Talk:EBSCO Information Services

message: I know that ebsco contains peer reviewed articles but is it exclusively peer reviewed content? Vicarious 08:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Nurg (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  peer review 

message: 1.Why don't you merge DynaMed with this article. Both having separate articles is kind of illogical.
2. Create a page Works of EBSCO Publishing or something like that and include DynaMed in it ,  I see no reason to have an entirely different article for DynaMed --Regards
:Done. Option 1.  Gigs (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The last version of the DynaMed article can be found here.  There wasn't much content for an independent article, so I suggest that rather than simply recreating it, you talk through your reasons why you think it needs its own entry here, on this page.  It could save you some aggravation.--~TPW 20:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions re DynaMed

message: Two of the references in this article are from third-party journals, yet the linked text is on the company's own website.  I'd be more comfortable with a more verifiable copy of the citation.  Are any available?--otherlleft 16:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of references 

message: Article says "EBSCOhost, is a search system and interface accessible via private and public databases in colleges ...". What does "via private and public databases" refer to? It makes no sense to me. Nurg (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "via private and public databases"? 

message: I propose that the information on Ebsco Publishing be merged with EBSCO Publishing. This is a duplication of information, and since EBSCO is an acronym, the more developed EBSCO Publishing page should be the destination of any unique information.  -- Clifflandis (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur because this is a no-brainer.  In fact I'm going to see what I can do to move whatever is useful from that article and do it right now.--otherlleft 22:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I found only one useful reference in Ebsco Publishing which included here.  Rather than merging, I simply redirected.--otherlleft 22:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: This commercial product may be financially out of reach for many people. Can the article name alternatives, including competing products and free services that provide reliable information? --Lbeaumont (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be safe in a comparison table/article. -- Blindwanderer (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Identify competitors and free alternatives

message: Considering the stub nature of the NetLibrary article it might be sensible to merge it into this article. I find myself indifferent on the issue. The NetLibrary article has the potential to be more detailed then a section really should be. -- Blindwanderer (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I redirected it here, nothing of worth to preserve.--~TPW 15:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NetLibrary 

message: I'm thinking about tagging this with . Traceroute for User:71.232.194.237 shows as being in the area of Groveland, MA, which just so happens to be 13 miles from Ipswich, MA, easy commuting distance, where EBSCO Publishing is headquartered. I wouldn't bring this up except the "value added" sentence screams  to me and the user has only edited articles pertaining to EBSCO Publishing. -- Blindwanderer (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of recent edits have been made by Donnelly1111 who identifies herself as a representative of EBSCO Publishing.  She received multiple CoI warnings for edits made using another account (KarenaD), but seems to have chosen to ignore them. Davepattern (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

text: If there are currently no "significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement", the tag should not be used. It "is not meant to be a badge of shame" - Template:COI. Nurg (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Thanks.--Elvey (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of Interest 

message: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#apparently_unusable_EBSCOHOST_links. EBSCO users ,,, I urge you to help us blacklist only the non-persistent EBSCO URLs by helping us systematically identify (preferably with regexes) non-persistent and persistent ebsco URLs (and if it possible to do, explain how one would systematically convert the former to the latter without add'l info).--Elvey (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link problems 

message: Hello,  EBSCO users , , !
I'm adressing you because you identified yourselves as representants of EBSCO Publishing. I was thinking about updating Bibliographic Index, the article about the database that was bought by your company in 2011 - and then discontinued, so that half a billion data entries had suddenly gone dead! My question is:
Is the database for the "Bibliographic Index Plus" integrated with another product of your company? What I mean is: does your company offer any different route to still access this immense number of database entries in any form nowadays? If yes, then how?
Thanks for your answer, and greetings! --- Tolman Telephone (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliographic Index Plus: half a billion database entries finally lost? 

message: This section was recently created by someone and it includes many citations that are not credible and other statements that do not include citations at all. 
All the statements that use a citation from Concerned Citizens for School Databases (ccsd) should be deleted as that is not a credible site. For example, this entire section cites ccsd: "Several other groups have raised the issue that EBSCO content is protected from top site filtering, and point to state and federal obscenity laws requiring protection for minors from sexually explicit, obscene or pornographic material. Since proprietary databases cannot be filtered by users, students are not protected from the adult content streamed by EBSCO's publishing clients. Parents and teachers may not be aware that the K-12 Explora, Mas Ultra for Schools, and other EBSCO K-12 databases are being used as vehicles for EBSCO's publishing clients to stream online ads and promotional material for the sex industry into classrooms[32].[33]. This has been argued to be a violation of trust between EBSCO and its school customers, especially due to the sexually graphic nature of certain advertisements that occur in large volume."
Another example is citation 23 (massresistance.org) is not a credible site and citation 22 has no basis in fact.  
The following statement is not cited, and is not based on any facts. "This list does not remove all of the adult material in the K-12 databases, but does remove a substantial portion of it. EBSCO has not applied these exclusions broadly to all of its K-12 offerings and it is necessary for every school or library district in the country (or internationally) to contact EBSCO to make a separate request for the ADAMS 12 LIST, or to make similar exclusionary customizations to remove adult content. NCOSE has requested that EBSCO make known to their K-12 customers the need for customization to remove adult content."
Thank you for your consideration.140.234.253.9 (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Surrounding K- 12 Database Content - lacking credible citations - REQUEST CONTENT IS REMOVED 

