User talk:Rdskeater

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Rdskeater! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 15:28, Monday, September 19, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Sears Canada

Please hold off on editing for a moment! It looks like your edits violate Wikipedia policies. I will explain shortly. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 15:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, you are adding a lot of text without providing references. Where does this information come from? Please take a look at WP:VERIFIABILITY, which is a core Wikipedia policy.

Seondly, some of the wording sounds suspiciously like corporate promotional language. Wikipedia is not here to promote ant company, so we use neutral language - see WP:NEUTRAL.

It kind of sounds like you are copying text from the company's website. If do, then you are violating - and causing Wikipedia to violate - Sears Canada's copyright. See WP:COPYVIO.

We use Canadian spelling for articles about Canadian companies, including those owned by Americans.

Wikipedia style is that we don't capitalize the C in "the company". It is only capitalized when it is part of a proper noun, e.g., "the Robert Simpson Company". Thereafter, we refer to it as " the company". This is just Wikipedia style, which may be different from what you're used to.

I hope this helps. Regards, Ground Zero | t 15:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am the Corporate Archivist of Sears Canada and so am trying to update the Sears Canada page to reflect a balanced and properly chronologic history of the company, to flesh out the history so it is complete and accurate. There were several existing errors. I haven't provided references as this is out of my own knowledge as the Archivist!! I'm not sure how to reference myself! I have not lifted information from the company website that I have not myself written. the language is my own. I have tried and am trying to purposely keep the verbiage neutral, following Wikipedia's guidelines and which I learned in the cosmic adventure tutorials! Thanks for the note on when to capitalize "Company." I hope I'm replying correctly here and explaining myself well!Rdskeater (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. You can definitely be an asset in improving this article. Be sure to read WP:COI, though, to make sure you avoid a conflict of interest. As far as referencing yourself, I don't think that works. WP:RS is your guide on reliable sources. As you probably know, on the Internet, no one knows who you are. We can't just take the word of someone who says he/she is the corporate archivist. Like other encyclopedias, we need reliable sources. I hope this helps. Ground Zero | t 15:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can quote our company history book or press releases? I am just wondering though, most statements of facts already at the page (and many others I've read at Wikipedia over the years) were/are not referenced, yet were published okay. Why is that or how do you know when you have to provide references and when not to do so? Thanks so much!Rdskeater (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any follow up? Thanks!Rdskeater (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC) As point of additional note, our company website does not have history information from which to copy!Rdskeater (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, I hope that you realize that I don't work for Wikipedia. I do spend too much time on it, but like others administrators and contributors, I'm not an employee. So if you don't hear back from someone quickly, it's because they are living their lives outside of Wikipedia. Me? I went out for dinner at a Polish restaurant in Poland, where I am on vacation.

Referencing information is what we are striving for in all articles, because otherwise it is just hearsay. If you post something without a ride, another editor can add a "citation needed" tag, as I've done in a couple of place in this article, and then remove the statement is question after a reasonable interval if no reference is provided. If you want your work to endure, provide references. Third party sources, like newspapers, are preferred because they are not going to be biased. First party sources like news releases or corporate histories are not disregarded, it's just that they are more likely to be questioned, because a corporation is generally going to try to portray itself in the best light. Is the Trump Campaign a reliable source of information about Donald Trump? Not really. They have a vested interest. I hope this helps.

Personally, I generally add citation tags where an assertion is made that could be seen as promotional, like saying that Sears is the biggest web retailer in Canada. I won't question an innocuous statement about the location of the company headquarters, for example. When editing articles, as a matter of course, I generally remove any statements I find that have been tagged for references for more than a year or two if them seem to be contentious.

