Talk:FreshBooks

awkward sentence?

What does this mean "When McDerment accidentally saved over an invoice back in 2003,..." Plus the opening History paragraph reads like it was clipped from a sales brochure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.236.161.154 (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure McDerment overwrote an invoice file on his computer. I changed the phrasing to reflect this. PKT(alk) 16:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

how do you references correctly? anyway, it's bed time.

Shortcomings and confusion

I have removed an entire section labelled "Shortcomings and confusion", with the following text:

== Shortcomings and confusion ==

One notable shortcoming of FreshBooks is the absence of any proper double-entry accounting (as of June 2012). This is also a point of confusion, since the term “books” in a product of this type is normally understood to (first and foremost) include double-entry accounting. The FreshBooks Website makes no mention of this absence, though they do mention the data export capabilities of FreshBooks for further accounting and reporting purposes.

On August 21, 2012, FreshBooks founder Mike McDerment sent an open letter to all customers repositioning FreshBooks as a cloud accounting company with the term "cloud accounting" added to FreshBooks' logo. However, a fresh look at their Website (31 January 2013), even in the detailed features section, still makes no mention of any proper double-entry accounting. A tab labelled "Accounting Reports & Taxes" merely states that FreshBooks can (now) produce appropriate reports for use by accountants and for remitting taxes. This in no way constitutes double-entry accounting, and with the product now using both the terms "books" and "accounting", the previous shortcoming and confusion has become outright deception.

since it was entirely unreferenced, and so ranks as WP:Original Research. If it were in a biography of a living person, editors would be required to remove such unsourced negative material; in an article about a company we are not so required, but I think it shold not be in there. If User:HWSager, who introduced this material (or anybody else) can find a reliable source which makes these points, it can be reintroduced. Otherwise it should not be. --ColinFine (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This removal is hugely problematic, since now, even the opening line of the whole article, "FreshBooks provides cloud accounting software as a service", is outrightly false, since this isn't accounting software of any kind, cloud or otherwise. In fact, as the article now stands, it simply sounds like a promotion by or for the company, and indeed matches the company's promotion on their own Website. There's a common Wikipedia flagging mechanism for precisely that, which should be declared here. As for my material being entirely unreferenced, I did hotlink double-entry accounting to support what is and what isn't accounting, and the rest of the incrimination comes largely from the company's own Website, which is surely a valid reference here. As for my "original research", well yes, isn't that what constitutes a primary contribution of value to Wikipedia? HWSager (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)HWSager

Hello, HWSager. You did exactly right to continue the discussion here, and draw my attention to it on my talk page. One way of doing the latter would be to use the Talkback template: you start a new section on my talk page, as you did, and just insert {{talkback|Talk:FreshBooks|ts=~~~~~}}. (See Template:Talkback for more information on that).

I agree that the text that is there is hopelessly promotional, and will have a look at improving it after I've typed this message. But the way to deal with that is to remove material, not to add contrary material (or else to add the template {{Advert}} at the top if you haven't the time or the knowledge to improve it).

Your insertion correctly wikilinks to 'double-entry accounting', but that is an entirely different concept from citing reliable sources. In principle, everything in Wikipedia, other than everyday common knowledge, is supposed to be cited to published reliable sources; in practice, we know that not everything is (and improvements in referencing are always welcome), but it is particularly important when text in inserted that might be taken as critical of something or somebody. Far from being a primary contribution of value, original research is explicitly and emphatically forbidden in Wikipedia. You may not put any argumentation, evaluation, controversy, theorising, or synthesis into any article unless you are reporting it from a verifiable, reliable source, which you cite.

So in short, you may remove unreferenced material (and should always explain in an edit summary, so that your change will not be taken as vandalism), but you may not add contentious material unless you reference it - the material, not just the concepts in it. --ColinFine (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(Later) I've removed a lot of material from the article, including the link-farm. But as to your primary point, the Globe and Mail (now referenced in the article) describes it as "a company that provides accounting software for small businesses." That is what a reliable source calls it; so you are not entitled to challenge that description unless you can reference another reliable source that challenges it (see WP:Verifiability for why this is so important). I think there is almost certainly more that can be said about the firm, from reliable sources; but I haven't the time or the knowledge to do so. Thank you for bringing the shortcomings of the original article to our notice. --ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine. Thanks for your detailed reply - it's exactly what I wanted. For starters, thanks especially for clarifying the disallowability of "original research" - more on that later. Though I've been editing here since about 2005, it's usually been grammar, spelling, and sentence structure, and the occasional small factual correction. I didn't know some of the rules of Wikipedia, nor have I had the time to study in detail all the markup and tagging facilities (like how to notify you of talkback).

