Talk:Mocana

Who Created the Article

I am Kurt Stammberger, CISSP, a Vice President at Mocana Corporation. I have worked in computer security and cryptography for 25 years. I respect that Wikipedia is a place for neutral and well-cited information, and I will follow those guidelines in any articles I author or edit.--Wurtis65 (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability and content

Shortly after I posted this article, Way2veers nominated it for deletion (since retracted) and placed banners questioning its notability and neutrality. While I understand the general cause for concern, I want to emphasize that prior to posting here, I sought out input on these matters, and the version currently posted already reflects my effort to establish notability and keep the article neutral. This is not to say it is perfect, but if there are problems, I would hope they are few, and that they can be pointed out specifically so I can help to address them.

I believe the notability is clear: 8 of the 24 citations I included have the name "Mocana" in the headline, and those include well established general and trade publications like the Wall Street Journal and Computerworld. Many of the other citations treat Mocana and its expertise as a central element of the story even though the name is not in the headline. I believe this far exceeds the notability standard. On that basis, and in the absence of any specific comments calling the company’s notability into question, I am now removing that banner.

The other banner legitimately raises the question of whether I can neutrally write about my own company. While I believe that I have done so -- and specifically declined to include several points that I believe to be accurate, but that I can't source adequately -- I know these are matters of judgment, and others may disagree. Way2veers, or anybody else -- are there specific statements or sections that you think need work to bring them into compliance with the neutral point of view policy? If so, what are they? (I previously asked for input from WP:SOFTWARE and will now also seek input from WP:SFBAY.) -Wurtis65 (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for being transparent about your conflict of interest in this article. While it does invite greater scrutiny, it also make problems easier to fix. I won't comment on notability, as I haven't delved into sources. But I'll note that one common point of confusion on notability with regard to corporate articles is that notability requires sources to be independent of the company. That means, for instance, articles in newspapers or news sites that look like lightly edited or unedited press releases generally won't count toward notability in deletion discussions. Just something to keep in mind.

With regard to neutrality, many of the factual statements look well-sourced; in my opinion the neutrality problem is with the language--an encyclopedia article should describe the company and its products in neutral terms, not try to convince us how wonderful the company is. As an example, I have edited the lead to create a more neutral tone. Please check it for accuracy; I guessed that the two paras were talking about the same main product. The edit has removed phrases like "leading company" and "flagship product" that seem designed to promote. See what you think, --Mark viking (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your engagement here. Your edits seem fine to me; I think the term :leadership" is justified by the way Mocana is discussed in the 3 sources it was cited to, and I don't think of "flagship" as promotional so much as descriptive. But I respect your evaluation and your version of the lead section seems fine. When you do look at the sources, I think you will find they are acceptable; I avoided the kind of lightly-washed press releases you describe in the first pass.

Given that we're in agreement on your new version of the lead section, would you be willing to remove the "neutrality" banner, or are there further changes you think are necessary? -Wurtis65 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the rest of the article, I don't see any more promotional material. I have removed the CIO banner. But I am just one editor and one opinion; other editors are free to reinstate if they think there are still issues to work out that I have missed. I'll keep the page on my watchlist to monitor for further issues. Cheers, --Mark viking (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mark! --Wurtis65 (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mocana. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518011241/http://aonetwork.com/Announcing-the-2013-OnDemand-100-Top-Private-Companies/ to http://aonetwork.com/Announcing-the-2013-OnDemand-100-Top-Private-Companies/

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) 06:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)