Talk:Intuit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Intuit Canada & Criticism

Its relation to Intuit Canada must be described. Also, the two articles contain contradictory information. Mikkalai 02:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I believe I have added the information shortly after your request.

On a related note, I've noticed that a user from IP address 67.174.76.243 has repeatedly and removed references to public criticism of Intuit. I believe he is a Lacerte (i.e. Intuit) employee and should explain his actions. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool for commercial self-interests. Jbetak 07:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

  • The same applies for Qwiki. I have now readded the critisism section. --Sleepyhead81 09:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms in context are fine. A good example is the mention of the product activation flap described in TurboTax and the subsequent actions of Intuit in response. However, rants for the sake of criticism are as antithetical to neutral reviews as are blatant commercial explotation of the site to post self-serving hype. I have removed this section accordingly. IP address 67.174.76.243

If you have some changes that you think would make the section better fit the WP:NPOV policy, by all means, make them. But removing the criticism section entirely is not appropriate here. -- Norvy (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I can see where IP 67.172.76.243 is coming from and thought that perhaps rephrasing that section would help. I'm glad that we are at least discussing it now - instead of endlessly reverting it ;-)
For the sake of comparison, I'd suggest reviewing the article on Microsoft. I'd assume that it's of higher quality since it attracts more contributors. Microsoft also comes to mind due to its overwhelming market position -- not unlike Intuit in its own market. Please note that this article also contains a criticism section. Jbetak 05:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that the critisicm section should be removed. As Norvy says; removing the criticism section entirely is not appropriate. The section should be kept until a discussion at this talk page results in a decision to remove the section. --Sleepyhead 07:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Some the criticism seems exaggerated. The issues with the upgrade policy are mere restatements of a common policy. Many software companies like Intuit are sending older versions into de-support. This may be a criticism of software vendors in general vs. Intuit specifically. The criticism regarding Vista compatiblity applies to a large number of vendors as well, and would be better placed in an article on backward compatibility.Cander0000 04:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV: Puff Piece?

There is a very rudimentary criticism section in an article about a company that is the target of a tremendous amount of vitriol (try to find a review of a recent version of Quicken that doesn't involve the words "class-action" in at least 3 of the comments. What's left is very fluffy and pro-Intuit. It makes sense if the allegations above are true that an Intuit employee is actively trying to promote the company in the article. --Robb0995 09:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because people rant online (via comments) about "class-action" doesn't mean anything has proceeded to anything approaching that level, so it's not a real measure of criticism. Apart from a "gripe line" comment that "a class action lawsuit can't be far behind" from 2005, and some discussion of a 2000 class action to do with information and privacy.
Personally, I don't consider what's left to be pro-Intuit. It seems to me to be basically factual and neutral. Perhaps the criticism could be expanded (or, if it's big enough, it's own topic like Criticism of Microsoft), but it should not just become just a collection of complaints, as that's not particularly encyclopedic.
"Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller
--Bdoserror 06:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I didn't mean to suggest it should be a rant section, but what criticism is there does seem very rudimentary--thrown in as if to say "Look we showed the other side." On the other hand, the description of the products, for example, is peppered with words like "advantage", "discount", "popular", "free", and other breezy, positive language. Sorry, I didn't mean to focus on the criticism section exclusively. It just feels like they wrote it; doesn't it? --Robb0995 08:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
True enough, it does have a bit of positive spin there. Not quite sure how to neturalize it though. Might be worth trying to compare it to Microsoft to see how to word things better. --Bdoserror 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


From Rani....

Reading the text left no doubt in my mind that Intuit employees or salespeople were heavily involved in its content. Completely one-sided representations that fail to touch on many serious problems including the terrible tech support, serious privacy risk, the way they basically blackmail people into buying new products that cost hundreds of dollars but are only minimally different from previous versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rani Lueder (talk • contribs) 01:09, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add documented issues to the Criticism section. I removed the one you added to the TurboTax section as it was 4 years old. -- Bdoserror 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for adding an old link, hadn't noticed. Rani —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.98.58 (talk) 19:09, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

A few comments about your latest edit (which I have removed):
  1. Please sign in when editing so we know who is making the changes, otherwise we can only see an anonymous IP address. And then please remember to sign your comments on the Talk page with ~~~~, which Wikipedia will automatically convert to you login ID.
  2. Your edit, as "personal experience", was removed as it violates the no original research policy of Wikipedia. If you can find independent, verifiable citations to back up your edit then feel free to re-add the change. Also, the tone of your comment seemed to violate the neutral point of view policy, so it should be re-written without language like "force-feeds". Thanks. -- Bdoserror 01:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zipingo

I moved the link to contractor disambiguation to independent_contractor. If you think that general_contractor is a better bet, please correct the link. Please don't link back to the disambiguation page! LeeG 17:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featuring Google Products?

