Talk:Whisper number
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The definition of whisper number can be found on investopedia, freedictionary.com, investorwords.com, encarta.msn.com, and more. This is a financial term, and the definition and information provided is perhaps the most extensive found on the net. It should not be deleted for these reasons.
[edit] Kill this article please
Please kill this subject - I started it, I now realize that it was a mistake. It should not be listed in any format.
I ignored the recent stories in regard to wikipedia. Having been personally treated unfairly by the media in past I gave this site a chance. But my recent experience has shown me that there is a great deal of truth to those stories.
I provided clear and succinct information on the topic. I happen to be an expert on the topic having founded the first internet company involving the collection and publication of whisper numbers. And over the past eight years have immersed myself in the business and the relevant information pertaining to the subject. But your format clearly has no place for expertise in given topics - there appears to be plenty of space, however, for 'armchair experts' in the category relying on outdated and misinformed 'internet media references'.
There is no verification of sources, and you've listed information that is outdated and known to be incorrect. But you are taking for face value that 'if it's in print, and sourced on the interent, it must be correct'. You've now created a topic that is confusing and misleading, yet all of your admin appear to agree that 'its now a great article'.
Can I ask based on what?
The best quote I've found on your business is simple: 'You've (once again) created noise, not knowledge'.
John
- In my opinion, you created an article that was a thinly veiled advertisement for your site. Your site is still on there, but it is no longer the focus of the article. You are welcome to provide your expertise to improve this (any any other) article, and provide up to date sources if the ones in the article are outdated. However, you aren't welcome to blank the article.
- While I will concede that you may be an expert is whisper numbers, I doubt that you are the only expert. --Syrthiss 03:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Syrthiss,
But isn't that the point of your site? If and when any other experts visit they can enhance upon the existing article? Instead I see non-experts degrading the article by citing unfounded and outdated information. Referring to a non-existent site (getwhispers.com, which you pointed out to Uncle G) even though cited in one of the sources sends users to a pop up haven. That's not informative, that's careless.
And I did not believe this to be an article on 'Learning How to Invest and Use Financial Data'. By quoting specific information from these referenced articles (ie: "Dunnan advises caution in dealing with such sites; a thorough check of how they gather their data, because some sites tally the opinions of individual investors rather than of professional traders etc....") has now delved and opened the door into the websites - one of which is whispernumber.com. Uncle G has brought the sites to the forefront and I should have the right to correct any misinformation that was printed about my site 5 years ago, or any changes my site has made since then. (And if picking and choosing quotes from news articles are allowed, which appears to be the crux of this article, I would suspect any I provide will not be removed.)
My original data was very similar to that found on investopdedia.com, and it focused on whisper numbers. Uncle G has now made an article that focuses on the websites. If website information is an acceptable subject, as you all seem to agree, then will I be allowed to start an article titled WhisperNumber.com? I see articles on other companies, would I be excluded from doing so?
John
- I agree this is a hard problem. Certainly if information there is incorrect about your company, and your company is one of the major sources of whisper numbers, then it should be corrected. Can you provide verifyable sources that support more recent information other than yourself? I know this seems circuitous, but let me explain:
-
- If this article was about a famous person, and there was a sentence in it that said "Joe Bloe was convicted of murder in Jan 2004" we would expect that sentence could be backed up with court records and newspaper articles. If Joe Bloe disputed the facts, he shouldn't come and remove that sentence himself...but he could cite sources to show that it was Joe Bløe not Joe Bloe, or sue the newspaper for a retraction and cite the retraction.
- So, what we come down to is verifiability. I don't mind neutral information about your company being added to the whisper number article, but it *has* to be backed up by something.
- On the other matter, there are guidelines for what corporations should be included here. If you can support those guidelines with verifiable sources regarding Whispernumber.com, then it is likely that an article solely about your company would survive community review. If you find an article on another company that doesn't meet the guidelines, then you should recommend that article for review at AfD (or ask someone else to do it). That way Wikipedia becomes stronger.
- Please realize that me and the other editors are working here in good faith. We aren't out to get you, or keep your company down, or anything of the sort. --Syrthiss 19:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Syrthiss, I am writing you specifically because you've been the most reasonable and actually reply in context. I believe you understand my points, and I do not believe you are out to get anyone. But I think you would agree that my points are valid in regard to the function of your site.
My experiences so far have not been positive - information that is relevant (imo) has been removed, and irrelevant information been added (and in the case of the referrence to the site that no longer exists, the data has yet to be corrected by the Uncle G or anyone else.)
I've also avoided all media interviews over the past few years as my company has been misrepresented time and time again as to what we do and how we do it. Your firm is going thru that now - is everything written about you from every media outlet 100% factual? I would think not. It gets frustrating to be represented one way and bunched in with less reputable firms while you conduct business a completely different way - with integrity, validity, and method. (There simply is no mystery in the data (whisper numbers) that we provide - its available free to the public and we've been quite transparent since day 1 on our methodology. Other sites have not.)
