Talk:List of call centre companies/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sources and References Tag
This list consists exclusively of wiki-internal hyperlinks. The articles themselves are linked to the Call centre article and the websites of the companies clearly indicate that those companies operate call centre. What more sources does anyone want? --Achim (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- WP:LIST - even list articles require reliable sources, and wikipedia is not a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Then explain why those articles are still on Wikipedia. All the deletionists would have been successful in eradicating them. Wikipedia articles are there by consensus, which is achieved by having verifiable outside sources and notability. They're notable, because of the press coverage they get, for instance when a centre opens or closes. This is in addition to the fact that thousands of people work for those companies. If the articles on those companies were not notable or backed up by outside verification sources, they would be gone. If I'm wrong, then why not go ahead and nominate any or all those call centre company articles for deletion? Actually that has already happened on at least one of them and it did not succeed. So, if your argument holds any water, I suggest you nominate them all for deletion. If they don't qualify for deletion, when you're up against inclusionists who watch for this stuff, then they're acceptale sources. That is what is the case right now. Destroy that argument on merit and I will gladly support your position. --Achim (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia community is a large, living, breathing organism full of many wonderous things. Consistency is not necessarily one of them. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Then explain why those articles are still on Wikipedia. All the deletionists would have been successful in eradicating them. Wikipedia articles are there by consensus, which is achieved by having verifiable outside sources and notability. They're notable, because of the press coverage they get, for instance when a centre opens or closes. This is in addition to the fact that thousands of people work for those companies. If the articles on those companies were not notable or backed up by outside verification sources, they would be gone. If I'm wrong, then why not go ahead and nominate any or all those call centre company articles for deletion? Actually that has already happened on at least one of them and it did not succeed. So, if your argument holds any water, I suggest you nominate them all for deletion. If they don't qualify for deletion, when you're up against inclusionists who watch for this stuff, then they're acceptale sources. That is what is the case right now. Destroy that argument on merit and I will gladly support your position. --Achim (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- WP:LIST - even list articles require reliable sources, and wikipedia is not a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you assume good faith and stop trying to taint this discussion with loaded phrases like "deletionist". We are all editors here. The question you asked has been addressed: per WP:LIST all information in lists should be properly sourced. This is one of our core policies: WP:V. There is no exception for lists. Instead of trying to create an antagonistic atmosphere, why not try to make a positive contribution and providing the requested sources? Thanks, Gwernol 21:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Deletionists are a whole identified club on here, just like inclusionists. It's hardly an insult, although it's true I don't hold a high opinion of deletionists and can't understand for the life of me what they're proud of enough to identify themselves on wikimedia as a group. One of my reasons for disliking their behaviour is that one tends not to get straight answers and when one presses the point, they get all upset and start quoting chapter and verse on behaviour of people who question them, thus attacking the person, not the issue, a common theme in politics, whilst still refusing to answer, sort of like you here. You say that the answer is provided on that page, yet you won't answer what's wrong with all the verification that allows each referenced page to exist in the first place. If, for instance, anyone at all had a question as to whether or not Sitel operates call centres, which appears to be your point by asking for citations on the list that can be had by simply clicking on the link, one has but to look on the wiki article about them or on their website, which is linked to the article. See the smiling face on there with the headset on? They're surely not excavation contractors. The verification is on each referenced page. Otherwise each article would be withdrawn. So you want proof on the list page that each company indeed operates call centres, even though you can click on the link and find out, thus insisting on duplication? That's the other thing I don't like about many deletionists. You're asking for proof that the Pope is indeed Catholic. And the last stroke is always anonimity. You never know who you're actually dealing with, a characteristic that typically accompanies excessive deleting, tagging and asking for proof of stuff everyone knows and that is 100% completely obvious. But maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps Convergys does NOT operate call centres. Maybe they are drywall contractors and the headsets shown to be worn by their employees in their workstations, that's just for ordering bondo, screws, tape and mud. If I put up a company name on the list that has no article, I could see your point. If the list survives and someone else puts up a company name with no reference, I would tag it myself, but only after spending a minute or so on google, to see if evidence can be found, like newspaper articles mentioning them, the company's website, etc. If I could find no proof, then I'd tag it or remove it. But asking for proof on completely obvious stuff? What's the point? --Achim (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Calling someone who has identified themselves as a deletionist a "deletionist" is probably not incivil - however, I do not believe any of the editors here that you appear to be describing with that term have identified themselves as such. Please do not continue.
