Talk:Mindjet

Proposal to bring this article up-to-date
I've recently been working on behalf of Mindjet to update this article. Although the article was created earlier this year by my colleague User:WWB Too, the company has gone through a few major changes since then, and I was asked to update the information here. The main change is that the company's previous software products have been consolidated into a single product, now also called Mindjet.

So, in order to update the article to accurately reflect the current state of things, I'd like to propose the following changes:


 * Update the introductory paragraph to correctly reflect the name of Mindjet's current product:


 * Mindjet is a collaborative work management software company headquartered in San Francisco, California. Mindjet's software, also called Mindjet, is designed to visually and collaboratively manage information and tasks., Mindjet had approximately two million users; notable clients include Coca Cola, Disney, IBM and Walmart.


 * Likewise, update the infobox so that the "Products" correctly reflect that the only product that Mindjet now offers is also called Mindjet.


 * I'd also like to suggest adding information to the "Products and services" section, discussing the merger of Mindjet's various software products and updating verb tenses in the rest of it so that it is accurate. I've placed my new draft for this section in the collapse box below:


 * Additionally, the company's logo is out of date. I have uploaded a new version of their logo here.

Because of my COI with regards to this article, I'm hoping someone could review these proposed revisions to be sure that they comply with Wikipedia's standards, and, if everything looks okay, move them into place, and include the updated logo when they do.

In addition to this article, I am also working on more substantial revisions to the article for Mindjet's software, which was previously called MindManager but is now also called Mindjet. For the time being, I've left wikilinks in this article for the company pointed to MindManager; once that page has been updated and renamed, however, I'll likely be back here to request that the links in this article be updated.

I've watchlisted this page, so if you have any questions or concerns about these revisions, please feel free to post them here or on my talk page. Thanks, looking forward to your feedback! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 16:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Chris, thanks for the well-structured request. I just have a few comments to make and i'll number them for convenience.


 * 1. I should note first off that i'd very much prefer that one or two other users agree to this change other than myself before its implemented. To make sure there's consensus and all that. To that end, in order to speed up people commenting here, I would suggest leaving a message with some relevant Wikiprojects, such as Wikiproject Computing and Wikiproject Companies, which are both listed and linked up above.


 * 2. In regard to the introductory paragraph request, I notice that the last sentence has two tenses. It uses "had", but then it uses "include". Since we're talking about a product currently in use, I would suggest using present tense for it and changing "had" to "has" would fix that issue. Minor grammar quibble, I know.


 * 3. In regard to the Products section in the infobox, we really want to list all major products, past and present. Perhaps adding Mindjet and then putting "(defunct)" or something to that effect next to the other too would be appropriate. What do you think would be best? Extra notation: I see now that Mindjet includes the other products now. Hmm.,..that makes it more complicated. Maybe make it say "Mindjet (includes MindManager and Mindjet Connect)"? Would that work?


 * 4. I've gone ahead and put in the new logo. Thanks for providing that.


 * I think that's everything. Silver  seren C 06:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Silverseren, thanks so much for your attention to this, and for getting the new logo moved over! I'll reply to your comments point by point.


 * 1. I'm certainly fine with establishing some sort of consensus here, rather than having you move things unilaterally. I posted a message over at WP:Companies when I posted here, but it doesn't look like anyone from there has been able to take a look. I've followed your advice and posted another request for neutral editors over at WP:Software just now.


 * 2. The tense issue in the first paragraph is a bit odd, I agree. How about:


 * Mindjet is a collaborative work management software company headquartered in San Francisco, California. Mindjet's software, also called Mindjet, is designed to visually and collaboratively manage information and tasks., Mindjet had approximately two million users, including notable clients such as Coca Cola, Disney, IBM and Walmart.


 * 3. What to do with the "former" products is indeed confusing, given that they've been merged into a single product and not exactly discontinued. I like your suggestion, but maybe "Mindjet (previously sold as MindManager and Mindjet Connect)" instead? I think this better captures the fact that Mindjet is the only current product, and not a package of the other two pieces of software.


 * Thanks again for taking a look at this! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I just looked over the proposed changes, and in my opinion they are an improvement, so I decided to be WP:BOLD and make the change. Note: I have no connection whatsoever with the product or the company. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Awesome, thanks so much for taking a look at this—it's very much appreciated! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 22:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

re illegitimate edits
One an editor has made an edit, it's a donation to the Wikipedia and can't be withdrawn by anyone without consensus, if the withdrawal is challenged.

