Talk:MicroStrategy/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This is an archive of past discussions about MicroStrategy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Curiosities
No User Review/Critical Reviews
This article makes it look like Microstrategy was downloaded straight from the heavens. No shortcomings? No glitches? Is this real? Burhan Habib (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Conflict of interest concern
See this COI noticeboard post for discussion. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Steps toward improving this article
I just made a pretty bold edit removing a lot of content, so I'd like to explain it. :) An editor representing this company, User:WWB Too, has confirmed the problems I described in my COI noticeboard post and invited me to help him improve this article - see the "Microstrategy" section of my talk page. I agree with his assessment that the article is a "very long mess" that needs a rewrite, and I decided that a reasonable first step for the meantime would be to cut the content sourced to press releases (or unsourced), including redundant and excessive details. Since the COI editors who added that content also added other content sourced to secondary sources, it seems likely that the content sourced only to press releases was less significant. Usually I prefer to preserve poorly-sourced information if it's potentially verifiable, but in this case, improving neutrality means removing some detail. As far as I can tell, the primary contributors to this article were working for the company, and the company is unhappy with the current state of the article, so I don't think that this will be controversial despite it being a huge edit, but I'm definitely open to discussion. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
New proposed draft
 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
As Dreamyshade mentions above, I approached her to ask for help improving this article, with a view to making it a better overview of the company's operations in line with Wikipedia guidelines. As the warning tags on the current version correctly observe, MicroStrategy employees had directly edited the article before, however they are now very aware that they should not have done this. I've been working with them on a new draft for the article, one that trims out the promotional material from the current article and focuses on encyclopedic details about the company's history, activities and products. It's taken longer than I originally expected, but I've now been able to add the complete draft article into my userspace (note that the categories and non-free logo are disabled, and would need to be re-enabled if moved to the mainspace):
Overall, I've condensed the article into three main sections: Overview, History and Products, streamlined the introduction and removed the jargony "Technology timeline". In more detail, the draft I propose includes the following:
- Overview provides a summary of the company's business activities and its organization, including some of the information currently under Company in the live article. However, I've removed the details about the employees' training program and companies ex-employees have gone on to found. I also did not include here the recognition by Forbes, which I've instead placed into the History, nor the company's placement in Gartner's Magic Quadrant, since I did not find any third-party sources covering it. I have also trimmed the mention of the MicroStrategy World conference.
- The History section largely covers the same material, but corrects and clarifies the details around the 2000 SEC investigation and charges and removes the extraneous details regarding Michael J. Saylor's press appearances and publication of his book. I've also left out the patent-infringement suit, which was settled in favor of MicroStrategy, since such patent suits are not uncommon in the software industry and was not a major event in the company's history. Where relevant, I've included details of the company's software developments, in place of the separate "Technology timeline".
- Products in my draft incorporates the information about products currently in the article's introduction and details from the existing Products section. As much as possible I've tried to eliminate the jargon and removed promotional details, such as the mention of the positive review of version 9.3 of its business intelligence software. I've removed the long list of activities currently found at the top of the section, replacing this with a summary of the company's products. Below that, I've included a short but complete description of each product or service
The draft turned out longer than I originally expected it, so if it would help I'm open to working through changes section-by-section. On the other hand, if others would prefer to compare the draft and current article as a whole, that works for me. Although I've tried hard to balance MicroStrategy's interests with Wikipedia's, I'd like to have others to review this from a neutral, disinterested perspective. I'm happy to answer any questions, and if you'd like to make changes directly in my userspace, please feel free. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've made some initial comments on the draft at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help#MicroStrategy and Michael J. Saylor. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- For posterity, here's a working link to Qwyrxian's comments: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help/Archive 3#MicroStrategy and Michael J. Saylor. I just put a modified version of WWB Too's draft into the main article - here's a diff of his draft and my version.
- First, I toned down the language to be a little more neutral and less corporate. To address Qwyrxian's comments that listing customers is unusual for corporate articles, I moved the list of notable customers out of the lead (into the "Overview" section), I removed the somewhat trivial examples of using Wisdom, and I also removed notes about specific customers from the "Products" section. I agree with Qwyrxian on removing those details from "Products" partly because that information is more about the company's sales than about describing the actual products. I also trimmed a few less-important details from the Products section.
- A neutral list of competitors seems OK to me; as a non-expert reader, it helps me understand the company better. I removed a sentence that implied that MicroStrategy was the best of the competitors though.
- I added back a couple details from the existing article about the post-SEC investigation stock drop, and I removed a couple details that seemed fluffy ("200 Best Small Companies in America", "best business apps of the year").
