Talk:Australian Market and Social Research Society Limited

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Australian Market and Social Research Society Limited. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719023437/http://www.mrqa.com.au/about_mrqa.html to http://www.mrqa.com.au/about_mrqa.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106152843/http://www.mrqa.com.au/index.html to http://www.mrqa.com.au/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080505233309/http://www.mrqa.com.au:80/ to http://www.mrqa.com.au/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080505233309/http://www.mrqa.com.au:80/ to http://www.mrqa.com.au/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability
When I do a very brief search for coverage I did not find anything which looks like this organization meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. I see lots of passing mentions - 'X is a member of ...' - and press releases they issued though. Is this organization widely known and respected in its field? If so do you know where there might be independent coverage of it? Thank you. J bh Talk  14:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The AMSRS is the peak professional association for market researchers and social researchers in Australia. I believe that it was founded in the 1940s - but would have to check up on that. The society is very well-respected amongst marketers, researchers and educators, and is affiliated with other peak bodies in England, Europe as well as the Asia Pacific region. The AMSRS has a code of practice that is binding on members and being a member of this outfit has come to signal that a research company is a reputable organisation. The AMSRS is the publisher of the journal, Market & Social Research, (formerly the Australasian Journal of Market and Social Research) - a journal that currently has a "C" rating  among Australian universities (in my opinion, the journal is under-rated; in a rating scheme that is biased towards international publications). AMSRS also holds an annual conference for academics and practitioners and is generally active in improving knowledge and professionalism within the industry. If it was my choice, I would be reluctant to delete this article - but to work on trying to improve notability with better references and an improved description of its role and activities. I will look for independent coverage in local trade press and post the results on this page over the next couple of days.  If it is just a few simple things, I would be more than happy to add them directly to the article. I hope that this helps. BronHiggs (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. Thank you very much! J bh  Talk  17:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have had a bit of a go at improving the AMSRS article. I wouldn't say it's brilliant, but I think that readers might get a better idea of the AMSRS's sphere of activities and influence. I think that the new version also gives a greater sense of notability. I have included several secondary sources, where possible. (These were not easy to find.) I have tried to include most of the pre-existing content, but deleted one unsourced sentence that seemed to go off on a bit of a tangent. I'm sure that over the next few days, some other sources will come to light - and these can be added down the track. I'll keep an eye on it, and add better sources, where possible.BronHiggs (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is much better than it was! I can read the article and know who and what they are whereas in the previous version, if it were not for so many authors saying they are members, I was hard pressed to tell if it was even a legitimate organization. J bh  Talk  00:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. As I say, the article is far from perfect and could be improved. But I agree that it now provides readers with a better sense of what the society does and why it is important. I think the original article was written as a homage to Ian McNair, who founded one of the first market research companies in this country and may have been influential in establishing the New South Wales society which subsequently merged with independent societies in other states to form the national body. However, I was unable to find much detail on the early history and decided to leave it out. This is not to say that a short history could not be added by a person or persons at a later date. I guess these things are always works in progress. BronHiggs (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, articles are always evolving. There are even standards and designations for Good articles and Featured articles and editors who specialize in reviewing them. What I do is at the other end of the spectrum - make sure that pages meet the minimum guidelines or, figure out if they might meet the deletion criteria. It fits my sporadic editing schedule and limited time. Often, once articles prove out as notable and otherwise not speedy deletable they enter a limbo where it is possible for no editor to look at them for years. Or, if they are worked on, the 'improvement' is adding a phrase or factoid, making minor copy edits or, most often minor wiki-tweaks. You have seen the end results of that in the articles you have looked into and that is why having someone who knows the topic and is willing to work on them is so important. The flip side of languishing articles are the ones that have very active editors or groups watching over them. (When you do a ping it only works when there is a new signature (four ~) in the edit. To make a broken ping work you need to delete the old signature and resign or just make a new ping right below.) J bh  Talk  02:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links section
