ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Talk:Sony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Sony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale.
Sony is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sony article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
Archive (2004- June 2007)


Contents

[edit] ATRAC and MP3

The article refers to ATRAC as a compression system. This is not actually true. It is a data reduction technique. The resultant ATRAC data is still a recogniseable PCM coded data stream and can be decoded as such. It is however missing some of the detail that is considered inaudible. For transfer to Network Walkman type players it is further placed inside a Digital Rights Management 'wrapper' so that the data stream cannot be recovered.

Similarly, MP3 data streams are not converted to ATRAC as the article claims. They too are placed inside a DRM wrapper so that the MP3 cannot be extracted, but they remain as MP3 encoded audio as the Walkman display data format display will confirm.

20.133.0.14 06:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SONY Digital cameras

I didn't see in the artical anything about sony cameras althought it is the first corperation wich made CCD lens in cameras

[edit] Redirect?

The URL [1] gives me the following page:

Sony
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from SONY)
Jump to: navigation, search

SONY IS A VERY GD COMPANY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'

I don't know how to fix this, so can somebody take a look. Niek Kouwenberg 80.126.207.158 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Financial data such as operating cost, net income is wrong. MSN Money dropped two zeros, check the first external reference for proof, it should be 82.957 billion dollars (8.3 trillion yen)Orthuberra 08:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

i've deleted the POV from the controversies section as i don't see any problem

[edit] POV

i've deleted the POV as i don't see a problem

After the above post, the following was posted:

The entry for Halo 3, a game created by Sony's competitor Microsoft, was modified by someone within Sony. The addition was "(Halo 3) wont look any better than Halo 2." [1]

It's also too bad that Killzone 2 won't amount to anything Halo produces. This cowardly act just further affirms that Sony is afraid of Halo since their oh so epic FPS Killzone is a pile of fake garbage

I don't know how to figure out whether sony edited halo 3, but this is just stupid counterattacking. Removed, hopefully a less POV explanation will be added.

I initially removed all of it, but after I take a second to read it, I realize that the bottom part is the only big problem. However, I would speculate that a single employee within sony does not represent an insult from the corporation as a whole, and it's probably insignificant. I'll leave it to people better versed at wiki to decide that.--Mr Bucket 04:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there was a citation using a reliable source, and at a single sentence I saw nothing wrong with it. What was POV about it? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You do not know it was Sony yet you assume it was. It could have been edited a Sony fanboy or anyone who hates Halo, but there was a citation from external source. So what was POV about it? What IS POV is your jibe at Killzone 2 for saying it "won't amount to anything Halo produces" and calling it a "pile of fake garbage". That's clearly your bias, and it doesn't really help your neutrality shine through. Dew87 02:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lik Sang

While most of the controversies may be legitimate, the Lik Sang controversy is not as the party at fault was Lik Sang, not Sony/Sony Computer Entertaintment. Request removal of that particular one...

Yeah, I've removed it. (84.13.240.216 18:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC))
I just searched the edit button... Wanted to add the Lik Sang case. Sony won the case that's right. But non the less they were part of this interesting and important story. They can be "proud of that". Don't let people forget this! --77.4.50.109 (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia edits

This section has been deleted multiple times, and each time without stating a reason. Here is the deleted text:

=== Wikipedia edits ===
The entry for ''[[Halo 3]]'', a game created by Sony's competitor Microsoft, was modified by somebody within Sony. The addition was "(Halo 3) wont look any better than Halo 2." <ref>[http://www.n4g.com/News-65101.aspx Sony Insults Halo 3 on Wikipedia].</ref>

