Talk:Exponent, Inc.

= Neutrality = This page presently reads like a PR campaign for the company. In particular, it seems that the company has been involved in a number of high-key controversial topics where their findings have faced academic criticism. The page makes no mention of such criticism however and only presents a wholeheartedly positive image. In ancient times, apparently this page had a section on criticism published in the LA times but this section was removed without explanation by a user which also updated various company statistics. For now, I bring back the section but I do not think it constitutes a complete picture of criticism and counterpoints. -C. lorenz (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that claim is that aside from general information about the nature of the business and its history, all that was there was a brief section outlining some of the company's key projects. Those were presented in a neutral way and, gave no indication either positive or negative about what the company did on those projects.

The "Criticisms" section, rather than being labeled as such as with other articles, explicitly alleges neutrality issues. It does so with criticisms with no citations whatsoever, and then has a chief complaint that seems slanted. Any consulting firm will present its findings to its clients, and no client is going to present findings to a court if it makes them appear culpable nor will they pay a firm to testify against them. Thus it's self evident that positive findings will be publicized and negative ones won't. It's self evident that the company will testify in favor of its clients and not against them because in cases where they find against their client, it's not in their client's best interest to have them testify and would be a breach of confidentiality and a clear violation of ethics and attorney client privilege if they did it on their own. That's not a legitimate criticism but a standard lawyer ploy to discredit companies.

It seems as if a neutral article that did nothing to promote the company or make any specific claims with respect to the projects it worked on was altered to add a negative slant in the name of "neutrality." Despite claiming that it balanced things, it claimed that the article is still not neutral.

If you are going to allege that the company was involved in a number of high-key controversial topics, you should add those and give sources, not list an attack strategy that states the obvious in a twisted way. Hagrinas (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Exponent (consulting firm). 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://archive.is/20121210102450/http://coe.engr.oregonstate.edu/oregonstater/citation.php?id=409 to http://coe.engr.oregonstate.edu/oregonstater/citation.php?id=409
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130514142417/http://failuremag.com/feature/article/exponent_the_company_that_failure_built/ to http://failuremag.com/feature/article/exponent_the_company_that_failure_built

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)