245:
companies, the
Software Top 100 makes claims about the relative size of each company in the list. In this claim, the ranking, Software Top 100 is different from a tertiary source like Knowledge (XXG), that summarizes other sources. As the policy states, it is hard to distinguish between primary, secondary and tertiary sources; often, the viewpoint is subjective and contextual. Although there is a stated preference for secondary sources, there is no absolute policy only to use secondary sources. In general, Knowledge (XXG) de facto allows rankings as sources, given the many, many quotes of rankings like Forbes in Knowledge (XXG) articles. This is useful, as it provides an indication of size for a matter discussed in an article. If anyone thinks rankings should not be allowed as sources in Knowledge (XXG), I am interested to hear the reasons.--
160:
hard-copy newspaper had cited ST100 as a source for an article. That would indicate that the newspaper would be a reliable secondary source, which doesn't directly help you, as far as I know. Seriously, all you have to do is tell us "go to the news-stand and buy this (respectable) magazine and look at this article who mentions ST100." A good starting point might be the name of your trademark registrar and registrant number or something. I know I've looked up U.S. registered trademarks online before. That would indicate you may be a reliable primary source. (Again, secondary sources are preferred for WP article content.)
30:, please notice they still do not mention Sony. Upon visiting the page and its discussion page, you might also notice, that Forbes only has 32 "software" companies listed, of which most would argue that these companies do not sell any software. The same counts for Software Magazine, that publishes a list of Software
49:
If a discussion were to develop, it would be easiest to do one point at a time. If I wanted to help you, I would suggest that you realize that I'm not (as in, I haven't been) arguing with you because there is nothing to argue about. As said by two other editors on my talk page "Software Top 100 is
25:
is a verifiable and objective source. As for a mentioned omission: Sony has long been added to the
Software Top 100 list. Knowledge (XXG) needs good sources like the Software Top 100. Before deleting any links to Software Top 100 (such as user Esoteric Rogue does), please discuss the source, or even
340:
As a personal note, to mitigate the chance that I may sound condescending -- I have given up doing anything beyond minor edits on WP. I have not the 'legal' background to navigate the growing plethora of suggestions and guidelines, nor the time and tenacity to make the same arguments three times a
244:
says secondary sources are at least one step away from an event. The
Software Top 100 takes information from primary sources such as annual reports, SEC filings, and (in some cases) company websites etc. That information is then analyzed, made comparable, and ranked. Based on the research of many
169:
I think a citation for you might had been mentioned on the noticeboard, but I did not look that up for credibility. But, ST100 having a presence on
Knowledge (XXG) might create a circular ring of citations. (Any other website might cite a WP article citing ST100 who could suggest that the other
89:
3.2 I can only say: the website is not published by me, it is published by the Top 100 Research
Foundation, legally established and holding office in The Netherlands, of which I am an editor. I am not the only person working here. So no, this is not self-published. If you are ok with this answer,
159:
Furthering the discussion, there is the policy that "secondary sources" are preferred. See, if your company does "software revenue rankings", you are a primary source for software revenue rankings. What would be great was if the New York Times, or whatever prestigious, long-establish business
149:
nothing to state that I have a proprietorship or partnership, legally. I understand, however, that I would make any auditors much happier if I at least open checking account under my business's name. I am glad to hear you are not the "sole person working" there. Of course, this still get's us
318:
I would recommend 1) stop using wikipedia as a place to get exposure (you're a far far cry from Forbes) and 2) find someone with common and technical sense to guide you in your would-be wikipedia-editor adventures. This was my best attempt to be constructive and not critical. --
50:
clearly not RS". "Clear" as in obvious, or apparent. It's not "close", or "questionable". Just grabbing the first point of protocol that jumps out to me, I offer the following for our first discussion -- assuming you continue to press and I bother to follow up:
225:
This is a sample, I have chosen only
English citations; a search on Google will provide many more links/citations in English, Spanish, Chinese, French, etc. Let me know what you think. Also, if you have an other point for discussion, I'll be happy to answer
272:(--an attempt to deceive) that demonstrates a continuing unwillingess to either 1) play by the rules or to 2) understand the rules. IF it is the latter, which I doubt, let me explain what is wrong with the above statement. Your business of
296:
software companies by income. It should be self-evident and obvious by definition of "primary source". That you refuse to recognize even this point which must be a "given" for all future discussion makes such discussion hopeless. --
200:
OK, thanks for the reply. About the foundation: in the
Netherlands, where the Foundation is located, all legal entities are required to be registered in the records of the Chambre of Commerce. You can access the CoC records online at:
56:
3.2 says self-published websites are not reliable sources. I believe your various comments on talk and discussion pages demonstrate that
Software Top 100 is your self-published website. So, once again, Software Top 100 is not
205:
and although the website is in Dutch, if you enter: Top 100 and
Rotterdam in the search fields, you will find the Top 100 Research Foundation. You can order legal documentation from there, if you want.
