Talk:EBSCO Information Services

peer review
I know that ebsco contains peer reviewed articles but is it exclusively peer reviewed content? Vicarious 08:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No. Nurg (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions re DynaMed
1.Why don't you merge DynaMed with this article. Both having separate articles is kind of illogical. 2. Create a page Works of EBSCO Publishing or something like that and include DynaMed in it, I see no reason to have an entirely different article for DynaMed --Regards
 * Done. Option 1. Gigs (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to reverse the merge of DynaMed with this article and capture the old DynaMed page? The DynaMed should have its own article page as if it were in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnelly123 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The last version of the DynaMed article can be found here. There wasn't much content for an independent article, so I suggest that rather than simply recreating it, you talk through your reasons why you think it needs its own entry here, on this page.  It could save you some aggravation.--~TPW 20:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Quality of references
Two of the references in this article are from third-party journals, yet the linked text is on the company's own website. I'd be more comfortable with a more verifiable copy of the citation. Are any available?--otherlleft 16:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"via private and public databases"?
Article says "EBSCOhost, is a search system and interface accessible via private and public databases in colleges ...". What does "via private and public databases" refer to? It makes no sense to me. Nurg (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that the information on Ebsco Publishing be merged with EBSCO Publishing. This is a duplication of information, and since EBSCO is an acronym, the more developed EBSCO Publishing page should be the destination of any unique information. -- Clifflandis (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur because this is a no-brainer. In fact I'm going to see what I can do to move whatever is useful from that article and do it right now.--otherlleft 22:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I found only one useful reference in Ebsco Publishing which included here. Rather than merging, I simply redirected.--otherlleft 22:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Identify competitors and free alternatives
This commercial product may be financially out of reach for many people. Can the article name alternatives, including competing products and free services that provide reliable information? --Lbeaumont (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be safe in a comparison table/article. -- Blindwanderer (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

NetLibrary
Considering the stub nature of the NetLibrary article it might be sensible to merge it into this article. I find myself indifferent on the issue. The NetLibrary article has the potential to be more detailed then a section really should be. -- Blindwanderer (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I redirected it here, nothing of worth to preserve.--~TPW 15:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
I'm thinking about tagging this with. Traceroute for User:71.232.194.237 shows as being in the area of Groveland, MA, which just so happens to be 13 miles from Ipswich, MA, easy commuting distance, where EBSCO Publishing is headquartered. I wouldn't bring this up except the "value added" sentence screams   to me and the user has only edited articles pertaining to EBSCO Publishing. -- Blindwanderer (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The majority of recent edits have been made by Donnelly1111 who identifies herself as a representative of EBSCO Publishing. She received multiple CoI warnings for edits made using another account (KarenaD), but seems to have chosen to ignore them. Davepattern (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The tag was added and removed. I just put it back. The main sentence of the tag states: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (bold in original)  That is true even when it doesn't at the moment require cleanup to comply with WP:NPOV. In particular because of the recurring non-NPOV whitewash edits - for example I'm about to undo all of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EBSCO_Publishing&diff=519528764&oldid=495573186 but Shortride's edit - the tag should remain, as long as it remains true that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject."--Elvey (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If there are currently no "significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement", the tag should not be used. It "is not meant to be a badge of shame" - Template:COI. Nurg (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, Thanks.--Elvey (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Link problems
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#apparently_unusable_EBSCOHOST_links. EBSCO users ,,, I urge you to help us blacklist only the non-persistent EBSCO URLs by helping us systematically identify (preferably with regexes) non-persistent and persistent ebsco URLs (and if it possible to do, explain how one would systematically convert the former to the latter without add'l info).--Elvey (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. The capitalized form will be retained, as there's no indication that a lower-case version is in common use. Cúchullain t/ c 16:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