I am not the original author of that statement, but I've verified that it's backed up by its source. For those who are against it, could you provide reasons why? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed again and re-instated (again). Please don't remove this again without comment. --Wootonius 21:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Or a better reason than 84.13.251.147 could provide. John.n-irl 08:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Is the new part about the ps2 ok, im not familiar with any policy about using wikipedia as a source, i know it occured on here but still, seems bit odd. Especially since to prove it you need to do you own whois, seems odd for an encyclopedia John.n-irl 19:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm a little lukewarm on it myself. Perhaps we should check consensus. New edits, should we keep/delete paragraph 2 of this section and should we keep/delete paragraph 3?
  • Weak delete paragraph 2 — self-referencing and Strong delete paragraph 3 — opinion POV (might be right, but it's still POV) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think if you are referring to an IP outside of wikipedia making possibly biased edits falls that it should fall under self referencing. The IP address information is stored by Wikipedia itself and cannot be edited by others, and as such is not subject to the same possibility of bias that editable forms are. That would call into question the method that Wikipedia uses to collect and document IP's. The IP information is reliable and verifiable, regardless of whether a diff page on Wikipedia is used to show proof of documentation. I believe that paragraph two should stand seeing as how you can use the whois function simply by clicking on the IP in the diff page and then selecting the WHOIS option on the page regarding that IP's edits. I've checked the IP on the diff page listed and the IP is in fact listed as a Sony North America IP. It seems to be legitimate, verifiable, and most certainly a post from inside Sony netspace. Perhaps the first line of Paragraph two could be revised to simply say "IP Addresses attributed to Sony have also edited wiki in attempts to improve the company's image" or something to that air. The third paragraph could be revised to seem less opinionated. If based on a large volume of comments by experts in multiple video gaming medias, this statement could be considered to be true. Most certainly in need of rephrasing however. It also seems to serve to give reasoning as to why Sony would make the Wiki edits noted in paragraph 2. Perhaps revising to remove possibly opinionated statements and adding references to gaming media sources? Until we can form a consensus of more than just one individual I feel that rather to resorting to complete deletion of the section before discussing possible edits, the information should stand. I vote to reinstate the info pending further discussion of possible revisions and further consensus. Alphus Omegus 02:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Alphus Omegus --Wootonius 20:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the information may be important, it's not the right article for the topic. That information belongs at the WikiScanner article, unless there is a larger independently-covered scandal (a la the Congressional one) specifically involving Sony. As a summary of a large global company that's been around for decades, I don't think that it has any relevance to the overall topic of an encyclopedic article on the Sony Corporation. Girolamo Savonarola 21:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Girolamo Savonarola. Surely there are far more important topics to be improved and expanded upon? ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 16:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree again, only because the WikiScanner article cannot be a drop-zone for every commercial edit discovered on Wikipedia. You would also be attributing something to WikiScanner that by all accounts had nothing to do with WikiScanner until you mentioned it. The Paragraph makes no reference to WikiScanner and links only to a diff page here on Wikipedia. WikiScanner in this case amounts to pure speculation at this point, as we have no reason to suspect that it was discovered via WikiScanner other than your speculation. For all we know a disgruntled Sony employee could have added the paragraphs, or some 15 year old who was looking through the diff pages. The odds would suggest WikiScanner, that's not really enough to go on.

Companies that are found to have possibly edited Wikipedia in their own interests should have those edits placed on Their Pages so that readers can be notified of a potential bias. That way readers can decide for themselves whether they believe the current edit is biased or not and begin discussion on the talk page regarding potential bias. If the companies in question wish to comment or issue a statement to address the section, then I would support including that as well. Otherwise the WikiScanner article will just get bogged down by every commercial edit that has ever been made here at Wikipedia, whether or not WikiScanner had anything to do with the discovery of the commercial edit. As I said, I think it belongs in the controversies sections of the companies that are accused, however I am in favor of rewriting the section to remove any POV or neutrality concerns.

By posting corporate wiki edits on the pages of the companies that are accused of possibly biased wiki edits, it may in fact be a deterrent to these companies to continue with irresponsible wiki editing. If they know that readers can see them (and believe me they know, They have whole teams of PR folk for this stuff. ^.~), and people are watching out for this irresponsible use of the wiki, it may be a round-about way of holding these companies accountable and simultaneously guarding the integrity of Wikipedia by discouraging such abuses of the wiki system. As I stated earlier, it would also serve to leave the ultimate choice in the hands of the reader. People shouldn't just believe something because they are told to simply accept it as fact, ever. Not even from an encyclopedia. We should all encourage the questioning of information, because when we do, we encourage the pursuit of The Truth.

To address Ganryuu, the argument that "there are far more important topics to be improved and expanded upon" can always be made here at Wikipedia. But the notion of "Important" is all POV to the eyes of the beholder is it not? I would rather leave the notion of important in the hands of the reader rather than the editors. Encyclopedias with more information are generally considered superior to those with less because the writers didn't think something was "Important" enough. Alphus Omegus 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

More information is not inherently better. The point of an encyclopedia article is to summarize the topic with an overall perspective representative of secondary sourced material. Do you have any secondary sources that discuss the Sony edits at length? Girolamo Savonarola 20:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines Encyclopedia as, and I quote, "An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." That's straight from the Wiki page. The information need only be verifiable truth, not necessarily spoken about at length in secondary sources. The Purpose of an Encyclopedia, as you put it, is not to give a perspective representative of simply secondary sourced material, but to give a perspective of the entire topic of the article with verifiable, credible sources for the information given, wherever the information is received from. The length of information that these verifiable sources discuss is irrelevant as long as the information the sources give is deemed to be true. What is true is that an IP address from Sony netspace altered Wiki, what is also true is that the edit was intended to give a positive POV to the reader in terms of the way they view Sony. These are both verifiable truths. They should be noted, regardless of whether or not other media have picked up on them. Information has to be discovered for the first time somewhere. If that somewhere is a Wiki Diff page, so be it. I'd also like to note that right here, under the edit window it states only "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*." Verifiable is the only requirement for inclusion. Doesn't matter the amount of sources, nor the length at which the sources discuss the information as long as it's verifiable. I would say the IP addresses that Wikipedia captured and documented would constitute verifiable sources of information.

Like I said earlier, not to note them would not only throw the article into questions of possible bias without notation, but it would also in essence be condoning the irresponsible use of the wiki. These companies have a huge number of staffers in their PR departments who's sole goal is to better the consumer's POV on the company. They know about wikipedia, and the number of people that come here. If they aren't held accountable some way or another, then what is there to stop them from stampeding the wiki with bias? Like I said, let them explain it or answer for it. We're just here to document it, whether all the press in the world, or just a few people know about it. That is the essence of what an encyclopedia is. To document all the knowledge whether most of the world knows it or not.

