This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Denialism#Corporate denialism|corporate denialism]] The anchor (#Corporate denialism) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Neutrality[edit]

This page presently reads like a PR campaign for the company. In particular, it seems that the company has been involved in a number of high-key controversial topics where their findings have faced academic criticism. The page makes no mention of such criticism however and only presents a wholeheartedly positive image. In ancient times, apparently this page had a section on criticism published in the LA times but this section was removed without explanation by a user which also updated various company statistics. For now, I bring back the section but I do not think it constitutes a complete picture of criticism and counterpoints. -C. lorenz (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that claim is that aside from general information about the nature of the business and its history, all that was there was a brief section outlining some of the company's key projects. Those were presented in a neutral way and, gave no indication either positive or negative about what the company did on those projects.

The "Criticisms" section, rather than being labeled as such as with other articles, explicitly alleges neutrality issues. It does so with criticisms with no citations whatsoever, and then has a chief complaint that seems slanted. Any consulting firm will present its findings to its clients, and no client is going to present findings to a court if it makes them appear culpable nor will they pay a firm to testify against them. Thus it's self evident that positive findings will be publicized and negative ones won't. It's self evident that the company will testify in favor of its clients and not against them because in cases where they find against their client, it's not in their client's best interest to have them testify and would be a breach of confidentiality and a clear violation of ethics and attorney client privilege if they did it on their own. That's not a legitimate criticism but a standard lawyer ploy to discredit companies.

It seems as if a neutral article that did nothing to promote the company or make any specific claims with respect to the projects it worked on was altered to add a negative slant in the name of "neutrality." Despite claiming that it balanced things, it claimed that the article is still not neutral.

If you are going to allege that the company was involved in a number of high-key controversial topics, you should add those and give sources, not list an attack strategy that states the obvious in a twisted way. Hagrinas (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Exponent (consulting firm). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]