EBSCO Publishing → EBSCO Information Services – Name of company changed due to merger. The name change (merger) is referenced on the page. ^ "EBSCO Publishing and EBSCO Information Services merge" (Press release). EBSCO Industries. 22 May 2013. Retrieved 3 June 2013. Donnelly123 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it should be Ebsco per the WP:MOSTM and WP:ALLCAPS.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The correct name of the company is EBSCO Information Services and EBSCO is in all caps. See how it is written in 2 references: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1500350 and http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/Digest/EBSCO-Discovery-Service-Partners-With-Talis-Aspire-91235.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.98.183 (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that's irrelevant, we don't use official names per WP:OFFICIALNAMES Also, there is nothing in the MOSTM stating that we have to use correct names. If that were actually the case the MOSTM would had been removed years ago.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support move to Ebsco Information Services - the name change does seem correct, but per WP:ALLCAPS it should not be in all caps even if the sources and official title to write it that way. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as proposed. Amakuru and others, EBSCO is an acronym and is treated as such in usage. I'm a librarian and I've never seen the lowercase form proposed here, which would effectively be an invention on our part. It's as inappropriate a title as, say, Kfc or Nasa. --BDD (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is the case the article should state what the acronym stands for since currently there is nothing in the article to indicate this.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I can gather, I don't think it is a current acronym, in that the full company name is not something longer. From EBSCO Industries, the name was formed from the initials of the founder with "CO" appended for company. Thus it is almost identical in etymology to Tesco (not TESCO!) rather than to NASA, which is a current and active acronym for the official longer name. That said, User:BDD is correct that there seems to be almost no usage of "Ebsco" in the literature, so I would not object if the all caps form is retained. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's still an acronym, just one that's rarely used in its expanded form. It's not an orphan initialism like BP or KFC. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

EBSCO (all caps) has been part of the name of this article since it was created. The only part that should be changed to reflect the accurate name of the company is to change "Publishing" to "Information Services" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.98.183 (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bibliographic Index Plus: half a billion database entries finally lost?
Hello, EBSCO users, , !

I'm adressing you because you identified yourselves as representants of EBSCO Publishing. I was thinking about updating Bibliographic Index, the article about the database that was bought by your company in 2011 - and then discontinued, so that half a billion data entries had suddenly gone dead! My question is:

Is the database for the "Bibliographic Index Plus" integrated with another product of your company? What I mean is: does your company offer any different route to still access this immense number of database entries in any form nowadays? If yes, then how?

Thanks for your answer, and greetings! --- Tolman Telephone (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Controversy Surrounding K- 12 Database Content - lacking credible citations - REQUEST CONTENT IS REMOVED
This section was recently created by someone and it includes many citations that are not credible and other statements that do not include citations at all.

All the statements that use a citation from Concerned Citizens for School Databases (ccsd) should be deleted as that is not a credible site. For example, this entire section cites ccsd: "Several other groups have raised the issue that EBSCO content is protected from top site filtering, and point to state and federal obscenity laws requiring protection for minors from sexually explicit, obscene or pornographic material. Since proprietary databases cannot be filtered by users, students are not protected from the adult content streamed by EBSCO's publishing clients. Parents and teachers may not be aware that the K-12 Explora, Mas Ultra for Schools, and other EBSCO K-12 databases are being used as vehicles for EBSCO's publishing clients to stream online ads and promotional material for the sex industry into classrooms[32].[33]. This has been argued to be a violation of trust between EBSCO and its school customers, especially due to the sexually graphic nature of certain advertisements that occur in large volume."

Another example is citation 23 (massresistance.org) is not a credible site and citation 22 has no basis in fact.

The following statement is not cited, and is not based on any facts. "This list does not remove all of the adult material in the K-12 databases, but does remove a substantial portion of it. EBSCO has not applied these exclusions broadly to all of its K-12 offerings and it is necessary for every school or library district in the country (or internationally) to contact EBSCO to make a separate request for the ADAMS 12 LIST, or to make similar exclusionary customizations to remove adult content. NCOSE has requested that EBSCO make known to their K-12 customers the need for customization to remove adult content."

Thank you for your consideration.140.234.253.9 (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.234.253.9 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Controversy Surrounding K-12 Database Content
Request that my submission be restored - editing and additions are appropriate for wikipedia but deletion/replacement of entire content is not

The content concerning EBSCO Controversy was deleted by another editor in its entirety even though it was factual and referenced. It is not appropriate to delete another users submission in its entirety. This was done once before and we did not respond by deletion but, rather, by adding to the new submission to add balancing material and make it more neutral. We added facts with appropriate citations, including direct quotes from news sources.

