Talk:RCS&RDS
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided - the DigiFilm external link has absolutely nothing to do with RCS&RDS, thus it has no reason to be mentioned on this page. -- Wikimalu | Talk 12:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The "Criticism" section of the RCS&RDS article does not respect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, is completely irrelevant to the description (as opposed to the perception) of the company, and the only refferences it quotes are romanian language online news, which have a very small refference value due to bombastic headlines and emphasis on shock value, a la tabloids. Worth mentioning is the fact that a "Criticism" section is not part of any of the commonly accepted articles about (other) companies. -- Wikimalu | Talk 07:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not irrelevant - criticism/controversy pages over services exist for the pages of many companies in Wikipedia, such as AOL, AT&T, Microsoft, and seems to be an accepted practice on en:wiki. There are even whole pages dedicated to criticism of companies and corporations, such as Criticism of Microsoft. Even companies within Romania have a criticism headline such as Romtelecom, so I find this argument as void. Furthermore, it is NPOV since the perception of a company is very important, RDS having a highly negative image in many segments of Romanian society, it is necessary to bring out reasons for it. Furthermore, the statements are referenced - I did not make up the erdeesh commercials that became a media phenomenon, being aired on national television and radio, nor did I publish articles and comments on the state of their service. Oh, and the "bombastic" article you were writing about was in published media, not on-line media, hot news being some sort of news aggregation service. Furthermore, I cannot find any references in English, since the company does not operate outside Romania. --Xanthar 21:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I should rephrase, since apparently I gave the impression that I'm opposed to cricism/controversy. The major examples you offered have one thing in common. They have controversy sections in the page of the main article, with "Criticism of XYZ" being separate articles. Please keep in mind that controversial issues are completely different from criticism, since the later often implies more informed opinions. For instance, bill delays affect under 10% of the RCS&RDS Bucharest customers, being a virtually unheard of mishap in the rest of the country. This makes the issue at most controversial, since it's clearly not definitory for the company's business practices per se. Further more, the placement of the "Criticism" section in the article comes before the services, which are a part of the company's definition (thus within the scope of the article). My suggestion is that following the precedents of the AOL, AT&T, Microsoft articles, there should either be a "Controversies" section placed after the company's definition in the article (which means after services and company-pertaining notes), or a wholly different "Criticism of" article, a la Criticism of Microsoft. -- Wikimalu | Talk 16:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
