Talk:StatSoft

This seems like an awful lot of self-promotion/company brochureware to me.

Others? I am too new at Wikipedia to make a unilateral decision.

I wish you'd signed your post...

If you have a look at the edit history and talk page for Statistica and Talk:STATISTICA you'll see the long discussion I had with User:EntropyAS over that page. Yes, the Statsoft page still reads a bit (read: LOTS) like a company brochure, but I decided that, as a gesture of good faith, that I'd turn a blind eye to the Statsoft page after the work User:EntropyAS put in. I know there are rules, but I figure that we have a major win already.

It's probably instructive to see the edit war in the history for the Statistica to see what you're in for if you just keep editing it. I found that clearly explaining to User:EntropyAS what I saw as the problems led to him/her fixing the page, whereas reverting every day didn't really get anyone anywhere.

Ultimately it's up to you if you want to pursue a cleanup of this article. I don't think it's perfect (far from it), but I do acknowledge the effort that the Statsoft/EntopyAS people have put in towards working with WP Johnpf 01:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the unsigned post that this page is self-promotional and of little information value. Wikipedia can do without this entry. Theodoros 87.17.215.55 (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped to read some objective evidence about the qualities of StatSoft, but this is simply a blatant unpaid advertisement. Why do we have to keep up with this sort of totally misleading information in a forum to which people turn for objective information? I suggest that the editor add to the StatSoft text that it is an advertisement. 82.95.243.177 (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Philip Quanjer

This article is helpful in that it tells us that Statsoft is a large, global company with many customers but doesn't help much with comparisons with other comparable statistical products in terms of quality, functionality, primary uses, or ease-of use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.87.11.239 (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have edited and changed the article a bit, I think it is a much better improvement as compared to the previous. (KyleAraujo (talk)User:KyleAraujo~) —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC).

I reverted the page to a state that is written in a neutral point of view. I hope this is a good starting point for addressing concerns. The two tags that were at the top are gone now, I didn't mean to circumvent any official processes of removing them. Let me know if there's a better way to do what I did (go to a old neutral revision and "Save") Best wishes. EntropyAS (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Added section about "Support for European Countries in Crisis" and 2 citations. This is recent news. Additional citations from more independent news sources will probably follow in the coming weeks. Karl (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)