Nevertheless, the same editor has once again deleted our submission in its entirety (replacing it with their own very truncated version that leaves out many facts) rather than editing it or adding to it to create balance of viewpoint.

We included many references but 2 of them were criticized as lacking credibility. An explanation for these claims should be given. What criteria has the other user applied to make the determination that these 2 references are not credible? It might be possible to add additional references. What is the objection to the specific references (CCSD and Mass Resistance)?

The user responsible for the deletion of our submission in its entirety has also made the claim that the submission constituted "advocacy" and yet they did not offer any substantiating information or explanation. We strongly disagree with the accusation on the grounds that the submission is factual and written in a neutral manner with many accurate citations. We also point out that the deletion of factual and referenced material in its entirety can be construed as censorship of facts and appears biased.

Our submission is factual and referenced. It was not appropriate for another party to delete it in its entirety or to delete factual, referenced material. Wikipedia is a forum for the editing of material, not for deletion.

We just learned of the Wikipedia 3RR policy and will respect it. The other user has also violated the policy by deletion/replacement of our submission repeatedly. We request cooperation and appropriate editing of content, not deletion of our entire submission including all our references and citations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Maxiedean (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Green and Philanthropic Initiatives
request replacement of deleted material

Content was removed by another user. We added information to the existing section to inform readers that the Open Source Society belongs to G. Soros. This information was accurately referenced. The deletion of the information and of the reference is inappropriate.

Maxiedean (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Concerns about detailed controversy section
Aside from the lack of reliable citations, the entire coverage and handling of this aspect is a violation of WP:NPOV (especially WP:WEIGHT). Such controversial content should be written by uninvolved editors in a dispassionate succinct manner, and must be based on independent high-quality sources. Wikipedia is no venue for advocacy of any kind (neither pro-critics nor pro-company), and edit-warring over such content is prohibited. I have removed the content (again) - please do not re-insert the content, but discuss it here. GermanJoe (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

To summarize the concerns more clearly:
 * Several of the used sources (not only 2) are not reliable sources. Blogs, forums, and similar sites should not be used. Publications from other advocacy websites and affiliated organizations are not unbiased and have little value for claims about controversial facts. They can be occasionally used to verify opinions, but only in due weight and with some caution. Similarly mere opinion pieces from "contributor" authors are often problematic.
 * The added excessive details (multiple opinion quotes and several tangential bits of information) violate WP:WEIGHT - not only in relation to differing views, but also in comparison to the overall article size. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is supposed to provide a succinct overview of the most relevant facts, not an extensive narrative including every secondary detail and minor aspect.
 * Too much of the added content was focussing on the National Center on Sexual Exploitation to advocate their views, instead of providing information about the article topic itself (the article topic is EBSCO, not NCOSE). Self-centered announcements like "Citing ongoing problems with EBSCO's school products, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation has offered assistance to parents and educators wishing to confront the problem" (among others) are absolutely not acceptable.

Finally a suggestion, in case has a possible "conflict of interest": please re-write your addition in a much more concise and neutral manner and focus only on the most-relevant main points. Remove all problematic unreliable sources and content based on it, and suggest an improved encyclopedic version in a new thread here on the article talkpage (see notice and "request corrections" link on top). GermanJoe (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this additional information. While I am working on this, I would like to enumerate several specific concerns that I have about Wikipedia's “replacement version” now posted to replace my submission for EBSCO Controversy:

