Talk:Business process automation Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Business_process_automation

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I had to remove the first two sections of this article because they were copied, verbatim, from this page. Feel free to rephrase and write it in your own words, but please do not reinsert the copyrighted passages. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Thanks. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 05:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page no longer contains any external references because they were removed under the guise of being spam.

Here are a list of possible references I have found:

http://www.lombardisoftware.com/bpm-about.php

http://www.blueprism.co.uk/case_studies.asp?scenario=4

http://www.stradasoft.com/whatisbpm.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.129.12 (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2006

Exactly the same experience happened to me recently. I added refs after searching and removed the tag, to have my efforts reverted by an editor who then made no attempt to find refs, in 23 days. This is unacceptable and cannot continue. I propose as an alternative that we change the name to Business automation. It would be much easier to ref. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RichardWeiss: As you are directly referring to me, it would have been a matter of common courtesy to ping me. Anyway, sources like "Top 5 Reasons to Love Business Process Automation" - full of self-promotional nonsense and buzzphrases - are not suitable as encyclopedic sources, plain and simple. What is really "unacceptable and cannot continue" is the uncritical parroting of company talking points and the over-reliance on commercial PR publications. I'll admit that it can often be difficult to find good sources in such business-related topics where a lot of actors in the branche have a vested commercial interest to sell their stuff. But that's no reason to be content with self-promotional articles, whitepapers, PR-driven pseudo research and blogs as sources. Wikipedia is not a trade magazine, and should have higher standards for its content's reliability and independent credibility. GermanJoe (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered my question - which is to all interested editors - this isn't about you, which is why I didn't ping you. Your answer hasn't helped, merely justifying past actions. "What is really "unacceptable and cannot continue" is the uncritical parroting of company talking points and the over-reliance on commercial PR publications" I don't understand, these things you allude to haven't continued and aren't continuing, or if you think they are, provide diffs. What is continuing is editors adding the tag, rejecting refs and making no effort to fix the article or suggest solutions. What do you suggest? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do suggest not to add references, that primarily serve to promote the publishing company or their products or their alleged expertise instead of focussing on substantial verifiable facts. Such sources are explicitly discouraged by Wikipedia's content guidelines. I would also suggest to remove or rephrase all content that is written in a similar "PR speak" style. As a quick example, see the paragraph starting with "The market is, however, evolving in this area. ..." in the first Deployment section: the text 1) directly addresses the reader in second-person language, violating WP:NOTGUIDE. 2) uses excessive jargon to hide the lack of substantial facts 3) presents vague conclusions, personal opinion and allegations as given facts. Almost all other sections show similar problems. I do realize that this kind of "PR speak" is all-too-common in business-related publications, and it may sometimes be difficult to rephrase such information in a more uninvolved manner. But an encyclopedic article needs to keep its distance from purely commercial views and interests, and present its information in an uninvolved dispassionate manner. GermanJoe (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned that Business Process Automation is being conflated with Digital Transformation. BPA is arguably a component or pre-requisite for DT dependng on your view of what DT is - but we're really not comparing apples with apples here! RobMoores (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Asharma2 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]