Obviously another editor cannot say "Reverting your edit -- the edit may have been perfectly fine, but I own this article, sorry, and only I or my agents may edit it" (we'll likely get there sooner or later, but we're still not there yet). If the "other editor" is actually the same editor who made the first edit, that makes little difference and the principle applies -- an editor cannot say "Reverting my edit -- the edit may have been perfectly fine, but I've discovered that another person owns this article, and only he or his agents may edit it". This is also a violation of WP:OWN, albeit a slightly more complicated one.

For one thing, supposing that self-reverts were treated differently than other reverts -- which they aren't and can't be by the terms of donation -- it seems clear that the opportunity for intimidation, bribery, and so forth would be introduced. We really don't want editors to be emailing other editors and saying "Although your edit was an improvement, my client doesn't like it. How much will you take to self-revert it?" We also don't allow editors to self-revert all their edits when the quit the Wikipedia, and so on.

According to this posting, this applies to this edit, so the edit violates WP:OWN and I've reverted it.

Courtesy is nice. Professional courtesy is quite a different thing, isn't welcome here, and isn't a legitimate reason for reverting an edit. Either the edit improved the article or it didn't. If editors want to argue that it didn't, on the merits, they may do so. Herostratus (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I was not the COI editor directly involved with this page, but I do work with User:ChrisPond off-wiki, and there's more discussion about Herostratus' note above on my user Talk page, for anyone who's interested in following up. And for what it's worth, neither Chris nor myself will be challenging the edits made to this page; on a content basis they strike me as perfectly legitimate. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 12:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * User:WWB Too responded on his talk page, and my response to that is, well, first of all, no editors here are "competitors", in theory or practice, since we all have the same goal. Opening a Wikipedia page to edit it, regardless of one's motivation, implies an understanding and agreement that there is only one reason for doing that -- to improve -- and we're all on the same side in that. I hope. For the rest, I just reiterate and stand by my contention that all edits are donations and not necessarily withdrawable. By courtesy and custom this is sometimes allowed, but not always, and not if contested. Yes motivation does matter. "I am undoing my edit because I am quitting the Wikipedia and wish to withdraw my contribution" is an invalid edit reason. There are others. "I am redacting my talk-page insult of you because you have seen it and so its purpose is fulfilled, now I don't want others to easily see it" is another (which I think occurs sometimes), and "I am withdrawing my contribution because I'm trying to get a date with a certain girl editor and don't want to appear too much smarter than her" would be too (which is getting closer too the point here, of withdrawing an article edit solely for reasons bearing on the external relationships of the editors.) So I don't think an editor can "change his mind about an edit for any reason", and I'm fairly certain that I'm at least technically correct according to the terms of contribution ("If you contribute text directly to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public for reuse under CC-BY-SA and GFDL..."), and whether the withdrawal is done five minutes or five years after the contribution the principle is the same. The only argument against that courtesy and custom, which is a reasonable point, but not if contested I don't think.


 * Having established the principle, I don't have an material objection to the edit and withdraw my objection. Do what you will, as far as I'm concerned. Herostratus (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Herostratus. I agree that because our goal should be improved Wikipedia articles, there would ideally be no competive basis, although in practice that may not quite be the case. Since David (CorporateM) has clients he represents clients and so do I, I think it would be inappropriate for him to be the impartial arbiter of one of my requests. Granted, that isn't what happened here, and since he seemed to be editing in a volunteer capacity, it's probably fine, although it does raise some interesting questions.


 * You raise a good point that an editor who quits the site cannot just take their edits with them, and I see the parallel here. I can see how David's reason for initially reverting himself amounted to a passive WP:OWNership situation, although he didn't see it that way at first, and nor did I. Had he reconsidered on the merits, I take it you would have left it as is. Fortunately, the edits I think are perfectly consistent with enWP guidelines. I'm sure at some point either ChrisPond or perhaps myself will have additional suggestions, as Mindjet grows and evolves, but for now I think we have consensus on the article. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 13:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mindjet. 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/20120405005631/http://gigaom.com/collaboration/cohuman-mindjet-idea-management-from-inception-to-execution/ to http://gigaom.com/collaboration/cohuman-mindjet-idea-management-from-inception-to-execution/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140326103428/http://blog.mindjet.com/ to http://www.blog.mindjet.com/

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) 22:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)