1. The brevity of the piece introduces bias 2. The tone of the writing suggests impartiality or even mockery. For eg. in quoting the NCOSE spokesperson, it appears that extensive quotes were culled to cherry pick the one which appeared to trivialize a concern about violent pornography as being merely an article in Men’s Health magazine. 3. Specific information about the naming of EBSCO to the NCOSE Dirty Dozen list for 2017 and 2018 was also deleted from the original submission, even though it is germane in clarifying the involvement of NCOSE and the nature of the controversy surrounding K-12 databases 4. Strong references were deleted and the omission of these suggests a conflict of interest 5. In particular, CBS4 Denver (Jun 29,2017)conducted an independent investigation of EBSCO school databases, and lengthy interviews of school officials from 2 districts, corroborating the finding of content obscene for minors 6. Also, WBRC Birmingham (Jun 28,2017)interviewed spokespeople from both NCOSE and EBSCO,allowing EBSCO to published an Open Letter which would seem vital to include in the spirit of representing both sides of the issue 7. The tone, the deletion of key references, and brevity of the “replacement” together raise the question of conflict of interest on the part of the editor or possibly on the part of Wikipedia (does either party have a relationship with EBSCO?) 8. There should be a reference to the NCOSE website and not just an internal link to the Wikipedia NCOSE article. The update of the NCOSE article appears to violate WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT - further suggesting a conflict of interest, especially since it seems to have been created specifically as an addendum to this ESBCO article.

Thank you again for providing me the opportunity to review Wikipedia’s policies. While I am digesting the information, I wonder if you would be able to edit the EBSCO “Controversy” section to include the two most relevant references (CBS4 and WBRC Birmingham) and a link to the NCOSE website. These are minimal steps that would seem necessary to create neutrality, and provide accurate information for readers.

For your convenience, here are the references (above): Maxiedean (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * If you have a "conflict of interest", please disclose this connection (see WP:COI) and use the "request corrections on or suggest content" link on top of this talkpage to provide a sourced and neutrally-phrased suggestion for added or changed content. This will notify other uninvolved editors to review your suggestions. To be perfectly clear: I have no connection to either side of this dispute. But to avoid any further - completely unfounded and ridiculous - allegations, I will leave the review of your suggestions to an uninvolved editor. GermanJoe (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The editor of the EBSCO Controversy who reverted the original content I submitted is senior editor, drchriswilliam talk . If he has a conflict of interest involving EBSCO he should have recused himself. Wikipedia's editorial policies regarding neutrality and use of citations have been violated (see above for specifics).

The text from the "EBSCO Controversy" under discussion here, has been copied and pasted, word-for-word into the article page for the "NCOSE" (National Center on Sexual Exploitation). As such, since the editor also created a direct link to the NCOSE article from the EBSCO Controversy, it has the effect of duplicating text and creating a heavily weighted and biased impression. This would seem to be a gross violation of Wikipedia policy.

Replicating the exact text in both locations, (i.e. identical text in EBSCO and NCOSE articles), creates the impression of a conflict of interest by a Wikipedia editor. There is discussion of NCOSE's allegation against EBSCO for porn in children's databases but it is never disclosed that the allegation arose through the naming of EBSCO to the NCOSE's "Dirty Dozen" list. This information is vital for readers to understand the nature of the relationship between NCOSE and EBSCO and a reference should be given. To omit this information creates the impression of bias. As pointed out above, it is important to include EBSCO's Open Letter, published in the WBRC Birmingham interview in order to allow EBSCO to defend itself against the charges. In the overall context, the WBRC reference appears to have been omitted because it also contains quotes from NCOSE which clarify allegations against EBSCO that readers are apparently not supposed to find out about. This kind of editing is a violation of Wikipedia's journalist standards and should not be tolerated by Wikipedia.

As presently written with identical text, both the NCOSE and the EBSCO articles are misleading to readers by giving the impression that NCOSE has only singled out EBSCO, placing an undue emphasis on EBSCO, especially within the NCOSE article, which is supposed to be about NCOSE, not EBSCO. The NCOSE website should be cited in both locations giving detail about its "Dirty Dozen" project, which is said to name 12 corporate entities. The NCOSE website also lists other projects, not just the "Dirty Dozen" project. The "EBSCO Controversy" text, now replicated in both the EBSCO and NCOSE article, creates weight, suffers from a lack of balanced citations, and is suggestive of a glaring conflict of interest and of gross violations of Wikipedia policies. In the interim, yet another editor has jumped in to further edit the NCOSE page and add yet more excessive detail regarding the ALA, in a tone that is mocking and derisive to NCOSE. Taken together, it appears that Wikipedia may be inadvertently permitting editors to create a platform for personal attacks.

Maxiedean (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)