One official website should suffice, but WP:ELMINOFFICIAL does allow exceptions under a very few limited circumstances. Please note WP:ELNO#19 - we don't link sites because they've been mentioned in the article. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Who is "we"? Links to sites that are mentioned in the article are clearly permitted provided that they are accurate and relevant. [WP:EL] clearly states that "Some external links are welcome" and "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic" The link to AMSRO is permitted under the general policy, and arguably should be permitted under the policy pertaining to official links - because it is a link to the partner organisation. AMSRO and AMSRS act as a unit when preparing policy documents - which in the case of professional associations is mostly in the area of professional standards and ethics. As the article explains, in Australia a system of co-regulation operates - and this means that all peak industry associations in a given occupational group are expected to collaborate on producing ISO standards, which when ratified by the government, are binding on all members of the industry. You don't have to like it, but this is the way that things operate in Australia. It simply it was it is. The AMSRO is a good example of an exception to the policy. Thank-you. BronHiggs (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that in the context of this article the 2 links in question, AMSRO & RICA, are helpful to interested readers. Their inclusion seems permissible by WP:ELYES#3. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain. "Helpful to interested readers" could mean anything. We don't link "partner organizations". No one appears to be arguing that they are other official links. If that's the case, then then let's focus on ELYES#3: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. Please identify the inforation that cannot be included in the article directly that is "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding" of the article. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The AMSRO site contains information, relevant to market researchers, and too detailed or specific to warrant inclusion in the article. Much of this information concerns professional standards and ethics. As has been pointed out in the article and in previous comments, the AMSRO is intimately involved in developing and administering both Australian Standards and International Standards, under Australia's co-regulatory compliance scheme. In effect, co-regulation means that AMSRO's involvemet in industry regulation is a statutory role, acknowledged by both industry and government. Some of the relevant detail includes such things as: BTW you won't need to wait very long to see the eradication of the link to AMSRO, because the two organisations have put a proposal to their members to merge both associations into a single entity. The proposal has widespread support and a merger appears to be little more than a formality. Of course, some paperwork and registration of corporate details will need to be effected, but once that red tape has been done, the article can be updated and the link which some editors find so offensive can be removed.
 * General information about AMSRO and its sphere of operations
 * Salaries for market research professionals, 2017- average salaries taken from the annual AMSRO salary survey (http://www.amsro.com.au/amsro-nuw-wage-rates-2017/) - very helpful for job applicants
 * Guidelines for conducting field interviews [Fact Sheet] http://www.amsro.com.au/ohs-guidelines-for-field-interviewing/ - very useful to students of research and practitioners
 * The International Standard for Market, Opinion, and Social Research (ISO 20252) (See http://www.amsro.com.au/member-services/quality-assurance/as-iso-20252-market-and-social-research/ for a summary and a link to the ISO 20252 document)
 * The International Standard for Access Panels in Market Opinion and Social Research (ISO 26362) – an independently audited management system (See http://www.amsro.com.au/member-services/quality-assurance/as-iso-26362-access-panels-in-market-opinion-and-social-research/ for a summary and a link to the ISO 26362 to the document)
 * The Australian Privacy Code, 2014 (developed and adminstered by AMSRO) http://www.amsro.com.au/member-services/privacy/
 * The AMSRS Code of Professional Behaviour
 * Webinars on a range of topics including privacy and information security (See, for example, http://www.amsro.com.au/member-services/quality-assurance/cruse-partnership/4181-2)
 * Assorted fact sheets and infographics on a range of issues including privacy (See for example, http://www.amsro.com.au/member-services/privacy/
 * The Qualified Practising Market Researcher scheme (QPMR) - which it adminsters in conjunction with the AMSRS
 * Guidelines for handling data breaches - (http://www.amsro.com.au/member-services/privacy/reporting-requirements-under-the-industry-privacy-code/)
 * Links to AMSRO submissions to the Australian Government
 * List of member companies (See http://www.amsro.com.au/trust-mark) - very helpful to clients searching for a reputable market research company or to check the bona fides of any company
 * News - news releases and news coverage, http://www.amsro.com.au/news/
 * Links to a range of international standards, codes, checklists, webinars and related material (See for example, ESOMAR Data Protection Checklist http://www.amsro.com.au/amsroresp/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ESOMAR-Data-Protection-Checklist-January-2015.pdf; Global Trust Survey, http://www.amsro.com.au/amsroresp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/GRBN-Trust-survey-2014-.pdf and much more)
 * BronHiggs (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe any of that is "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of" the Australian Market and Social Research Society Limited. The audience of this article is not "market researchers". This article is not about AMSRO.
 * Meanwhile, both sites are prominently linked from the official website. The official website is actually used as a source for "The AMSRS works closely with the Association of Market and Social Research Organisations (AMSRO)." That's the last sentence of the lede. I don't think something so prominent needs to be emphasized further by an external link.
