Talk:Pearson PLC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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] Ownership
Who owns Pearson? IMO, this is the single most important information a reader should know about a publication before reading it. I've written to both the FT and the Economist asking this question but they did not respond. It may explain why the Economist should want to hand over several pages of its magazine to the ex-director of the Israeli Secret Service, for example, in one issue.
- If you're really interested, buy one share and go to Shareview to get the information. It appears that the information is not completely publicly available for non-shareholders. --Alvestrand 17:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- There is an EDA company with the name of Prentice Hall-PTR/ Pearson Education, Inc. There are also some other big names in the game of publishing who have their fingers in chip design industry: McGraw-Hill and Elsevier. Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_EDA_companies. Biblbroks 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I agree that ownership is really needed to be added.
Actually I only entered this page to point out that the ownership is really missing and actually I myself entered the page with the sole purpose of finding out who are the big owners behind such an important media giant. Whoever has useful information about the owners, please add it. Smallchanges 21:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Infoplease
This should probably just be merged into here. It's a small one paragraph article, which could fall easily under this article's scope. Quadzilla99 11:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Criticisms POV
Both paragraphs in the Criticisms section need citations. The second paragraph seems to have been written by someone hostile to the company. SlowJog 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I just noticed this and agree. I'm going to remove it seeing as how it was made by a user who has only edited 2 articles. It is here for future refrence:
- Pearson also tends to sacrifice customer service to the god of corporate-conglomeration on a regular basis. They are now SO BIG and SO FAR from their core mission, that they can barely sense their customers any more. As a result, school children and teachers are often left wanting as this megolith of a company tries to steer through the rapidly changing world of K-12 education. Unfortunately, there no longer exists any meaningful regulation system to keep monstrosities like this from devastating the K-12 text market."
The POV paragraph was restored with the following criticism aimed at those who would remove it:
So big they are, that they can even hire 'wiki-scrubbers' to assure that public webpages reflect the tightly-manged corporate image rather than the reality of how people really view them. If you are so lucky to see these last two paragraphs today, you can rest assured you will NOT see them tomorrow.
Ricseager: Your edits come across as though you have an ax to grind against Pearson. If you want to include such information, please cite sources and use NPOV language.
SlowJog 23:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