- Yes people quote chapter and verse of the policy so that you can clearly see why they are making the edits they are making and that they are following the general consensus of the community.
- Finally, because of the nature of the web and the wide open nature of Wikipedia, with no formal editorial oversight, each article is treated as a seperate entity and must individually comply with wikipedia policies. Until such time as the software is developed that a change to another article will automaitcally trigger appropriate edits to any article linked to it, the reader should not have to click through multiple pages to find out where the source of a statement actually came from. The source is on the page that made the claim. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- If the shoe fits....? So you're saying that the list of call centre companies, each of which have their own articles on Wikipedia, should contain references that each company listed indeed operates call centres. That's ridiculous in the extreme. If you actually believe that, what do you think that should look like? Cite local newspaper articles about centres opening and closing and then link them to the article or list, ready to expire when the webmaster of each news organisation deletes it from his or her site? And then as soon as that happens, another Wiki nazi comes along to tag the page because he can't be bothered to use google to find a new reference and does not care in the slightest that the tag makes the article look ridiculous and he can't be bothered to fix it but gets his jollies tagging and deleting other people's work.... does that just about sum it up? What a great mirror for such people. The anonimity is not surprising. And all this, because of the cause. (Imagine violins playing in the background now, maybe the odd hounddog howling miserably along for effect.) The poor helpless reader or user, who can't be expected to click on a link, lest it might cause cardiac arrest, hangnails or swelling of his skin when he clicks the mouse button. I don't mind providing evidence for companies who have no articles on here. But for those who do, I don't see the need because each article already has a herd of people fighting over it. If that causes you and others to keep tagging or deleting, so be it. Here, one click and you have all the peer reviewed evidence you need. I see no need for duplication, especially of the completely obvious. So tag and delete and let that speak for you, if you think that's best. --Achim (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- '"So you're saying that the list of call centre companies, each of which have their own articles on Wikipedia, should contain references that each company listed indeed operates call centres."' Nope I am not saying it, Wikipedia policy on verifiability is saying it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- If the shoe fits....? So you're saying that the list of call centre companies, each of which have their own articles on Wikipedia, should contain references that each company listed indeed operates call centres. That's ridiculous in the extreme. If you actually believe that, what do you think that should look like? Cite local newspaper articles about centres opening and closing and then link them to the article or list, ready to expire when the webmaster of each news organisation deletes it from his or her site? And then as soon as that happens, another Wiki nazi comes along to tag the page because he can't be bothered to use google to find a new reference and does not care in the slightest that the tag makes the article look ridiculous and he can't be bothered to fix it but gets his jollies tagging and deleting other people's work.... does that just about sum it up? What a great mirror for such people. The anonimity is not surprising. And all this, because of the cause. (Imagine violins playing in the background now, maybe the odd hounddog howling miserably along for effect.) The poor helpless reader or user, who can't be expected to click on a link, lest it might cause cardiac arrest, hangnails or swelling of his skin when he clicks the mouse button. I don't mind providing evidence for companies who have no articles on here. But for those who do, I don't see the need because each article already has a herd of people fighting over it. If that causes you and others to keep tagging or deleting, so be it. Here, one click and you have all the peer reviewed evidence you need. I see no need for duplication, especially of the completely obvious. So tag and delete and let that speak for you, if you think that's best. --Achim (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Finally, because of the nature of the web and the wide open nature of Wikipedia, with no formal editorial oversight, each article is treated as a seperate entity and must individually comply with wikipedia policies. Until such time as the software is developed that a change to another article will automaitcally trigger appropriate edits to any article linked to it, the reader should not have to click through multiple pages to find out where the source of a statement actually came from. The source is on the page that made the claim. