Talk:STATISTICA
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] EntropyAS
This is NOT the place to give a full sales spruke on Statistica. There is a link to Statsoft's website (do you work for them perhaps?) where people can get that kind of detail.
Perhaps you might want to add a concise list of the features Statistica has that differentiate it from SPSS, SAS and S and R. That would be useful as long as it wasn't a sales brochure. As an example of what is NOT appropriate, your section on the use of Statistica in various industries - SPSS and SAS are used in all the industries you list, and given that Staistica doesn't run on mainframes, you'll find that banking and finance (for example ) at the big end of town would regard Statistica as a toy.
Don't get me wrong, Statistica is an awesome piece of software for performing stats on a PC, and is a pleasure to use (much nicer to use than SPSS). But WP is not the place for sales brochures. Johnpf 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I should also point out that the continuing dumping of text will make people who look at the History of this page doubt Statsoft's ethics. You might want to think about that before you TextDump here again. Johnpf 23:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 63.172.193.43
This person is an employee of Statsoft Inc:
$ whois 63.172.193.43
Sprint SPRN-BLKS (NET-63-160-0-0-1)
63.160.0.0 - 63.175.255.255
STATSOFT, INC. SPRINTLINK (NET-63-172-193-32-1)
63.172.193.32 - 63.172.193.47
Perhaps StatSoft would be happier for this page to be deleted? Or should we just get a block from their netblock?
Please Mr StatSoft/EntropyAS, if you are going to write an article on STATISTICA then make it an article, not a sales brochure. Mind you, if STATISTICA is as good as YOU claim it is, with the market penetration you claim, then why do you have to put a sales brochure on WP anyway? Johnpf 22:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you really think deletion of this talk page in any way supports your position of using WP as a sales brochure? Look at the edit history of this discussion page. Johnpf 23:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Johnpf
Thank you for removing the vandalism from the Statistica page. I can see that you are a very active and concerned member of the Wikipedia community, and I do admit that I am new at this, so please forgive me if I am asking this in the wrong forum. My intention when adding info to the Statistica page was to present information about the software in a similar fashion as SAS, SPSS, and other software companies had done. I am wondering what was specifically different about the information that was originally on the Statistica site and what is currently on other software vendors' pages. I am well aware of the policy against advertising on Wikipedia, and I'm very happy that these conventions are in place so that I can learn only objective facts about a subject matter. However, it seems like each of my attempts to revise this page and add only basic facts is labeled as "Advertising". Could you please offer suggestions about how you draw the line between fact and advertising? Or perhaps let us know which paragraphs you feel are offensive to the policy? I appreciate the guidance. Sincerely EntropyAS 22:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have to admit that I don't really care about the SPSS/SAS articles, as I don't have any recent experience with their products, and as such can't provide an objective and impartial view of an article about them. Over 10 years ago I taught stats at a University, and the version of SPSS for Windows we used certainly would of done a good job of selling copies of STATISTICA, as it looked like the older batch version I'd used on DEC-20 systems back in 1981, but with a set of forms in front of it - a truly horrible interactive program. Perhaps it's changed by know (I'd certainly hope so!). In terms of what you've done in the past, you've basically dumped a VERY long list of the tests and procedures that the product has. I took the liberty to look at some of the marketing material available from StatSoft, and what you wrote looked very much like it was lifted straight from there. Maybe it wasn't a straight lift, but it LOOKED like it was, and that is what made me think "ads!". The information in question read like a marketing spiel, complete with "weasel words". Perhaps you could list the features that discriminate STATISTICA from the other players (not just a list of every feature) so as to contrast the difference (in my mind it's the fact that STATISTICA is a far more interactive program, but that's probably a bit simplistic). Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=STATISTICA&diff=74104353&oldid=71901776 and see the section on Data Miner in the Analytics section. Things listed there are pretty much the menu choices - "General Modeler/Multivariate Explorer" is the Statsoft name for some functionality, and doesn't actually tell us very much about what it does (explorer - like Windows Explorer? or Internet Explorer? or perhaps it automagically tries to "explore the data and find a multivariate function the data fits?) Do you see how the actual information content is really very low? Most of the page below the contents box is like that. Go down further, where much is made of "Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance", yet no link is included to what that actually is. That section could be changed to include links to Sarbanes-Oxley and Document Management Systems and then reduce the section to "STATISTICA includes tools to assist in complying with Sarbanes-Oxley requirements for data collection and retention." which includes the facts, allows readers to look further into what a Sarbanes-Oxley is, and is parsimonious.
- Actually, parsimony is an important keyword for articles like this. Wise use of Reference links will allow you to point the reader to Statsoft pages for line-by-line breakdown of the entire feature set of STATISTICA. Try to put yourself in the role of someone who has no idea what STATISTICA does or is, and then look at that page. Will the reader be enlightened or confused? I maintain that a huge text dump confuses the reader. The use of marketing language ("weasel words") could easily leave the reader believing that STATISTICA is solely a tool for business to perform market research, and little else. We both know that's not the case, in fact STATISTICA is probably the ideal tool for quick data exploration in the field for ecologists and social scientists.
- I can appreciate that you are probably very proud of your software, and I know from experience that one gets emotionally attached to the "modules" and their labels when you've developed a great piece of software. But when writing an encyclopedia article you must put all that aside. Ask yourself the following question: "In 30 years time, when Statsoft is gone and forgotten, and people are wanting to look at the technologies of the late 20th and early 21st century, would this article let them know what STATISTICA is, or would it try to sell them a product that no longer exists?". Keep in mind as well that someone who knows what all the "buzzwords" mean probably already has been exposed to STATISTICA - if they're looking at the article in WP they are probably looking for other links and references, or else are looking to discriminate the product from the others in the market. The person who doesn't know that much about stats (i.e. someone who is just looking for a tool to do a job) won't know all the buzzwords, and probably doesn't care about them anyway. They want something that seems easy to use and apply correctly (which STATISTICA does, although you'd be hard pressed to recognise that from the article!!).
- Finally, I've had articles torn to pieces, I've had articles deleted, vandalised and corrupted. I've had articles re-written by history revisionists (particularly to do with bushrangers). In my opinion it's much harder to write well for Wikipedia than it is to write for most journals. I don't revert your edits just because you have a Statsoft IP address (although that is bending the rules). I revert them because they're not good encyclopedia articles, and they especially don't do the product justice, they read like a sales brochure. A program that is clear and easy to use should have a WP article that reflects that, not an article that attempts to "impress by volume". I appreciate that there is probably someone high up at Statsoft who wants an article in WP - they need to realise that a good WP article will entice people to visit Statsoft, without reading like a sales brochure. Have you ever been to an academic conference, where there's a short "sales pitch" by some company like Hearnes, where they try to sell you all sorts of books and softwares? Remember your reaction to the glossy "we can change the way you work" literature in the promo packages? That's what you should desperately avoid!
- I hope this helps, and please feel free to ask me any questions the above has raised. Johnpf 01:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to address my questions -- You have definitely given me some good things to think about. Have a good weekend. EntropyAS 13:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
