Talk:ZoomInfo

In my view this is not encyclopedic content, especially as it is sourced only to company's website. Moving here for now, for discussion. I made the section header bold instead of keeping it as a section, to keep this in one Talk page section. There was a reference just floating - I anchored it to a placeholder {floaty citation) text.

Platform

(floaty citation)^[1]

- Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with removing the content. Wikipedia doesn't need to list every single component of a software service, and I think integrating a little bit of this information (if even that) with another section would be adequate. Appable (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Moving this here from the article. Most of these are sourced to press releases - we need independent sourcing to show it is noteworthy and assign appropriate weight.

Awards

Note - there was a longer version earlier that was trimmed by Appable in this dif to reach the list above. Maybe that is good enough? Full list is below.

Awards (older, longer version)

- Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I am proposing this edit on behalf of ZoomInfo. I am a paid editor and aware of the COI guidelines. I am submitting this edit request to propose edits that would correct out-of-date information and add further information about the company. I’ve provided an overview of proposed edits below. Thanks for your time and consideration.

ZoomInfo used to be called DiscoverOrg until 2019 when it rebranded. The founders of this company are Henry Schuck and Kirk Brown. Please remove Yonatan Stern, as he was the founder of the original Zoom Information, that was purchased by DiscoverOrg in 2019.

While Zoom Information (also known as Zoominfo) was founded in 2000, the current ZoomInfo (which used to be called DiscoverOrg) was founded in 2007. Can someone please change the founded year in the info box to 2007 to reflect the correct dates for the company that the article is about?

Thanks

Tehila.stern (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

I am proposing this edit on behalf of ZoomInfo. I am a paid editor and aware of the COI guidelines.

I would like to recommend updates to the services and solutions section. The current version lacks information about the product and business model of the business. In general I would recommend an update to this section, but my own proposed update would include: "ZoomInfo bases its pricing on credit usage, number of licenses and functionality. Cost per credit and cost per license can vary depending on usage. The information ZoomInfo provides is also based on customer needs, with credit costs based on the depth of information needed by a customer. All customers can access traditional demographic and firmographic details. Advanced credits are needed to view intelligence categories like technographics and department budgets. Add-on solutions to the ZoomInfo platform can also impact pricing."

CITATION: https://www.martechcube.com/martech-interview-vp-product-marketing-zoominfo-peggysue-werthessen/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehila.stern (talk • contribs) 11:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not for advertising products; the proposed change seems to be clear advertising, for example referring to customers and the cost of the products. Furthermore, the provided reference is to an interview with a marketer for the company, rather than a neutral independent source. Spencer^T•C 01:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I came here because I just received mail from this company, with subject "Notice of personal information processing". I think they violate the EU GDPR on a grand scale. Basically they are saying "We collect the following types of Personal Information about you:

Name
Profile picture associated with your professional 
Telephone number (general or direct business numbers, faxes, and/or mobile numbers)
Email address, including business and/or other email addresses (including “freemails” such as Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, etc.)
Job title and department
Office address
Company name
Work history
Education history
Professional affiliations
Links to social media profiles
Links to articles by, about, or quoting you (“web references”)
Inferences drawn from personal data in these categories

A scary amount of information.

The mail continues to explain in some detail what they want to do with the info (basically to provide it to their clients, including to sell it). They do provide a link to opt-out, but GDPR requires opt-in.

The mail states that "ZoomInfo is a registered data broker" in some US states.

The lead should explain at elementary school level what this company is getting their money for. Currently, it reads "is a software and data company which provides data for companies and business individuals." This obscures more than it explains.

As a start, I added this to the lead: Zoominfo is a commercial search-engine, specialized in contact and business information. From internet and other sources, the company collects contact and other information about individuals, companies and other business entities, such as departments. They maintain profiles for the subjects and make these available to their clients, as a service and for a fee.