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Deletionists are a whole identified club on here, just like inclusionists. It's hardly an insult, although it's true I don't hold a high opinion of deletionists and can't understand for the life of me what they're proud of enough to identify themselves on wikimedia as a group. One of my reasons for disliking their behaviour is that one tends not to get straight answers and when one presses the point, they get all upset and start quoting chapter and verse on behaviour of people who question them, thus attacking the person, not the issue, a common theme in politics, whilst still refusing to answer, sort of like you here. You say that the answer is provided on that page, yet you won't answer what's wrong with all the verification that allows each referenced page to exist in the first place. If, for instance, anyone at all had a question as to whether or not Sitel operates call centres, which appears to be your point by asking for citations on the list that can be had by simply clicking on the link, one has but to look on the wiki article about them or on their website, which is linked to the article. See the smiling face on there with the headset on? They're surely not excavation contractors. The verification is on each referenced page. Otherwise each article would be withdrawn. So you want proof on the list page that each company indeed operates call centres, even though you can click on the link and find out, thus insisting on duplication? That's the other thing I don't like about many deletionists. You're asking for proof that the Pope is indeed Catholic. And the last stroke is always anonimity. You never know who you're actually dealing with, a characteristic that typically accompanies excessive deleting, tagging and asking for proof of stuff everyone knows and that is 100% completely obvious. But maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps Convergys does NOT operate call centres. Maybe they are drywall contractors and the headsets shown to be worn by their employees in their workstations, that's just for ordering bondo, screws, tape and mud. If I put up a company name on the list that has no article, I could see your point. If the list survives and someone else puts up a company name with no reference, I would tag it myself, but only after spending a minute or so on google, to see if evidence can be found, like newspaper articles mentioning them, the company's website, etc. If I could find no proof, then I'd tag it or remove it. But asking for proof on completely obvious stuff? What's the point? --Achim (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe it, because I could not find where the page you reference says specifically that information should be duplicated this way, but just to make you happy, I duplicated the external references underneath in the article. --Achim (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Try here: "This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." and here "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." and here "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" and here "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed" . If you have other questions, post on the WP:V talk page and see if it applies to each article or if proof somewhere else in wikipedia counts. You will find the former. -- The Red Pen of Doom 07:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing links. I have converted them to citations so the page looks cleaner. -- The Red Pen of Doom 08:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Despite the text you cite on rules and regs on here, I still don't see anything that mandates this sort of duplication. But now we have it and you made it look better and it would appear that we have consensus, since you did not revert the removal of the tag. Case closed I trust, until someone else adds companies to the list. I am certainly not on a mission to make an exhaustive list here for all call centres from all countries but I suppose that others will add to it... --Achim (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing links. I have converted them to citations so the page looks cleaner. -- The Red Pen of Doom 08:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Notability Tag
Tens of thousands of people work in call centres. There is an article on call centres and there are articles on things going on inside call centres, technology being used in call centres, whenever a centre opens or closes it makes the local news and we have a DO NOT CALL LIST in Canada and the US so that call centre companies are prevented from calling numbers upon the request of those who pay the phone bills for the numbers on the DNC lists. The major players in the game command a large industry and outsourcing, which is at the heart of the matter, is routinely the topic of Lou Dobbs' ire. What more would be required to make a list of call centre companies even more notable than is now completely obvious? I challenge the tagger to provide the rationale for the tag or remove it. --Achim (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Question 1 by Gwernol 08:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
What makes these particular companies notable?
Answer by --Achim (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The notability of each company is established as a result of having an article on Wiki, with the appropriate references, that remains on wiki, with a group of editors dedicated to editing each one. If the companies were not notable, the articles would have been removed. In fact, on at least one of them, a deletion proposal has been tried and it failed.--24.226.94.1 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
But that is not what this is about, is it? You tagged the whole article, questioning whether or not there should be a list at all, as opposed to tagging individual items on the list, which would have been defeated by the aforementioned.
Question 2 by Gwernol 08:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Why are these companies included and not others?