I did check the website, and see there is no company history. I guess it just sounded to me like the sort of reporting-on-the-positive stuff tone that companies use. Regards, Ground Zero | t 18:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...that's a help! I know many administrators are very engaged and helpful volunteers, and that is so appreciated by myself and I'm sure everyone in the community. Hey, I wish I could be eating at a nice restaurant in Poland - 'sounds like fun! I will try to make any posts I do going forth as neutral as I can. I do notice though that some recent posts by others at the page, although perhaps factual, tend to give a more negative tone overall, ex. talking about downsizing, store closings, etc., without balancing the posts with other initiatives the company has been doing to maintain and try to grow business (such as openings or retrofits). That can lead to an incomplete picture of history. As with any company or even individual which/who has a post about them on Wikipedia, an unbalanced site where unwarranted, can indeed be a concern to the subject of that site, as it can lead to impressions made without total basis. I'm not just talking as an associate here but just as a regular user of Wikipedia for my own use! With any posts I do, I would just be trying to round out and accurately complete the history, ups, downs and all. Many thanks again! : ) Rdskeater (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point: neutrality comes not from only the choice of words used to describe events, but also from providing balance in the choice of events described. Because a lot of the material available in reliable sources recently is from business media reporting on the company's financial difficulties, there is an undue focus in negative things.

At the same time, it is important not to fall into the language of corporate boosterism - just stick to the facts. Here are some examples that you know that want to consider:

"This change was intended to reflect their broader appeal for customers seeking a one stop experience for re-making their home decor." - that's what a company would say in describing its new program, but not an encyclopedia.
"In 1998, Sears Canada's website, www.sears.ca, became an active channel, allowing customers to order from a selection of over 500 products." - how exciting! But there is a more neutral way of saying this.
"Since 1953, Sears Canada has given back to the communities it serves." Corporate philanthropy is generally driven as much by a desire to promote the company's image as it is by a desire to help, so let's not gild the lily.
"Sears also has a long-standing tradition of facilitating aid to those affected by natural and humanitarian disasters...."
calling Simpson's a "venerable retailer" - if you're going to include an opinion like that, then attribute it to someone: find an historian or business writer that used that term.
same goes from describing the headquarters as "striking" - we should focus on facts and leave out own opinions out of it. The opinion of an architecture critic, on the other hand, could be included with a source.

Regards, Ground Zero | t 07:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are good insights. It helps to have an objective eye and voice help out. Thanks again. Rdskeater (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Rdskeater. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Groundzero! I have no personal conflict of interest. As noted in our previous e-stream dialogue above, I am Sears Canada's Corporate Archivist and am simply adding common knowledge historical and chronological information regarding the company's history, for sake of accuracy and completeness, in a hopefully neutral 'encyclopedia-like' manner. Many thanks!Rdskeater (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Groundzero!

I am writing again, as I am concerned someone has flagged a Conflict of Interest, which, by your note above, seems to be directed at me. I looked at your COI guidelines and I have no such COI. I am not a company owner, officer, shareholder or the like. As an archivist, I simply have a real historical interest in Sears and Department Store history in general and want to help fully and accurately tell a historical story. Per your helpful direction above, I have cited references where warranted. I am quite concerned as user Vipersnake151 has repeatedly taken down posts I have made which were legitimate, accurate, neutral and cited where needed, often replacing them with posts of his own which are not always complete in focus nor neutral. In fact, most of his posts seem to have a decidedly negative tone, concentrating on things such as layoffs, losses and store closures, without balancing those points with positive initiatives the company is undertaking concurrently. His posts paint a decidedly unbalanced picture and give the page a negative tone. I'm looking for some guidance here. I want to be a useful contributor, offering truthful, balanced factual information, in a neutral 'encyclopedic' manner, yet I don't want to get into a war of words, where everything I legitimately put up is taken down or changed. Thoughts and guidance, please! Many thanks!!Rdskeater (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You claim you do not have a COI because you are a "corporate archivist". But that means you do have a COI because you do work for them. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hello again

I've been travelling, and not being as attentive to Wikipedia. I agree that balance is needed in the article to present Sears Canada's history beyond its recent troubles. At the same time, I'll ask you again to make sure that you avoid promotional language. You still have the tendency to write like an employee. Also, please review WP:HEAD and WP:BOLDFACE to learn about these elements of Wikipedia style, or my edits as I have corrected you on these points several times, including this morning. Regards, Ground Zero | t 03:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Groundzero! I am trying...really! I have tried to sound neutral and not promotional and appreciate your continued help. : ) Rdskeater (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]