Now if only some reliable secondary source had written this. 77.180.180.175 (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I too came here, as today I received an e-mail from this company in clear violation of the GDPR. I never heard about ZoomInfo prior to their spam-mail and sure never allowed them to process data about me. I am a EU-citizen. In the e-mail they state that "ZoomInfo may transfer Personal Information internationally" (which is not allowed under the GDPR), and "ZoomInfo gathers Personal Information from several sources" (under the GDPR this also is not allowed: you have to get explicit, informed consent from each single individual in advance - no OptOut!). And then they write "ZoomInfo is ZoomInfo Technologies LLC, and we are located at 805 Broadway St, Suite 900, Vancouver, WA 98660" (so they are not located in the EU and thus not allowed to treat data from EU-citizens a priori). Sajoch (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Listen up please everybody. First up, I do sympathise with the frustration on show here. The trouble is that there isn't really anything that Wikipedia can do about it. This is an encyclopaedia and this page is not a general forum for airing grievances with Zoominfo. That said, the article could do with some coverage of criticism of the company but only if it is derived from reliable sources and presented in a neutral manner. If anybody has any suggestions for sources we can use then please feel free to suggest them but only if they meet the criteria in WP:RS. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

• What I think should be changed: I am a paid editor and acknowledge the COI guidelines.

Remove the following passage from the Controversies section:

Multiple organizations have issued warnings to their employees, customers, students, and other related parties regarding emails from ZoomInfo, zoominformation.com, and m.zoominfo-privacy.com.[16][4][17][18] The emails, while not technically claiming to be related to the popular videoconference software Zoom,[16][17] are vague enough that many unassuming email recipients may confuse the two;[16][19] there is speculation that the vague resemblance is intentional,[17] with ZoomInfo hoping to trick the recipients into clicking on the email's links,[17][20][21] thereby providing ZoomInfo with the personal information of both recipient and all those who email to or are emailed by the recipient[22][23] which ZoomInfo can then sell.[17] Zoom has felt the need to issue clarifying statements on the issue, too.[19] While technically not illegal, this approach has been called "voluntary malware"[24] and been noted as "morally questionable" as a legal borderline version of phishing[21][20] – hence the warnings published by many organizations to their employees and customers.[21][20]

• Why it should be changed: Baseless speculation from anonymous Reddit users does not constitute well-researched content and has no business being on Wikipedia. As a previous Talker stated: "This is an encyclopaedia and this page is not a general forum for airing grievances with Zoominfo." These criticisms are uninformed, inaccurate, derived from unreliable sources and not presented in a neutral manner, all of which goes against Wikipedia guidelines.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

^[1]

^[2]

Rob.morse.zoominfo (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Not done: While I do think that the section needs to be re-written with sources that aren't self-published, the sources that you provided are not reliable. One is to a forum post and the other is to, what it looks like, an AI written article. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 15:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

We welcome a rewrite using authentic, news-based sources, rather than those sourced from comment sections.

AIThority is actually a media outlet covering the AI space: "AiThority.com covers AI technology news, editorial insights and digital marketing trends from around the globe. Updates on modern marketing tech adoption, AI interviews, tech articles and events." https://aithority.com/

Additionally, ZoomInfo is an A+ Accredited Business on Better Business Bureau: https://www.bbb.org/us/wa/vancouver/profile/digital-marketing/zoominfo-1296-22673812

@Cowboygilbert Rob.morse.zoominfo (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I've nuked the controversial section which (to my chagrin) appears to make me the agent of a shifty sales company doing shifty things to cover up their dubious business practices.

however...

Shifty sales company, for all their shiftiness, has seemingly done a good job of crisis management and no reputable media firms have reported on their shiftiness. This means that it's not appropriate to disparage them in this article, because to do so is WP:OR. I am very much open to reinstating an verifiable version if appropriate sources can be found. BrigadierG (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I know it's easy to follow a company's description of itself in its own IPO filings (and its surrounding media attention / hype), but WP:CENSOR require us to write in plainly descriptive languages. The subject is not in the industry of "software as a service" (not even an actual industry: What software? does Steam count too? Apple for their OS? Cloud gaming? Adobe?), it's a data broker, plain and simple.

I've rewritten the article entirely with (maybe brutally honest) plain language. The company's receiving quite some media attention recently to warrant its page a stay in Wikipedia, just not for the reason they hoped for. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 15:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

e.g., the "data broker" in infobox - you can't just say that it is not one. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 23:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It should also be noted that WP:NCORP places a stricter restriction on references for corporations in that sources are required to be in-depth. Merely listing news reports of business dealings and technical financial statistics might be in-depth, but it might not be the sole concern of our readers. It is likely that an article about a company with many news records yet little discussion of what it is actually doing is not encyclopedic nor informative. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 23:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi IrisChronomia. Through your last two revert to the article, your comments have demonstrated the politeness you show toward other editors. I will refrain from reproaching you in any way, since before editing I consulted some of Wikipedia policies (which, it seems, someone else did not do).