- The current article seems reasonably straightforward to me, and at least an improvement in readability and "generally making sense" over the old article, especially since the old article was mostly written by people from the company anyway. Hopefully sticking this into main space will encourage further improvements! Dreamyshade (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Second proposed draft
Hello again, Dreamyshade. As I mentioned Friday, I've just uploaded my second take on the article. Here are two links that should help its consideration:
Some of my changes are based on recent developments or better consistency—for example, Angel is no longer a subsidiary of MicroStrategy, so I've removed it from the infobox; I've also replaced "&" with "and" in the infobox, for the sake of consistency. Overall it is broadly similar to the version you posted Friday; not surprising, perhaps, given that we were both working from Qwyrxian's comments. For example, we also both merged the discussion of competitors into the Overview section, although we did so in slightly different ways.
We also both removed discussion of companies that use the various MicroStrategy products from the Products section, instead focusing on the products themselves. One reason to prefer the newer version of this section: I think my first attempt on it was a bit list-y, and the new one I think flows better; it's also just three paragraphs, closer to Qwyrxian's suggestion of two.
The other biggest difference between this version and yours is that I've added in an Awards and recognition section, and moved the detail about Apple's recognition of them here. I also made sure to stick with unambiguously RS citations for the details now added.
I realize you made some additional changes, so you may want to consider my draft on a section-by-section basis. I'll also ping Qwyrxian and see if he's interested in having another look. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- This has now been completed following a longer explanation and brief discussion at WikiProject Cooperation. There is a small outstanding matter: the logo still needs to be re-enabled, but otherwise I consider this page complete. Anyone who comes across this later, and has any questions or comments, should feel free to ask me on my user Talk page. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Article needs help.
This is a really light article and reads like an advert for the company. Besides having a small market share and a fraction of the customers of many other vendors in the space, MicroStrategy has a tumultuous financial history that goes far beyond what is listed in the two lines of this article. In fact, MicroStrategy signified one of the most significant breakdowns in corporate governance at the time. They are also one of the few companies to survive and thrive after a reverse stock split. Their financial history is far more interesting than the products they sell.Research guru 100 (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Working on updating page to include more recent information and news. Crysb (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks Crysb! --CvS 18:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisvonsimson (talk • contribs)
- Made a number of edits and additions to the article. Please feel free to advise if you spot any missing/inaccurate information. Thanks all! Crysb (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I just removed a garish POV advert from this page. It appears that Microstrategy is a business analysis software package. It would be helpful if someone with knowledge of this package could write it up a bit.
I've read the article. It is quite precise, indeed. There is not much to tell about Microstrategy without going into products descriptions - and that is too much fine-grained. It is a OLAP tool suplier, who uses it to assemble a limited set of Business Inteligence solutions (it does not have Data mining, for instance). All that are to be told about what it do is already written in some other article. 161.148.37.170 13:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (Gaeta).
Typo Just fixed a typo - Micto to Micro.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.90.34 (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Note re: COI
Recently, I saw that this article had been edited in response to a claim made on the Help Desk that individuals from MicroStrategy have been editing this page. I'd like to clarify that the current version of the article was written by me and moved live following discussions with a number of editors, per the above sections on this Talk page. I was working for MicroStrategy at the time that I prepared the draft, and I disclosed this COI and did not directly edit the page at any point. At the time that I started work on the article, individuals from MicroStrategy had previously edited directly, however I explained to them that this was not best practice and to the best of my knowledge they have not directly edited since then. I understand if editors disagree with any specific wording used in the article, but I want to make clear that others previously reviewed and agreed with that wording. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Noted that the Headquarters and Based in Locations do not match. First Paragraph placed organization in Washington State and Sidebar places organization in Virginia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.250.221 (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposed merge with MicroStrategy Analytics
2 articles covering the same material, with significant duplication DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely familiar with this but I agree in that there's no much to suggest separable articles and Analytics seems to be summarized nicely at the MicroStrategy company article. Considering this, I'll likely support (preferably redirect instead though) but I'd like to hear from others (please ping). SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm on the fence here. I created this article, thinking others more familiar with the product would put in more detail. My model was how there are very detailed technical ex:Microsoft Excel articles showing coding samples, in addition to a Microsoft article. I think the history of paid editing has discouraged other editors from contributing. If we were to add a corresponding amount of info to each of the MicroStrategy products, the article could start to become unwieldy. As it is now, because the info in both articles is so similar, you could probably get away with merging the articles, and adding the software screen shot. Merging the history sections will be slightly more problematic but since it seems to be the flagship product, it's not a surprise that most of the history is about it. If more info is eventually added, the Analytics standalone article can always be restored.Timtempleton (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Any similar log analysis tools?
I used Microstrategy's Web a lot in my previous company (which is a very large web company), but now I'm working in a relatively small company which can't afford Microstrategy's Web. I'm just wondering are there any similar tools for log analysis?
Tools like AWStats or Webalizer are simply not my choice. What I need is much complex analysis tool. For example, I can
- query one specific URL's Refeffers, sessions and PVs,
- use filters to find the right data, let's say...find one specific URL's sessions and PVs given by one specific Refeffer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix Ding (talk • contribs) 04:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
You could try the free version of MicroStrategy. I think it is called MicroStrategy Desktop or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.255.81.34 (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
