Talk:LexisNexis/Archives/2014

Wikipedians with LexisNexis access
Does Wikipedians with LexisNexis access exist? It would be awesome if it did... we could create a page where people could list search requests... what Wikipedia really needs is get information from sources other than the (shallow) Web. Pcb21| Pete 10:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid not, and even if it did, no one would add their names to it for fear of getting into BIG trouble with Lexis, and their law schools or law firms. Lexis tracks all database transactions so they can bill accordingly.


 * Anyway, there's already a lot of information available from other databases like ProQuest and InfoTrac. See How to write a great article (most of which I drafted). --Coolcaesar 03:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah ok. I thought the fee structure might have allowed for the odd dip in the NYT, but if not so be it. Pcb21| Pete 15:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You might be interested to see Resources. --80.1.192.28 04:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, ProQuest has the ProQuest Historical Newspapers service. They scanned in all pages of the NYT (even ads) published between 1850 and 2001.  Unfortunately, individual subscriptions are quite expensive.  Fortunately, my local public library subscribes, and also has the remote access feature, so I can do research in the New York Times from home.  That's how I got the citations from the 1930s for the Freeway article.  But Internet users outside the U.S. may not be so lucky.


 * I should also note that ProQuest also has an Early English Books Online service which contains the full text of a huge amount of English literature.--Coolcaesar 17:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal point of view text removed
I just removed the following text added a few hours ago:


 * LexisNexis once was the premeiere on-line reference for news and legal information. Throughout the 1980's and early 1990's LexisNexis could legitimately claim the title to being the premeire on-line search engine. A combination of errors forced it to relinquish that leadership as the World Wide Web took off and LexisNexis was left behind. Today LexisNexis is confined to compete in narrow nich markets for business consumers. It could have been Google but lacked the vision and undrestanding to embrace the new business models.

This edit violates all three core Wikipedia policies: Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view. One, it is not verifiable; no source has been provided. Two, it is the author's personal point of view and is thus original research. Three, it is wrong, which explains why no sources are available to back up this point of view, because the author clearly has no understanding of the difference between search engines and information services. A search engine simply provides links to content by third parties; it is simply one tier in the n-tier infrastructure. Certainly, Google and Yahoo have gotten into the content business themselves in recent years, but the vast majority of their searches return content offered by third parties. An monolithic information service like LexisNexis provides a search capability for proprietary content which is available online only through the service. Search engines always catered to the broad audience of the Web with an advertising-based revenue model, while LexisNexis has traditionally catered to an elite group of wealthy businesses (news conglomerates and law firms).

Fourth and finally, the author has no grammar or spelling skills. Correct spellings are "premiere," "1980s," "1990s," "niche," and "understanding," and I don't know where to even begin with all the grammar errors. --Coolcaesar 09:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I added the tag because of the two previous comments, and indications that the problems noted there may be more pervasive in the article. 20:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Google and LexisNexis have different business model, LexisNexis could have created a Google type search engine, but LexiNexis is in the business model of agregating and catloging and Indexing properatory premium contents from varous leading publishers which will never available as a free content any where either with Lexix Nexis or with the authors. Lexis Nexis also loaded with atchived information dating back to last 30 years. Does Google has those archives?. Atleast last few years archive of HBR..

Google provides only publicaly available content which does not have structured searches as LexisNexis have it.

In future Google may come up to those query facility, however It will never be able to provide properatory contents unless untill it is ready to pay royalty as LexisNexis does to it's content providers. This would make shift in Google's business Model. Is possible for Google to take a shift?

Yes!! there could be a marginal impact on the business of LexisNexis by Google's free content, but Google will never be able to replace LexisNexis with existing business Model.

Can you show me any premimum content from Google for free other than public information? It can just give a link to the publiher's web page where you will be asked access password, some time you may be brought in to LexisNexis site for the information you look from Google.

Google do not have a data which is not publicaly available and free. Please do not compare the both.

Lexis.com vs. Nexis.com
Lexis means " Legal" in Latin and Nexis means "News" in Latin. So you can make out the difference. Lexis have some news content which is kept for the use of lawyers in litigation.

Nexis companion has news, company and industry research reports aggregated from thousands of sources. Lexis has caselaws, Statues, Legal, General news and analytical materials on various areas of law makes it an ultimate refernce tool for the lawers, But Nexis helps you in business research.

