Talk:Skreened

Conflict of Interest

Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with this company and never even heard of them until I stumbled across them when cruising the New Not Patrolled list. I was all ready to jump all over this with a speedy delete tag as spam.

I'm also pretty sure the major contributor here does fall under WP:COI (could be wrong). However, I think they're doing a good job of creating a WP:NPOV article. I would urge them to disclose their connection to the company, and continue to contribute and keep disclosing their attachment when contributing. I've always had this thought that a) interested parties may "game" wikipedia to create advertisement is in conflict with b) who else knows more about a company/entity than those who are part of that company/entity? This isn't something I'm going to the mat for. I think it's an opportunity for me to work out the conflict described in good faith. Anyway, I think the article is pretty clear and useful. NPOV issues should continue to be worked out. --Quartermaster (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My major quibble is that the references are to company documents, and not third party NPOV sources. E.g., the part about "ethics" would be better coming from Harvard Business Review. --Quartermaster (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure of Major Contributor (skreened) Conflict of Interest

As the originator of the entry, I do have a COI as I have also founded the company. I'm happy to either discontinue edits on this article or continue in the manner which I have been, which is refining the POV to be as neutral as possible. I would ask that this entry be compared to entries for other similar companies in the competitor section and have the work evaluated on content rather than authorship. Skreened (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]