 * You didn't address RICA at all. As it's prominently linked in the official website and twice used as a reference, all the more reason for it not to be linked further.
 * I've removed them given the additional reasons. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We seem to be at cross purposes. You asked for details of information on the AMSRO site that could not realistically be included in the article. And this is what was provided. The site contains a great deal of information on a wide range of issues, relevant to market research. This information would be useful to students of research, practitioners, clients commissioning research and any interested member of the public who has ever responded to a market research survey or participated in a focus group. I believe that students of marketing make up one the largest segments of WP users. RICA is not mentioned in the lead section, nor is it used as a reference in the lead. However serveral documents authored by RICA have been cited, but RICA's official website has not been cited. Another editor has already posted an unsolicited comment that the links are useful and relevant. So, unless you have anything more to add, I intend to reinstate the link to RICA. Thank-you BronHiggs (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The burden is on you to get consensus. You're not going to do that by ignoring the policies and guidelines that apply.
 * Both are linked from the official website. I assume you understand this and agree. That's enough to end the discussion, without some exceptional situation. There's no exceptional situation being offered.
 * This article is about AMSRS, not AMSRO, not RICA. All the arguments above assume we simply look beyond AMSRS to treat AMSRO and RICA as the main topics of this article. Placing the AMSRO link above that of AMSRS appears to confirm this.
 * You asked for details of information on the AMSRO site that could not realistically be included in the article. That's what you did, but not what was asked and not what is specified in ELYES#3.
 * The burden is on you to get consensus. So far there is no ELYES#3 exception being offered, much less agreed to, and instead the argument is to reverse the advice of ELNO#19. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This is all becoming very tiresome. The sands keep shifting and changing. So, let's go through it all very carefully and recap where we are at:

1. The link to AMRSRS is clearly permitted because it is an official link to the organisation that is in the title of the article. 2. You have objected to the links for AMSRO and RICA. You asked for a justification of these links in terms of ELYES#3 which states and I quote, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons" (The link to AMSRS needs no such justification, because it 3. I provided an extensive list of content related themes on the AMSRO website including such things as lists of members (far too long and detailed to be included in the article) and results of the AMSRO salary survey (too detailed and too long to be included on the site); numerous documents, fact sheets, infographics and webinars pertaining to professional standards and ethics (also lengthy and in a format that is unsuitable for inclusion in a text-based article. Therefore, by any logical and reasonable interpretation of the policy 4. You say that you do not believe these things to be relevant to an encyclopedic understanding. Well, I believe that links directing users to a deeper and richer understanding of a topic are relevant and encyclopedic, while clearly you have a different interpretation of that. Given that this is very much open to interpretation - it may be necessary to seek some type of intervention. 5. You also claim that "we do not permit partner organisations". However at this stage, you have still not answered my question, "Who is we". I have carefully studied the policy on EL, and as yet, I have been able to locate any specific mention of partner sites. 6. Another user has commented that both links are relevant and useful. (And, please note that this was an unsoliticed comment) 7. The links to AMSRO and RICA provide users with different perspectives on the market research industry in Australia, its operating environment and its regulatory system; and are therefore highly relevant and useful to anyone studying or practising market research.

At this stage, all I see is badgering and harping coming from you. I have noticed that, in the past, you and your friends from ELN have consumed more than 15,000 words denying another user the right to insert a link to an archive of historic photographs in an article about a historic theatre. I have no intentions of getting into that type of haranguing match. (Just think about how many articles could be improved or written with that type of marathon effort!) So, it seems that the only area where there is clear disagreement is in terms of what constitutes relevant to an 'encyclopedic understanding'. So, if we differ on this issue, it seems that there is no option but to seek a third opinion. Thank-you. BronHiggs (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * all I see is badgering and harping coming from you. Well that would explain why you keep ignoring what I've written. Please just drop it. Simply, since the official website links to the two others, we don't. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You have been following me around Wikipedia for several months now, systematically deleting edits, tampering with any page that I have ever touched and commenting/questioning everything I do- even on talk pages. You have continued to carp and badger me on a range of issues, despite my repeated requests for you to desist. And, when your own efforts have become too over-the-top, you have invited your friends to badger me on these very same issues. This is what I mean by carping and badgering. And, in spite of all this, you ask me to assume good faith. This inappropriate behaviour has gone too far, and it time that I requested some type of intervention. Thank-you. BronHiggs (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way. I'm glad you're going to seek proper dispute resolution on these matters. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)