Answer by --Achim (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I simply searched what linked to the Call centre article and thus found the companies with articles on here, which only link to that article because they in fact operate call centres. I did not endeavour to come up with an exhaustive list. Being that anyone can edit, others can be added and will have to be accompanied by the appropriate back-up. Being that what I listed has articles, notability is self-evident, particularly judging by the battles that unfold on some of the talk pages about content.
Question 3 by Gwernol 08:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
What is the criteria for inclusion on this list? Gwernol 08:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Answer by --Achim (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The only criteria to me would be that the company listed in fact operates at least one call centre. That is the idea behind the list, which I received from another editor, who did not like the idea of simply having such a list as part of the call centre article, which I would have preferred. --Achim (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Conclusion
If there is nothing further, and in consideration of the ample outside references for each listed company, each of which has an active article on Wikipedia and has had that for some time, the fact that there is an article on Call centres as well as supplementary articles about what goes on inside of and what goes into call centres, and in consideration of the tens of thousands of people working in the industry worldwide, will you agree that the notability tag can be removed? --Achim (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think you are missing my point here. The question is not whether the call center industry is notable - it clearly is - or whether individual call centers are notable - they clearly are. Its whether this list is notable. Because it would be pretty much impossible for the list to be exhaustive and kept up to date, then it needs to have clearly defined criteria for inclusion. Even if the list is incomplete, editors still need to know which companies they should add to the list and which they shouldn't in the future. If there is no inclusion criteria, then it isn't clear whether this list should be included in Wikipedia.
- As an example, say that Apple operates a call center as part of its business. Does that make Apple a call center company? Not really - its a computer company that happens not to have outsourced all its call center operations. But Apple is clearly a notable company that operates at least one call center. Overall, it probably should not appear on this list. So is your inclusion criteria something like: "Notable companies who primary business is operating call centers" - where "notable" means they have a Wikipedia article? Having a criteria like that prevents this list becoming a dumping ground for spam or devolving into a generalized list of all companies that happen to have anything to do with call centers.
- It would also help if the list was a little more comprehensive. I don't know how many call centers companies there are, but I suspect the list of notable ones would be longer than this. It appears arbitrary when you have such a small selection from a large pool, even if you intend it to be well defined.
- Articles get deleted that do not have clear, actionable inclusion criteria. I am trying to help you avoid deletion of this article. Gwernol 10:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- OK, so how about if we put in a qualifier at the top that is likely to achieve consensus, such as call centre companies that are defined on Wikipedia? Perhaps a separate paragraph for companies NOT defined with an article on Wikipedia? You have to put the qualifiers in anyway, whether they have an article or not, but that may be a useful way to subdivide. I think Apple uses Minacs, by the way (Adity Birla Group)... :-) --Achim (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
External links - Do you think this helps the notability?
- Call Centre Management Association - UK
- Call Centre Associaton - UK
- Customer Contact Management Association - Australia
- International Customer Management Institute - US
- Call Centre Management Association - Ireland
- Teleplaza listing of call centre industry associations
- Swiss Contact Centre Association
- Deutscher Dialog Marketing Verband - Germany
- Heise online article about growing market, 2800 call centres in Germany now employing 330000 people.
- Onetoone.de article about consumer advocates demanding tougher legislation for call centres in Germany --Achim (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Extraneous external links do not prove notability
An external links section filled with spam links does not show notability for the article topic. If national/international trade organizations are needed to show notability of article pls find some other way to include them. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hello! :-) I never thought of trade association links as SPAM for anything. I wonder why you would think so. When you have a guild or a trade union or a trade association, it simply means that an industry has reached a certain level of maturity. They start to put in place guidelines for conduct, which keep the members out of court. Some of them start lobbying. Some form part of legislative necessities, such a associations for professional engineers or doctors, where one must be a member to ply that trade. Companies who join are exposed to better information and sometimes change their conduct for the better because they learn that it keeps them out of court. It would be hard to argue, for instance, that the Mechanical Contractors Association is good for the plumbing trade. The fact that it has thousands of member companies and offers courses, etc., clearly establishes notability by Wiki or any other standard, insofar as I can tell. What would make that linkspam to you? --Achim (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)