The one non-contentious section that could/should have stayed in its entirety is the one about FreshBooks's unique marketing channels - that section was factual and worthy of note (and well-referenced, I believe).

Now to the main topic of reliable references. Though the Toronto Globe and Mail is by far Canada's most credible newspaper, even they have two major problems in reliability which they share with most other media. First of all, many of their articles on an item like FreshBooks are simply disguised announcements based on the information that the company fed them (and that constitutes a reliable reference, just because it can now be cited from a well-regarded publication???). Secondly, even when an article is an attempt to go beyond announcement, the "industry insiders" that such media will summon and interview for content are themselves often of no credibility because the really knowledgeable people are typically too busy to waste their time on the media. About every second day on average, I encounter such articles on radio, TV, or print where I myself can easily point out the errors of these "dime-a-dozen experts".

So, when the Toronto Globe and Mail describes FreshBooks as "a company that provides accounting software for small businesses", they are simply stating what FreshBooks says, and those reporters wouldn't even know what constitutes accounting software.

By the way, I have B.Sc. Honours and M.Sc. degrees in computer science, mathematics, etc., and I also hold major knowledge in the other sciences, in engineering, in photography, and in bookkeeping/accounting.

Re "I think there is almost certainly more that can be said about the firm, from reliable sources": Surprise! There probably isn't. You see, the bookkeeping field in Canada and U.S.A. is totally non-certified and unregulated, and notoriously filled with shysters, whereas in the U.K., bookkeeping is a true profession with a certifying body, the Institute of Certified Bookkeepers (bookkeepers.org.uk), complete with a Royal patron, His Royal Highness Prince Michael of Kent.

(Fortunately, the accounting field, as distinct from bookkeeping, is certified and regulated in Canada and U.S.A., but unfortunately, with a huge hodgepodge of certifying bodies - several dozen across Canada.)

You also mentioned somewhere (I can't find it now) that "generally common knowledge" can be used without reference. It could be argued that the definition of accounting (and proper double-entry accounting) is in the domain of common knowledge, where it has been for half a millennium (courtesy of Luca Pacioli).

Interestingly, in comparison to FreshBooks, the world-famous Intuit company, makers of Quicken and QuickBooks, is completely accurate in their description of these products. Quicken is positioned as personal and/or small business (depending on version) financial management software, and QuickBooks is positioned as small business accounting/bookkeeping software.

I realize in all this, that I'm ultimately arguing that Wikipedia's "reliable references" concept isn't working properly, at least not in some fields. It means that a genuinely knowledgeable person like me can only watch and grimace when I see a Wikipedia article with fundamental errors, supported by "reliable references".

Regards, Hartmut / HWSager (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Hartmut. You're welcome to reinsert the section that you think I didn't need to remove - if you pick the 'history' tab, you can look at a previous version, and even edit that previous version in order to copy the source text of the section in question - just don't save that edit!

The question of reliable sources is a thorny one, and you're right that the reliability of a source can very depending on what it is being used for, and that newspapers often quote press releases. There is a forum for asking about the reliability of particular sources at WP:RSN. But to be honest, in a case like this, I don't think you've much chance of making your objection stand. How a company describes its products (leaving aside marketing language) is not something that I think an article should ever criticise unless the criticism can be sourced, and simply removing the description would make the article obviously incomplete. I suppose you might find a form of words which you thought was accurate and that the company would not disagree with, but you would still be inserting something unsourced and possibly contentious in the article. On the other hand, it may be that nobody would take it as contentious and honour would be satisfied on all sides.

I'm a little surprised at what you say about other sources. I didn't look at more than a couple of the 'further reading' links that I removed, but it looked as if some of them were from sources regarded as reliable, if they were used as references rather than a link farm. But you know more about the field than I do.

The requirement for referencing is about claimed facts, and the exception for "common knowledge" is also in that domain. You do not need to reference a claim that bookkeeping is something that companies need to do. But whether FreshBooks does or does not provide "accounting software" cannot be common knowledge, and so in principle requires a reference. But usually such a description is not contentious, so usually the company's own publication would normally be good enough as a reference for that and an independent source would not even be required.

It is not uncommon for people who have direct knowledge of a subject to find things in Wikipedia that they know to be wrong, but which cannot be changed because their version is not available from a published source. This is unfortunate, but because on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, it is hard to see how any other policy could work. --ColinFine (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)