Talk:Social business

New to Wikipedia. Looking to Offer Alternative definition for Social Business

Currently, this article suggests that the use of social software as an immediate jump to social media; however,in a recent blog post I made: https://community.jivesoftware.com/community/jivetalks/blog/2012/03/11/the-evolution-of-a-social-business

I suggest that there is in fact a gap between the definition of "social media" and the growing term, "social business" in the social industry. I would like to know how to go about making a separate page for the same term. Also, perhaps making a page for its popular acronym "socbiz"

Any guidance? Any content owners that I need to engage for approvals? Appreciate any assistance. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socbiz rutan (talk • contribs) 04:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for guidance on making a separate page for the same term with different meaning.--JayJasper (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have seen at least two other possible meanings for this term, one being a business that incorporates a social cause (for example, an existing business of any type that publicly donates a portion of profits and employee time to causes such as the Special Olympics or Habitat for Humanity) and the other being perhaps the primary meaning, that of a company incorporating social tools and processes for a wide array of functions from internal employee communication and collaboration to recruiting, engaging customers in product design, customer support, even investor relations. Support for this last definition comes from the Dion Hinchcliffe / Peter Kim book "Social Business by Design" referenced in this InformationWeek article: http://www.informationweek.com/thebrainyard/news/strategy/232901667/how-to-design-a-social-business and this Edelman blog post: http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2012/05/social_biz.html. JayJasper, can you recommend a particular disambiguation strategy to address this situation? I would be willing to draft the page for this last definition. Tomcat66 g500 (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS WAY OUT OF DATE---

Social Business relates to companies deploying social technologies to acquire and serve customers, impriving collaboration inside an organization and many other prociess improvements. I drafted and cited better defintions. It continues to be deleted. Social Business is a recent but popular trend revolutionizing the way companies function and generate value for all the constituents (stakeholders, employees, customers, partners, suppliers). http://www.socialbusinessforum.com/what-is-social-business/

Organizations can’t help but recognize that social technologies are indeed creating opportunities to acquire and serve more customers, often at lower cost. Social business also helps companies build internal communities that improve business processes. http://www.protiviti.com/socialbusiness

Businesses move from liking to leading when they look beyond social media to see how social technologies drive real business value. From marketing and sales to product and service innovation, social is changing the way people connect and the way organizations succeed. When you inspire your workforce to innovate and collaborate more productively, you create tangible business value. When you anticipate needs and deliver exceptional experiences, you delight your customers and create advocates. When you integrate your business processes with the right social tools, you secure a competitive advantage and pioneer new ways of doing business. http://www.ibm.com/social-business/us/en/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialbusinessstrategist (talk • contribs) 18:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding unsoucred info

Copied from my talk page:

Please provide reasons for reverting all my changes to the "Social Business" page. I am an expert in the field of Social Business, and I work in the sector. Please provide suggestions or changes/references you deem necessary. If I don't hear from you, I will re-insert my edits. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.234.118.62 (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, your edits weren't sourced. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and ascertain what kind of sources are needed. Also, you may be an expert, but we don't put up Original Research on Wiki, please read these links. Thank you. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I will cite the sources. Most of the text was taken or derived from Yunus' quotes, easily researchable for. Sources I will give will provide evidence for text you may have interpreted as Original Research. Differences between Social Business and charity can be drawn upon respective definitions and common practices, and are within the realm of contribution I can give as an editor expert in the field. -- 2.234.118.62