message: Request that my submission be restored - editing and additions are appropriate for wikipedia but deletion/replacement of entire content is not
The content concerning EBSCO Controversy was deleted by another editor in its entirety even though it was factual and referenced. It is not appropriate to delete another users submission in its entirety. This was done once before and we did not respond by deletion but, rather, by adding to the new submission to add balancing material and make it more neutral. We added facts with appropriate citations, including direct quotes from news sources. 
Nevertheless, the same editor has once again deleted our submission in its entirety (replacing it with their own very truncated version that leaves out many facts) rather than editing it or adding to it to create balance of viewpoint. 
We included many references but 2 of them were criticized as lacking credibility. An explanation for these claims should be given. What criteria has the other user applied to make the determination that these 2 references are not credible? It might be possible to add additional references. What is the objection to the specific references (CCSD and Mass Resistance)?
The user responsible for the deletion of our submission in its entirety has also made the claim that the submission constituted "advocacy" and yet they did not offer any substantiating information or explanation. We strongly disagree with the accusation on the grounds that the submission is factual and written in a neutral manner with many accurate citations. We also point out that the deletion of factual and referenced material in its entirety can be construed as censorship of facts and appears biased.
Our submission is factual and referenced. It was not appropriate for another party to delete it in its entirety or to delete factual, referenced material. Wikipedia is a forum for the editing of material, not for deletion. 
We just learned of the Wikipedia 3RR policy and will respect it. The other user has also violated the policy by deletion/replacement of our submission repeatedly. We request cooperation and appropriate editing of content, not deletion of our entire submission including all our references and citations.
Thank you for your consideration. 
Maxiedean (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Surrounding K-12 Database Content 

message: request replacement of deleted material
Content was removed by another user. We added information to the existing section to inform readers that the Open Source Society belongs to G. Soros. This information was accurately referenced. The deletion of the information and of the reference is inappropriate. 
Maxiedean (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Green and Philanthropic Initiatives

message: Aside from the lack of reliable citations, the entire coverage and handling of this aspect is a violation of WP:NPOV (especially WP:WEIGHT). Such controversial content should be written by uninvolved editors in a dispassionate succinct manner, and must be based on independent high-quality sources. Wikipedia is no venue for advocacy of any kind (neither pro-critics nor pro-company), and edit-warring over such content is prohibited. I have removed the content (again) - please do not re-insert the content, but discuss it here. GermanJoe (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a "conflict of interest", please disclose this connection (see WP:COI) and use the "request corrections on or suggest content" link on top of this talkpage to provide a sourced and neutrally-phrased suggestion for added or changed content. This will notify other uninvolved editors to review your suggestions. To be perfectly clear: I have no connection to either side of this dispute. But to avoid any further - completely unfounded and ridiculous - allegations, I will leave the review of your suggestions to an uninvolved editor. GermanJoe (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

text: The editor of the EBSCO Controversy who reverted the original content I submitted is senior editor, drchriswilliam talk . If he has a conflict of interest involving EBSCO he should have recused himself. Wikipedia's editorial policies regarding neutrality and use of citations have been violated (see above for specifics). 
The text from the "EBSCO Controversy" under discussion here, has been copied and pasted, word-for-word into the article page for the "NCOSE" (National Center on Sexual Exploitation). As such, since the editor also created a direct link to the NCOSE article from the EBSCO Controversy, it has the effect of duplicating text and creating a heavily weighted and biased impression. This would seem to be a gross violation of Wikipedia policy. 
Replicating the exact text in both locations, (i.e. identical text in EBSCO and NCOSE articles), creates the impression of a conflict of interest by a Wikipedia editor. There is discussion of NCOSE's allegation against EBSCO for porn in children's databases but it is never disclosed that the allegation arose through the naming of EBSCO to the NCOSE's "Dirty Dozen" list. This information is vital for readers to understand the nature of the relationship between NCOSE and EBSCO and a reference should be given. To omit this information creates the impression of bias. As pointed out above, it is important to include EBSCO's Open Letter, published in the WBRC Birmingham interview in order to allow EBSCO to defend itself against the charges. In the overall context, the WBRC reference appears to have been omitted because it also contains quotes from NCOSE which clarify allegations against EBSCO that readers are apparently not supposed to find out about. This kind of editing is a violation of Wikipedia's journalist standards and should not be tolerated by Wikipedia.  
As presently written with identical text, both the NCOSE and the EBSCO articles are misleading to readers by giving the impression that NCOSE has only singled out EBSCO, placing an undue emphasis on EBSCO, especially within the NCOSE article, which is supposed to be about NCOSE, not EBSCO. The NCOSE website should be cited in both locations giving detail about its "Dirty Dozen" project, which is said to name 12 corporate entities. The NCOSE website also lists other projects, not just the "Dirty Dozen" project.  The "EBSCO Controversy" text, now replicated in both the EBSCO and NCOSE article, creates weight, suffers from a lack of balanced citations, and is suggestive of a glaring conflict of interest and of gross violations of Wikipedia policies. In the interim, yet another editor has jumped in to further edit the NCOSE page and add yet more excessive detail regarding the ALA, in a tone that is mocking and derisive to NCOSE. Taken together, it appears that Wikipedia may be inadvertently permitting editors to create a platform for personal attacks. 
Maxiedean (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about detailed controversy section