So Now, It's how you know!!!..Lexis Nexis.
 * I've incorporated this into the article. Seahen 01:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

P-Trak Controversy
Why is there no mention of the P-Trak flap from a few years back, documented (albeit in passing) here: http://www.cdt.org/privacy/issues/pii/ not notable enough? Zero sharp 21:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Size
Anyone know what the size of the database is, in bytes?--Rotten 15:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There are thousands of databases, which take up many terabytes of data.Derwood5555 (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Subscriptions?
Is it possible for a curious individual to subscribe to their services, or do you have to be owned by a company that has a subscription? -- 70.15.116.59 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Individuals can subscribe if they have a credit card, but you had better have a lot of cash in your savings account ready to burn and a high credit limit (like $20,000 or higher). One can easily burn through $20,000 on a single Lexis session if not careful; in law schools, they teach students that the fastest way to get fired is to use up an amount in Lexis subscription fees that is higher than the amount in controversy in the case!  That's why most users access Lexis under an organizational affiliation, either authorized on a user-by-user basis by the firm's IT administrator in coordination with Lexis support, or by IP address ranges.  The organization will already have negotiated a monthly flat-rate fee for an appropriate package of "unlimited" access services.  Depending upon the package negotiated, all databases outside the organization's package may be blocked.  Or they may be displayed but will have a dollar sign next to the links and there will always be an "additional charges" warning before one enters the pay-per-use areas.
 * Most major universities subscribe to LexisNexis Academic, lexis.com's ugly stepsister. It used to be absolutely awful (to discourage lawyers from using it as a cheap substitute to lexis.com) but now it is mildly tolerable except for the occasional quirk here and there (again, to encourage lawyers to stay with lexis.com).  If you live close to a public university they are usually required by law to let the general public access their libraries, so you can go in and try out LexisNexis Academic for free.  But it's still not as slick or powerful as the real lexis.com.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the general rule of thumb at university libraries seems to be that whatever it is, if it's online it's for authorized passwords only and community members are SOL. But how can it be so expensive to access documents that started in the public domain?  Maybe it's time for "Wiksus"? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 22:50, 21 November

2007 (UTC)

Vandalism re current location of LexisNexis headquarters
The article was vandalized months ago and no one caught it! The LexisNexis Web site clearly indicates that the address is 125 Park Avenue. I am fixing this right now. If this happens again, the article may need to be semi-protected or protected completely. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching it, but that appears to have been a good faith edit, not vandalism. Assume good faith, and be civil -- knee-jerk accusations of vandalism are not civil.  FWIW, http://www.aboutlexisnexis.com/presscenter/contact/ says New York, http://support.lexis-nexis.com/contact_us.asp says Dayton. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ... and Hoover's still has Miamisburg too: http://www.hoovers.com/lexisnexis/--ID__43553--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The LexisNexis website actually states clearly, several times, that Dayton, Ohio is the coporate HQ. This is where you can find it. If you can find otherwise that this is not true, than cite where it comes from. The citation needs to be from the LexisNexis website itself or from a very reputable site if one is found. Also this page says that New York is the corporate HQ for LexisNexis Media Relations only not the world HQ.Texas141 (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What? The only way you could interpret http://www.aboutlexisnexis.com/presscenter/contact/ in that fashion is if you were reading it as implying that LexisNexis Media Relations were a separate corporate subsidiary from LexisNexis! I've never heard of any corporation separating its public relations into a completely separate subsidiary, which makes zero sense from a financial or legal standpoint.
 * Also, the AllBusiness.com article is from 1999, the LA Times article is from 2005, and academic Web sites are notorious in general for not updating in a timely manner (I am an experienced Web designer and have been involved in the politics in maintaining the @#!*%  things).  The move occurred in 2007 so it makes no sense to cite sources that are dated prior to 2007.  The support Web site is interesting but in my experience large corporations tend to have trouble updating all the relevant Web pages properly whenever they undertake a major relocation or rebranding (different divisions are often on different update schedules).  And take a look at Fast Facts, a page specifically for media consumption, which clearly indicates that LexisNexis HQ is in New York.  It also indicates 2008 revenue, implying that it was probably updated in 2009 after the company closed its 2008 books and revenue figures became available.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation and thoughts on this matter. I will continue to do further research to accurately confirm where exactly the corporate HQ is really located. Several websites say different things. So I will find the most current and up-to-date information pertaining to the LN HQ from 2007 to present day. I found this topic of a 2007 move interesting as well. (I live in Dayton and yet have never heard of this taking place) If I can find substantial evidence that a move took place in 2007, I will note that and cite it in the article as factual information. Again, thank you for engaging civilly in discussion with me. I appreciate that we can discuss this in a professional manner.Texas141 (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Another source to support my claim that the corporate HQ is still in Dayton can be found here: Texas141 (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I know what they're doing. It's the same thing 24 Hour Fitness did---they split their corporate and operating headquarters.  A lot of companies are doing that so they can recruit high-powered executives in major urban areas (like New York) but keep costs down by maintaining the bulk of their operations somewhere else where costs are lower (like Ohio).  An example is this contract dated August 10, 2009 (three days ago) in which Section 17.6 indicates that notice of claims is to be sent to the Chief Legal Officer at their New York address with copies to Miamisburg and Providence.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That is very interesting that a company would do that. But I do see where you are coming from about the split. But still, it is really hard to definitivly support excatly where the HQ is located and the differences between the Dayton location and the New York location. With the information and the research that I have done, I have found that it is really about 50/50 where the company and other sources list the headquarters. Lets try this as a solution, maybe we could write in the article that it is unclear excatly where the hq is located and give excamples of the company listing both locations within their own website. That may settle this for now until we find an amazing citation that reveals excatly where the HQ location is or that a move took place to New York (which would also count as a good citation).Texas141 (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

