User talk:BalderV

Software Top 100 is a reliable source
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 is a verifiable and objective source. As for a mentioned omission: Sony has long been added to the Software Top 100 list. Wikipedia needs good sources like the Software Top 100. Before deleting any links to Software Top 100 (such as user Esoteric Rogue does), please discuss the source, or even find a better source. That would really help Wikipedia forward! If you look at Forbes and Software Magazine, which are other sources mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_largest_software_companies, please notice they still do not mention Sony. Upon visiting the page and its discussion page, you might also notice, that Forbes only has 32 "software" companies listed, of which most would argue that these companies do not sell any software. The same counts for Software Magazine, that publishes a list of Software and services companies.--BalderV (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If a discussion were to develop, it would be easiest to do one point at a time. If I wanted to help you, I would suggest that you realize that I'm not (as in, I haven't been) arguing with you because there is nothing to argue about.  As said by two other editors on my talk page "Software Top 100 is clearly not RS".  "Clear" as in obvious, or apparent. It's not "close", or "questionable".  Just grabbing the first point of protocol that jumps out to me, I offer the following for our first discussion -- assuming you continue to press and I bother to follow up:
 * WP:RS 3.2 says self-published websites are not reliable sources. I believe your various comments on talk and discussion pages demonstrate that Software Top 100 is your self-published website.  So, once again, Software Top 100 is not WP:RS
 * -- Esoteric Rogue  Talk  21:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for entering the discussion, I appreciate it. Ok, let's take this one step at a time. Upon reading WP:RS 3.2 I can only say: the website is not published by me, it is published by the Top 100 Research Foundation, legally established and holding office in The Netherlands, of which I am an editor. I am not the only person working here. So no, this is not self-published. If you are ok with this answer, would you like to offer a next point for discussion? --BalderV (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (As asked, I have responded a little to this, on User talk:Esoteric Rogue - hope you understand why I posted there; no intention of complicating the thread. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  23:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Hey, sincere thanks for prompting Chzz. I am moderately dedicated to finishing this discussion now.  Also, thank you for maintaining my anonymity.


 * Well, in the United States of America, I have to do precisely nothing to state that I have a proprietorship or partnership, legally. I understand, however, that I would make any auditors much happier if I at least open checking account under my business's name. I am glad to hear you are not the "sole person working" there.  Of course, this still get's us nowhere fast.


 * Furthering the discussion, there is the policy that "secondary sources" are preferred. See, if your company does "software revenue rankings", you are a primary source for software revenue rankings.  What would be great was if the New York Times, or whatever prestigious, long-establish business hard-copy newspaper had cited ST100 as a source for an article.  That would indicate that the newspaper would be a reliable secondary source, which doesn't directly help you, as far as I know.  Seriously, all you have to do is tell us "go to the news-stand and buy this (respectable) magazine and look at this article who mentions ST100."  A good starting point might be the name of your trademark registrar and registrant number or something.  I know  I've looked up U.S. registered trademarks online before.  That would indicate you may be a reliable primary source.  (Again, secondary sources are preferred for WP article content.)


 * I think a citation for you might had been mentioned on the noticeboard, but I did not look that up for credibility. But, ST100 having a presence on Wikipedia might create a circular ring of citations.  (Any other website might cite a WP article citing ST100 who could suggest that the other website established credibility.)  Such delicate issues require great vigilance.
 * So, I guess that's my second point for discussion:
 * What are ST100's verifiable accreditations? -- Esoteric Rogue  Talk  08:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. About the foundation: in the Netherlands, where the Foundation is located, all legal entities are required to be registered in the records of the Chambre of Commerce. You can access the CoC records online at: www.kvk.nl and although the website is in Dutch, if you enter: Top 100 and Rotterdam in the search fields, you will find the Top 100 Research Foundation. You can order legal documentation from there, if you want.

Some citations for the Software Top 100 (other than Wikipedia), can be found here: 1. A report on European Software Strategy from the European Union 2. A report on the regional software industry by SELA, a regional intergovernmental organization that groups 27 Latin American and Caribbean countries. 3. A Research paper on Cloud Computing by the Georgia Institute of Technology 4. An example of the Software Top 100 being mentioned in media can be found e.g. on Yahoo Finance This is a sample, I have chosen only English citations; a search on Google will provide many more links/citations in English, Spanish, Chinese, French, etc. Let me know what you think. Also, if you have an other point for discussion, I'll be happy to answer it.--BalderV (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Upon re-reading your comment, and also in reply to Chzz's opinion on sourcing. In my opinion, Software Top 100 is probably a secondary source. PRIMARY says secondary sources are at least one step away from an event. The Software Top 100 takes information from primary sources such as annual reports, SEC filings, and (in some cases) company websites etc. That information is then analyzed, made comparable, and ranked. Based on the research of many companies, the Software Top 100 makes claims about the relative size of each company in the list. In this claim, the ranking, Software Top 100 is different from a tertiary source like Wikipedia, that summarizes other sources. As the policy states, it is hard to distinguish between primary, secondary and tertiary sources; often, the viewpoint is subjective and contextual. Although there is a stated preference for secondary sources, there is no absolute policy only to use secondary sources. In general, Wikipedia de facto allows rankings as sources, given the many, many quotes of rankings like Forbes in Wikipedia articles. This is useful, as it provides an indication of size for a matter discussed in an article. If anyone thinks rankings should not be allowed as sources in Wikipedia, I am interested to hear the reasons.--BalderV (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I did look at at your previous request to continue conversation, and decided I could not continue the discussion without resorting to personal attacks. Trying to state that your business of ranking software companies by income makes you a seconday source for ranking software companies by income was worded as a lie (--an attempt to deceive) that demonstrates a continuing unwillingess to either 1) play by the rules or to 2) understand the rules.  IF it is the latter, which I doubt, let me explain what is wrong with the above statement.  Your business of ranking software companies by income might make you a seconday source for reporting software company income. but even still, you wouldn't be a very reputable source, because your limited business is simply 'ranking', not necessarily reporting.  The ultimate fact is that your business of ranking software companies by income makes you primary source for ranking software companies by income.  It should be self-evident and obvious by definition of "primary source".  That you refuse to recognize even this point which must be a "given" for all future discussion makes such discussion hopeless. --  Esoteric Rogue  Talk  21:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would recommend 1) stop using wikipedia as a place to get exposure (you're a far far cry from Forbes) and 2) find someone with common and technical sense to guide you in your would-be wikipedia-editor adventures. This was my best attempt to be constructive and not critical. --  Esoteric Rogue  Talk  21:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As a personal note, to mitigate the chance that I may sound condescending -- I have given up doing anything beyond minor edits on WP. I have not the 'legal' background to navigate the growing plethora of suggestions and guidelines, nor the time and tenacity to make the same arguments three times a day for an indefinite length of time as necessary to reach 'consensus'. I elect not to be oppressed by the tyranny of the majority.  As always, good luck to you Balder. --  Esoteric Rogue  Talk  23:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)