260:
I did look at at your previous request to continue conversation, and decided I could not continue the discussion without resorting to personal attacks. Trying to state that your business of
341:
day for an indefinite length of time as necessary to reach 'consensus'. I elect not to be oppressed by the tyranny of the majority. As always, good luck to you Balder. --
210:
214:
26:
find a better source. That would really help
Knowledge (XXG) forward! If you look at Forbes and Software Magazine, which are other sources mentioned on
215:
A report on the regional software industry by SELA, a regional intergovernmental organization that groups 27 Latin American and Caribbean countries
136:
Hey, sincere thanks for prompting Chzz. I am moderately dedicated to finishing this discussion now. Also, thank you for maintaining my anonymity.
240:
Upon re-reading your comment, and also in reply to Chzz's opinion on sourcing. In my opinion, Software Top 100 is probably a secondary source.
222:
280:
software company income. but even still, you wouldn't be a very reputable source, because your limited business is simply '
350:
328:
306:
185:
106:
74:
85:
Thank you for entering the discussion, I appreciate it. Ok, let's take this one step at a time. Upon reading
342:
320:
298:
177:
66:
218:
241:
209:
Some citations for the Software Top 100 (other than Knowledge (XXG)), can be found here: 1.
109:- hope you understand why I posted there; no intention of complicating the thread. Thanks,
86:
58:
53:
119:
221:
4. An example of the Software Top 100 being mentioned in media can be found e.g. on
246:
227:
91:
35:
23:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29
27:
170:
website established credibility.) Such delicate issues require great vigilance.
112:
219:
A Research paper on Cloud Computing by the Georgia Institute of Technology
355:
333:
311:
254:
235:
190:
126:
107:
User talk:Esoteric Rogue#softwaretop100.org is not a reliable source
99:
79:
43:
276:
software companies by income might make you a seconday source for
242:
Knowledge (XXG):PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources
211:
A report on European Software Strategy from the European Union
22:
264:
software companies by income makes you a seconday source for
292:
software companies by income makes you primary source for
28:
http://en.wikipedia.org/World's_largest_software_companies
90:
would you like to offer a next point for discussion? --
202:
145:
Well, in the United States of America, I have to do
173:So, I guess that's my second point for discussion:
105:(As asked, I have responded a little to this, on
176:What are ST100's verifiable accreditations? --
288:. The ultimate fact is that your business of
268:software companies by income was worded as a
8:
17:Software Top 100 is a reliable source
7:
14:
1:
44:15:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
372:
255:09:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
236:09:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
191:08:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
356:23:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
334:21:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
312:21:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
127:23:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
100:12:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
80:21:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
250:
231:
95:
39:
34:services companies.--
284:, not necessarily
125:
363:
353:
348:
345:
331:
326:
323:
309:
304:
301:
188:
183:
180:
124:
122:
116:
110:
77:
72:
69:
371:
370:
366:
365:
364:
362:
361:
360:
351:
346:
343:
329:
324:
321:
307:
302:
299:
186:
181:
178:
120:
114:
111:
75:
70:
67:
19:
12:
11:
5:
369:
367:
359:
358:
337:
336:
315:
314:
198:
197:
196:
195:
194:
193:
171:
164:
163:
162:
161:
154:
153:
152:
151:
140:
139:
138:
137:
131:
130:
83:
82:
63:
62:
61:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
368:
357:
354:
349:
339:
338:
335:
332:
327:
317:
316:
313:
310:
305:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
243:
238:
237:
233:
229:
224:
223:Yahoo Finance
220:
216:
212:
207:
204:
192:
189:
184:
175:
174:
172:
168:
167:
166:
165:
158:
157:
156:
155:
150:nowhere fast.
148:
144:
143:
142:
141:
135:
134:
133:
132:
128:
123:
118:
117:
108:
104:
103:
102:
101:
97:
93:
88:
81:
78:
73:
64:
60:
55:
52:
51:
48:
47:
46:
45:
41:
37:
33:
29:
24:
16:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
239:
208:
199:
146:
113:
84:
31:
20:
203:www.kvk.nl
286:reporting
278:reporting
147:precisely
344:Esoteric
322:Esoteric
300:Esoteric
282:ranking'
179:Esoteric
68:Esoteric
294:ranking
290:ranking
274:ranking
266:ranking
262:ranking
247:BalderV
228:BalderV
92:BalderV
36:BalderV
347:Rogue
325:Rogue
303:Rogue
226:it.--
217:. 3.
182:Rogue
115:Chzz
87:WP:RS
71:Rogue
59:WP:RS
54:WP:RS
352:Talk
330:Talk
308:Talk
251:talk
232:talk
187:Talk
96:talk
76:Talk
40:talk
21:The
270:lie
213:2.
65:--
32:and
253:)
234:)
121:►
98:)
42:)
249:(
230:(
129:)
94:(
38:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.