ClearBooks struggling for Wikipedia recognition

by admin on February 21, 2012

in Cloud Computing/SaaS

ClearBooks is trying to get itself a page on Wikipedia. The moderators don’t seem wholly enamoured of the prospect. The company is bravely trying to persuade the moderators that Wikipedia’s reasons for considering the article for deletion are wrong.

There are potential errors on both sides. Wikipedia sees the page as bordering on self promotional advertising and that ClearBooks is not ‘notable’ within its guidelines:

Delete. Unfortunately, this company hasn’t yet reached the levels of notability required for this encyclopedia. User:TimFouracre misunderstands the criteria. The company should receive significant coverage (ie, not just trivial mentions) in reliable sources that address the company specifically. It isn’t enough to simply be a company, you have to be a notable company. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The question of ‘notability’ is a tough one and certainly open to interpretation – the one thing that Wikipedia tries hard to avoid in its brave efforts to be a relible source in its own right.

Further critique suggests that mentions made by AccMan (and others) are ‘not reliable’ because blogs are not considered reliable sources. This is a weak argument because in reference to EditGrid, there is also reference to things AccMan has said in the past. Others who have maintained a blog presence are also used in the EditGrid Wikipedia entry. As a side notes note, the EditGrid reference needs updating. For all practical purposes, the service has been shuttered for more than 2 years and that fact is not included in its entry.

Now – before we descend into an argument about whether Wikipedia is a reliable source in itself, it is usually sufficiently reliable as a starting point for further inquiry via the pursuit of links. But it suffers from the same problems as anything that’s crowdsourced. It needs constant updating and amendment.

Wikipedia’s moderators are certainly taking a hard line. The original entry was entered by Tim Fouracre, CEO and co-founder rather than by a third party. That always gives moderators a bad whiff of attempted self promotion. And let’s be clear (sic.) ClearBooks has not exactly been a model of openness. Rather it shuns criticism.

I have no problem with ClearBooks having a Wikipedia entry and I genuinely believe moderators should review the entry more sympathetically. However, it has to be far better balanced and that is not present.

Comments on this entry are closed.

garyturner February 21, 2012 at 9:34 am

The universe rang, it want’s its space time continuum back.

garyturner February 21, 2012 at 9:38 am

The universe called, wants its space time continuum back.

You have to give Tim points for tenacity if nothing else.

You’d have to question their entitlement, however, if only on the basis that other larger and more noteworthy competitors (Kashflow an Freeagent) don’t have pages, and that cloud accounting companies are ten a penny right now.

dahowlett February 21, 2012 at 10:11 am

@garyturner That would go to the ‘notable’ issue but then it is up to some bright spark to deal with what others want. Mind you, having said all of that, Wikipedia’s entry for accounting software is miles out of date.

benkepes February 21, 2012 at 5:04 pm

Funny really, given the history of

Ya gotta feel for Tim sometimes….

chompie February 28, 2012 at 2:22 pm

Perhaps a company that listened to criticism and engaged it constructively would have had greater success and be further forward than where it is now and thus in a stronger position to argue it’s case?

Previous post:

Next post: