Employees are shareholders, funders are shareholders. By your logic, you'll want to list who was employed when and how many shares they hold. Irrelevant. Toddst1 (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The people who fund a company receive ownership of a significant portion of the company. They have a lot of power over who is appointed to the board. Non-founder employees own a small part of the company so have little say over who is on the board. Cunard (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you know an awful lot about how Medallia's stock is held. Toddst1 (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is standard for venture capital backed companies like Medallia to have a significant portion of their stock held by the people who funded the company, and for the people who fund the company to appoint people to the board. For example, from https://techcrunch.com/2012/09/26/customer-experience-management-and-analytics-saas-company-medallia-raises-35m-from-sequoia/: "Medallia, an enterprise company that offers customer experience management software, has raised $35 million from Sequoia Capital. Sequoia partner Doug Leone [will] be joining the company’s board of directors."

Cunard (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also feel that the funding content is a valid aspect of the company's history, and $105 million is not a particularly insignificant amount of funding. Also, the edit summary left when the content was removed, "Sorry, but funding is only interesting to other WP:COI types" (diff) is highly subjective, opinionated and not policy-based. I for one am not a "COI type" whatsoever. Furthermore, commentary above such as "It sure does quack like you have a WP:COI given your attachment to them both and keen interest in funding" from the user who removed the content is unnecessary and badgering. People are entitled to have differing views without being denigrated. I have restored the content to the article. North America1000 06:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gartner, Forrester and Medallia

[edit]

I think some of the Gartner and Forrester material on Medallia would be useful to use as a source. Toddst1 (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medallia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medallia&oldid=1207425199"