Who is Yunus? I hope you have gone thru the links I gave you completely, even if something is sourced, it needs to be a good reliable source. Also, please ensure that the prose used is suitable for an encyclopedia, otherwise someone else may have an issue with it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have read your links. "Who is Yunus?" ??? If you ask who is Yunus, 1) you know nothing about Social Business - Yunus is the Peace Nobel Prize Laureate who invented the concept of Social Business, therefore THE MOST RELIABLE SOURCE on the subject, and 2) most importantly you did not even read the wikipedia article you changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.234.118.62 (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Social Business. I never said I did. I don't need to know about a topic to undo an edit that doesn't conform to Wikipedia policies. I don't need to read the article I reverted. I reverted it because it was unsourced. You don't need to be an expert to edit an article, being an expert gives you no special right over another editor. From WP:EXPERT#General, No editor is exempt from fundamental Wikipedia policies concerning acceptability of contributions; in particular, the policies of no original research and verifiability along with guidelines such as reliable sources still apply. Although other encyclopedias might have articles based on personal "expert opinion" or unpublished conjecture, WP requires all text to be verifiable to published sources. and Experts, of course, can be wrong; and different experts can reasonably disagree on the same topic.. Have a nice day. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you two take this discussion to the Talk page of the article, where it is likely to get attention and participation from those who may be interested in editing this article. Having said that, I agree that one need not be a subject matter expert to edit any article on Wikipedia (WP:Expert) to ask for general and fundamental policies, such as the use of reliable sources, and adequate, proportional, and unbiased citations to be followed. -- Rohini (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to move the "Talk" discussion to the article page. But I don't have much more to add anyway. I know that you don't need to be an expert to undo edits not conforming to Wikipedia policies. I know that being an expert does not exempt me from having to abide to Wikipedia rules. But yes, you should actually READ at least a bit of the article you want to edit, because it gives you a little CONTEXT before you do the editing. Otherwise, this is what happens: you question the reliability of the sources I want to cite, without even knowing if they are reliable or not. You should at least do a 30-second research about the sources before questioning their reliability in the Talk discussion, instead of asking "Who is Yunus", which is the name that appears in the very first sentence of the article (!) and throughout the article. That said, I think I have amply demonstrated that - if I cite the sources, mostly from Yunus' quotes and writings, a very reliable source - I have the right to re-insert the edits as they were. I will do so as soon as I have time, and this time I will cite the sources more specifically (I had originally cited them to some extent). If I cite sources other than Yunus, please do research on them before considering them unreliable by default. Please do not change it back, unless you have different and valid reasons to do so, and please specify the reasons. Thanks. Peace. 2.234.118.62 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.234.118.62 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I have already moved it. I was using an automated tool named Stiki, which only shows me the difference between two edits, and hence I did not see the start of the article. I undid your edit because it seemed unsourced, and until you can provide a valid source, that will remain the case. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, all the references to Yunus has now been removed as advertising. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

DELETION OF PREVIOUSLY ENTERED 'Criticism' SECTION

The section 'Criticism' previously entered was flawed by :

1) Including criticism on microcredit, and therefore confusing Microcredit (a branch of Microfinance, a sector of Finance) with Social Business, a completely unrelated concept. (i.e. out-of-subject for this Wikipedia Article).

2) Reporting statements from blog opinionist website AntiCSR, self-defined as 'A critical look at Corporate Social Responsibility', which provides no information about the author organization or individuals. Also, please read Wikipedia policy about using blogs as sources for Wikipedia Articles, especially in the sections 'Statements of opinion' and 'Are weblogs reliable sources?'

3) Other non-relevant content: Addressing the 'non-dividend' distinctive feature of Social Businesses as 'ignoring the time value of money', which means to imply that Social Businesses are on the same financial framework of that of standard businesses (a person or entity who 'invests' in a Social Business is not seeking to maintain 'the time value of money', just as this is not done when donating to charity), so this content was also out-of-subject; statements about legal or moral misuse of the term and activity of 'social business', ignoring the difference between 'social business' as discussed in this Article and 'social entrepreneurship' in general; and failing to label such behavior as misuse.

4) Finally, statements criticizing Social Business from website AntiCSR were mixed with other critical statements without source.

If a 'Criticism' section is contributed with the aim of providing information on the criticism done in the past over Social Business, it must be done by including specific and relevant criticism by specific and reliable sources.

As a reminder, a Wikipedia Article is not a place to provide own criticism of the Article's subject in a section called 'Criticism'.

A 'Criticism' section is an informative section on relevant criticism already done in the past by media, organizations, individuals, and other entities which operate or are relevant in the subject of the Article, and are reliable and citable.

ADDING A 'Criticism' SECTION

Criticism of Micro-Credit is no longer included in this section. The time value of money criticism was also removed. However criticism of 'non-dividend' is still relevant, since this is a key part of Social Business. The current Criticism section is accurately sourced to AntiCSR. AntiCSR has been cited by many business students and researchers. Criticism that Social Business is vague and its features difficult to define are legitimate. Without a Criticism section, this article could be biased. Without a Criticism section, the article reads as if it is written by proponents of Social Business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.5.120 (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the current Criticism section is legitimate. It no longer references unrelated concepts.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.90.12.100 (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)