I will make changes per your guidelines but I believe they too will be removed although I will use the current accepted article as my reference. Since Uncle G brought in the extensive references to websites, I will maintain that direction using sources. I would appreciate your oversite on this particular article and revisions.
John
Uncle G,
It appears you are now in a pissing contest and just being pig headed - just an opinion of course. Are you studying journalism in school? You would make a great journalist - just the facts as you want them known.
Can I ask how your reversion of the changes I made were proper? How is the true historical definition of the whisper number, followed by the current definition (properly sourced of course from 2005), not one thousand times more informative and clear than your addition of a quote from an article written in 1999? (When I was growing up I was taught in school that the Earth's core was made of 'molten lava' instead of solid iron. Would you consider the older source more accurate in describing the structure of the Earth? It appears so.)
How is leaving in the reference to GetWhispers.com, a site that no longer exists and had no legitamacy when it did, and is now a pop up haven and potential source for 'spyware ad' programs not a disservice to your readers? (I can provide a few more fly by night firms that supposedly provided whispers and no longer if you think it would help.)
How is leaving in the quote "because some sites tally the opinions of individual investors rather than of professional traders" helping your readers? Do you have sources that say whisper numbers from investors are less accurate than those of pro traders? You would find the opposite if you did your homework. How is one source from 1999 attacking the quality assurance processes of WhisperNumber.com ("the possibility for whisper numbers to be manipulated") considered factual and let alone relevant to the topic?
It is obvious that you want nothing but negativity to dominate this entry. My last revisions were succinct, clear, and focused. I am asking that you do the right thing and remove yourself from editing this article further as you have lost focus on the topic, and I am asking other admins to review my last revision and this one to determine the best data for your viewers.
John
Syrthiss referred you to our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy above. I refer you to it again. When it comes to "presenting the facts as you want them known", bear in mind that it is you who is insisting that your company's definition of a "whisper number" is the correct and current definition, and editing the article to label all other definitions as erroneous, "so-called", or "historical", without backing that up with anything other than your own say-so. The reference to GetWhispers.com is in the original source as an example, as is the reference to your company. And it should be blindingly obvious why the reason that Dunnan gives, for her recommendation to thoroughly check data gathering metholodogies, belongs next to that very recommendation. Uncle G 01:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Uncle G,
I did not present my definition - I presented a properly sourced investopedia definition - you found that not proper and removed it (see my Dec 15th edits), replacing it with a source from 1999.
And I will ask again (although you have proven you ignore reasonable questions, do not respond, and only wait for me to make changes before you address issues, thus continuing this endless cycle):
How is the true historical definition of the whisper number, followed by the current definition (properly sourced of course from 2005), not one thousand times more informative and clear than your addition of a quote from an article written in 1999? (When I was growing up I was taught in school that the Earth's core was made of 'molten lava' instead of solid iron. Would you consider the older source more accurate in describing the structure of the Earth? It appears so.)
How is leaving in the reference to GetWhispers.com, a site that no longer exists and had no legitamacy when it did, and is now a pop up haven and potential source for 'spyware ad' programs not a disservice to your readers? (I can provide a few more fly by night firms that supposedly provided whispers and no longer exist if you think it would help.)
There is no need to reference any company (especially if it can hurt your readers) along side the 'recommendation to thoroughly check data gathering metholodogies'. It is why I removed the reference to any company and but maintained the 'check data' quote.
And why is the article from Dunnan (from 1999) the primary, or initial, or opening reference - can a more recent reference (ie the investopedia reference 2005) be the primary, initial, or opening reference? If not why not?
Whisper123 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Uncle G, Instead of me making changes and then you changing them back, how about answering my questions from five days ago so I have some guidance as to what is acceptable and not? Or is it your personal mission to continue this pathetic cycle? Whisper123 03:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, anyone care to address my questions before I make changes? 69.34.89.51 14:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- They've already been answered once. Read the answer again. Uncle G 15:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm not seeing it then Uncle G, help me understand or see what you see. Where are the answers to the following:
1) Why is the article from Dunnan (from 1999) the primary, or initial, or opening reference?
2)Can a more recent reference (ie the investopedia reference 2005) be the primary, initial, or opening reference? If not why not?
3) How is leaving in the reference to GetWhispers.com, a site that no longer exists and had no legitamacy when it did, and is now a pop up haven and potential source for 'spyware ad' programs not a disservice to your readers?
4) How is the true historical definition of the whisper number, followed by the current definition (properly sourced of course from 2005), not one thousand times more informative and clear than your addition of a quote from an article written in 1999?
I'll check back in two weeks for your response. Whisper123 16:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