[1] I didn't read too much into the article; just putting it here if anyone wants to add it to the article.

I'm not surprised. I took the photos of the Googleplex and Intuit headquarters and I noticed that they are very close to each other (the northernmost Google building is across the street from the southernmost Intuit building). It would have been very easy for their execs to bump into each other while jogging around the block or visiting local restaurants. --Coolcaesar 02:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, those are old Google buildings. The main Googleplex is a few more blocks away. Still in the area, but not as neighbourly as they once were. --Bdoserror 22:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to sign my name. That Jason 22:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Culling criticism and controversies section

I'm culling some of the "Criticism and controversies" section as it flows pretty oddly. Trying to take a look at from an outsider's perspective, if I cracked open an encyclopedia to a page on Intuit, what would I want to learn about them. that "The Microsoft Money converter for Quicken does not convert Money data files to Quicken 2008"?...pretty obscure. Instead, suggest looking at it through this lens:

  • Does each side of the 'criticism' or 'controversy' have Verifiable, reliable sources?
  • Is the 'criticism' or 'controversy' relatively unique to Intuit and not the broader software/financial service industries?
  • Has the 'controversy' (as well as the individual positions) itself been discussed in a reliable source?

The company profile and product list seem fairly objective to me, I don't think the goal is to have a promotional article for Intuit. Many of these criticism belong on someone's blog. If they reach such a mindshare that 3rd party source begin to cover them, they will be added to the article, perhaps even in the lead area about the company. Cander0000 (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your deletions. Much of that text seemed to be in violation of Wikipedia policies, particularly Wikipedia:No original research. If and when those issues actually receive coverage from major news sources (e.g. Facebook's strange account deletion policy was covered today in the New York Times) then they can be restored to the article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Article issues

  • The article is written like an advertisement: "sales of Quicken grew explosively", "Quicken became a best-seller in its market", "customer support in its early years was legendary.", "with a vast array of features", etc. Spam and weasel words should be removed (nothing new so far, it was already tagged)
  • Notability of the products: The list is too long and notability of each product has to be established. It should not be a list of all products made by the company, but only of those that are notable (all others could be just mentioned on a separate paragraph). If all of them are notable, consider moving the most important ones to separate articles.
  • Criticism section in list format: It could be appropriate to write this section as a paragraph, explaining what the activation scheme from Macrovision is, and why it's use is considered controversial.
  • Citations: Statements like: "It has significant R&D activity", "company wasn't a major success until the advent of Windows 3.0 in early 1990s, when sales of Quicken grew explosively", etc need reliable, third-party sources. Iunaw 16:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Valid, points, all - what are the thoughts on splitting the products list to a seperate article - 'List of Intuit products'? The list o' products has seemed to overwhelm discussion of Intuit the company. This might provide a balance between judging whether each of the products is notable in of itself (and deserves an article), and retaining the details of the products Intuit has produced over the years Cander0000 (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest to rewrite the product list rather than moving it. Moving the whole list to a separate article is no improvement if it's still a list of products, but it could be used to improve the article in an encyclopedic way. I believe the best solution would be to put them in the article's context, giving information about the history of the company and their products, the targets they have, how these have changed over time, the success or lack of success of these products, etc. Notable products could have their own article. Look at Apple Inc or Microsoft, their products are mentioned, but from the historical perspective. Iunaw 15:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • My opinions: (1) It cite sources os many things. The "don't cite sources" should be removed. (2) The article looks like an advertisement. It should be worked to be more NPOV. (3) The POV issue is caused by the advertisement issue. So there is no need of this tag too. (4) Many of Intuit products are notable, and should have their own article. Quicken for example is one of the most used Finance Tool in the world (besides Money). It is a big shame Wikipedia only have a poor, brief, description of it. SSPecter Talk|E-Mail ◆ 05:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC).
I've created Quicken, culling some content from Intuit and inspired by the format of QuickBooks. There seems to be consensus here that some of Intuit's products are notable in of themselves, namely Quicken at the least. Article certainly can use further references, but have strived to make in neutral and avoid some of the debates over whether the article is considered advertising.Cander0000 (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)