Talk:Walden O'Dell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] Questions for Research

I do not have time to edit this right now but would find it in the best interest of Wikipedia that this page be labeled with a "questionable neutrality" tag. This article is extremely biased and makes assertions and takes out of context quotes. It also fails to tell the truth, instead citing paranoia and suspicion rather than fact. As a sort of encyclopedia, I'd figure this site would be above an article like this. This is absolutely rediculous.

Does anybody have a link for the full text of the letter from which Mr. O'Dell's famous "committed to delivering" quote comes from? I've been trying to track it down online, but can't find it yet.--71.224.252.7 03:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Previous Talk)

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html

I'm not sure why the last contributor's edits were reverted. It seemed to add another (quite reasonable) side of the story, namely, that the influence of a CEO over lower-level programmers is pretty limited. (And the Dilbert reference is pretty funny.) Looking at the contributor's edits on other topics, it doesn't seem like this was the work of a troll.

Moderator: REVERT your EDIT! I do not have time to edit this right now but would find it in the best interest of Wikipedia that this page be labeled with a "questionable neutrality" tag. This article is extremely biased and makes assertions and takes out of context quotes. It also fails to tell the truth, instead citing paranoia and suspicion rather than fact. As a sort of encyclopedia, I'd figure this site would be above an article like this. This is absolutely rediculous.

It was an unsourced assertion of a POV. "Funny" is not a criteria we use to judge contributions. If the editor can find a legitimate source spouting the opinion then it can be added. -Will Beback 03:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)