User talk:Alexhoffman2304

April 2024

Hello Alexhoffman2304. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Alexhoffman2304. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Alexhoffman2304|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not being paid to write this article. I just thought that Syft Analytics warranted its own page. I am happy to make any edits to the article if it does not seem neutral enough. I am busy looking for better sources to prove its notability. Alexhoffman2304 (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I understand, so you don't work for Syft Analytics? You wrote here "I would like to know which sources from our reference list are considered unreliable", suggesting a connection. Employment is considered paid editing, it does not require specific payment for edits. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I do work at Syft Analytics. Does this mean I must put a special disclosure in the article, or am I not allowed to write anything about the company? Sorry for my confusion. I read this article from Hubspot about writing an article about your company, so I thought it was allowed. https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/create-company-wikipedia-page

Please can you suggest the appropriate course of action for me to take? Alexhoffman2304 (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author of that piece frankly does not know what they are talking about and is too much of a marketer to be able to comment on Wikipedia. They even advise readers to game the system; the system exists for a reason. Wikipedia has no interest in marketing or promoting businesses or in enhancing search results. If you want to learn more about Wikipedia, come to the source instead of a third party.

Yes, if you work for the company, you are a paid editor, you do not need to be specifically paid to make edits. Otherwise every paid editor would deny being specifically paid to edit, rendering the policy meaningless. The Terms of Use require you to make the paid editing disclosure, please follow the instructions I provided above to place the disclosure on your user page(User:Alexhoffman2304).

The vast majority of companies do not merit Wikipedia articles(even some that might actually have them and we just haven't removed yet). Articles about companies should not merely summarize the activities and offerings of the company. They need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond just telling what the company does, and goes into detail about what is significant/important/influential about the company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself or what it considers to be important about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the company choose to say about it.

My advice is that you abandon this effort and go on about the work of your company; if it truly merits a Wikipedia article, an independent editor will take note of coverage of your company in independent reliable sources and choose to write about it on their own. That's the best indicator of notability. If you wish to proceed nevertheless, you will need to radically change your approach and gather at least three sources with significant coverage of your company that can be summarized in the draft.

Awards(especially niche industry awards) do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for the information. 102.177.5.36 (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]