I would like to mention that the edits you made to article were partially reverted . Removing the External Links section and the list of categories appears more like a disruptive change .

The information you are repeatedly trying to add to the article was removed in the past (see – None of these are good sources - WP:SPS. Wikipedia isn't a battleground to WP:RGW and punish companies for practices which may or may not be ethically dubious. In the meantime, let's not load up on WP:OR and WP:UNDUE), and I fully agree with that decision because it lacks WP:OR (see also ).

For my part, I have expanded the article with important information in the History, Acquisitions, and other sections that are also typically found in similar companies. Thanks! Jehandy (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You're this good at Wikipedia policies?

Yes, I get it that you're hinting at me not consulting any policies, being uncivil, and being disruptive.

Would you like to explain to me, why did you think that removing the data broker from infobox industry was a good idea? 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 23:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Since you like internal links, your additions were blatant WP:PUFFERY and decidedly not WP:NPOV. They read like they came straight off the company's website. You have been (correctly, IMHO) reverted twice, and continuing like this would likely be deemed an WP:EDITWAR.

@IrisChronomia it looks like they were pushing to recategorize it as IT. Seems pretty cut and dry to me considering they're literally registered as brokers, but it's in the body anyway and infoboxes have a tendency to get bulky so it might be easier to just let that part go. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. It helps. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 03:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@IrisChronomia I'm here to support as well, and I'm very curious what exactly motivated Jehandy's recent flurry of edits to whitewash this company page, and removal of a UPE maintenance tag on another page without seeming to meaningfully address the tag (or respond to the open talk page conversation about said tag).

Jehandy, do you have any conflicts of interest with the topics you've been editing? I see from your user page that you are an experience contributor to the French Wikipedia; while that's awesome, it's my understanding that en.wiki has much more stringent controls and requirements around paid editing, so while we're all aggressively quoting the policies and guidelines at others (hashtag, IrisChronomia did nothing wrong, lol), I'd encourage you to thoroughly review the documentation on what constitutes a conflict of interest on this wiki.

The community here in general (including me!) is not happy about undisclosed paid editing (which is not limited to "someone paid me to make this exact edit," but includes marketing roles and jobs which indirectly incentivize such "whitewash" editing). Best wishes finding the best ways you can contribute, which hopefully don't involve a continuation of the patterns I've just described which are blatant in your recent edits!

(Note: immediately edited this after submitting, as I was incorrect about the second company page- a thorough criticism section was included and cited there, albeit to sources I can't check due to language. en.wiki is full of new users trying to promote or whitewash companies, but it seems I was mistaken in the case of the Flying Whale page. The attempted edits to this page were still inappropriate imo)Sophiatries (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC) edited Sophiatries (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have restored the article to a balanced version with verified information cited from notable media sources. Any further discussions about other articles, please address them in their respective places, as it is difficult for me to respond here.

I would like to mention that I have no COI and that I edit articles in good faith. I will leave it to any administrator to review both versions and determine which one is correct. Jehandy (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It is not up to administrators to deal with content disputes. That's what consensus is for. If you can't engage in discussion to explain your reasoning you have no business editing Wikipedia, because Communication is required. Please stop making changes to the article until agreement is reached. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jehandy, are you using a translator to communicate? Your responses are incredibly generic and do not seem to address the majority of the issues people are raising with you, which is very common in AI/chatbot-generated responses.

Please note that using such generative tools in Talk Page discussions on en.wiki is frowned upon- we would all rather hear from you directly, no matter how "polished" your English usage is. I'm a native speaker, but on talk pages I write informally (some would say rambling-ly, lol) myself, because it's ideal for us to all converse as our real selves and find a great consensus together.

Thank you for answering the COI question, no offense was meant, it's simply a red flag when someone is putting apparent work into "protecting" the reputation of a company or living individual on the encyclopedia, as most of the time that is only done by those who have a particular stake in the matter. I know all the versions of Wikipedia work differently, and I'm still learning en.wiki policies despite reading the documentation for more than a year straight now, so as long as we all collaborate in good faith there's always more to uncover!

As noted below, please do not revert to your preferred changes again without reaching consensus here: another important norm in this community. Thanks! Sophiatries (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

You're reverting against the implicit consensus. And if you revert again, it would be explicitly against the consensus. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 00:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)