LN was founded in the Dayton area, and still has its main campus there, though technically in Miamisburg, outside of Dayton. Reed Elsevier’s US HQ is in Manhattan (at the Park Ave. address), and that is now the LN HQ as well. This is OR from an employee; I will try to find a citation. —  crism ( talk )  15:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should just say "uncertain" for headquarters until they fix their own pages to agree with each other: the support page says Dayton for Software Collection Products and Customer Support, the "Fast Facts" page says New York. Neither page is dated, other than the generic copyright footer showing 2010 for both pages. Someone could simply ask them to fix the discrepancy, but perhaps they're being intentionally vague and don't want to announce it one way or the other? In today's modern age, their base of operations is the internet. Bookbrad (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

US Supreme Court decision
A SCOTUS decision, MeadWestVaco Corporation, successor in interest to the Mead Corporation, Petitioner, v. Illinois Department of Revenue et al., came out today (Tax Day, 2008) about the tax issues around Mead's sale of Lexis/Nexis. The PDF of the decision is here, and I'm sure there's a plain-text version on one of the free legal sites. Someone may wish to add details about the company's history from pages 3-5 of the decision (pages 6-8 of the PDF, as the file also includes a 3-page synopsis at the beginning).

One thing that's not addressed in either the decision or this article: When did "Lexis/Nexis" drop the slash and become just "LexisNexis"... or did it? On page 5 of the PDF, the Court says that the service is "now known as Lexis/Nexis", yet when I came to check out Wikipedia, I found that there was no article for Lexis/Nexis (I've since created a redirect). I was rather surprised at that, but after searching for a bit I found this article with a similar name. Why is there no mention in the article about the version of the name with the slash, which is apparently the legal name of the service (even if it doesn't appear on their website)?

--ΨΦorg (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably because no one asked the court to take judicial notice of that fact (the name change probably occurred after the trial and thus wasn't in the record). Remember, Lexis wasn't before the court; the party before the court was Mead, its former parent.  This wasn't a case where names were a big deal (in tax cases people care about numbers not names), so no one bothered with this issue.  Notice how the court did take judicial notice of Mead's name change to MeadWestvaco.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

no discussion about the oligopoly or price rise problems
This WP article does not address two of the main concerns of many LexisNexis and Westlaw users and subscribers : the LN-West-Thomson oligopoly in the legal publishing industry and the huge annual price rise problem. These issues *are* documented on the Web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.46.204.90 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cite? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

HQ location
As referenced here New York City is the LexisNexis World HQ for Media Relations only, not the corprate HQ. Where as referenced here it is explicity notes that Dayton, Ohio is the Corporate HQ. This website also mentions Dayton as the Corporate HQ. The Media Relations page is no more updated than the LexisNexis main support and contact page that I referenced. Both have copyrights at 2010 at the bottom of each page. If the Corporate HQ is truly located in NYC, then please provide a citation as reputable and steadfast as the one that I have provided. If you need help with finding reliable sources, please see WP:CITE. Best reguards. Texas141 (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Legality
What is the legality to struck a deal with government branch to possess exclusively so called 'public information'? The article show that only in CA this group made the info available back publicly. Some info on how.to v methods to struck a deals - will this be nuch needed ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

History
"Affected persons will be provided with free fraud insurance and credit bureau reports for a year." When did this "year" start, I wonder? I guess it has long-since expired. If so, the tense of the statement needs adjusting accordingly. This does seem to be a common problem with many articles here; the writer knows when he or she is writing, but the reader - often many years later - is deprived of that essential time reference. Dawright12 (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Only discovered they existed via Enron
Not having any legal background I have never heard of LexisNexis until I was prowling round the massive Enron email archive over on archive.org

Pretty certain Grandchildren will not hear of it 81.129.174.254 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)