As stated earlier, I feel that this information should be documented. I feel there is no better place for this information than the Sony page. The Wikiscanner page is definitely not an option. Any other suggestions may be feasible with good reasoning behind them, but so far there have been no other suggestions other than moving it to a page that it has nothing to do with and total deletion. I find the option of moving it to an irrelevant page ridiculous, and I abhor deletion as anything but a last resort option. I think we should talk about possible phrasing edits before we consider relocation or total deletion. Alphus Omegus 01:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any secondary sources that discuss the Sony edits at length? Girolamo Savonarola 06:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any constructive ideas other than total deletion or redirecting the information to a page that you only speculated it belonged at? That's not really using "Secondary Sources" is it? Assumption...well you know the line. ^.~

I feel that badgering me with the same question is disrespectful, especially considering I just previously addressed that exact question. As I said, Information is Information, regardless of length, as long as the information given can be verified. Your Secondary Source would be Wikipedia's IP logs, verifiable and not open to the same bias as an editable form. I'm not sure why you feel the need to push the same question over when the question you ask is irrelevant. You choose not to even consider any other options other than complete exclusion of the information or redirecting it to a page it has nothing to do with. I'm not sure why you feel so incline to, in my opinion, protect sony from this edit, when it's easily verifiable that it occured. If you want to nit-pick for other sources, that could be done with any article here on the Wiki. Bottom line. The IP address was registered to an Internal Sony IP. That IP address edited the Wikipedia to add a positive POV for Sony. I'm willing to consider changes to the phrasing of the statements in Paragraphs Two and Three but I am not willing yet to discuss deletion of the information without good reason. You have yet to give me a good reason, and have offered only speculation (That's a no-no), and the request for more sources, disregarding perfectly legitimate, verifiable ones. I will say this again in bold for emphasis, The length at which a source describes or discusses the information is irrelevant, provided the information that is portrayed by the source is the only information portrayed by the article.

As I said, you could rewrite the information to say something to the air of An IP address registered to Sony North America has also been documented editing the Wikipedia with the intent of improving the image of Sony's Playstation 2 Product Line. That would be complete, and verifiable truth given the source that we already have documented. We notate the diff page and allow the reader to decide for themselves whatever they choose to believe. You obviously disregarded everything I stated in my previous comments, and as such, I will no longer address your comments. My statements stand. Perhaps a getting a moderator to handle this issue is best at this point. Alphus Omegus 14:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The logs and WikiScanner site would be considered primary sources. Do you have independent and reliable secondary sources? Any edits done without respect for WP:CONSENSUS or WP:V will be deleted as original research. WP:V is not about "The Truth", it's about reliable information from secondary sources. The policy itself states:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.

If you cannot provide suitable references, then the argument is moot and needs no further discussion. I am asking for very little - just some references. Girolamo Savonarola 15:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia IP logs would be the "Reliable, Published Source", as they are not subject to edits or bias and are publicly available. Your quotation says absolutely nothing about "Primary" or "Secondary" sources. Once again with this Wikiscanner non-sense. Where the hell do you keep getting that? Nobody thus far has said anything about Wikiscanner except you sir.

If you want that bad to tie this to Wikiscanner, then I'm sure you'll love the fact that it's been added by somebody to Wired Magazine's "List of Salacious Edits". Check for yourself.

http://wired.reddit.com/wikidgame/

There. You have your secondary source documenting it. It's been published online by a credible independant magazine, it's verifiable, it's a secondary source, and the information that the hyperlink title contains is reliable, as it leads right back to the diff page (once again, uneditable and showing the IP) as an example. Also, BTW, simply because the article on Wired also contains information regarding Wikiscanner, doesn't mean that the information collected by the Wired article was captured using using wikiscanner. That, my friend would still be speculation.

It's now been documented by Wikipedia's Diff page, The Wikiscanner (It does show up there when searched), and Wired Magazine as a third source for the information. Pwned. Next question? Alphus Omegus 20:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:PSTS. And there is still no consensus for the edit. Girolamo Savonarola 21:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
In response to the RfC. I believe that this edit should NOT be included. Here are the reasons:
  1. No reliable source
  2. Just because the ISP may be Sony, it does not mean that the ISP wasn't hijacked or that a "lone gunman" type of editor working at Sony did this, rather than as a corporate policy.

:::#Unencyclopedic -- Looks paranoid and crufty.

  1. It is not really about the company.
That's my view. --Blue Tie 01:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I also believe this info should not be included in the article, one person in a company surfing the internet while at work and removing info from Wikipedia is hardly a reason for including it in an encyclopedia entry about that company. Jaredbelch 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand by Blue Tie's and by Jaredbelch comment. This edit should NOT be included. A Sony's official document declaring that the Wikipedia article should be edited would be worth inclusion. But an inclusion such as this: "someone at Sony edited Halo's article" is unnecessary EconomistBR 00:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a request for commentary. If I understand the dispute, all the edit said was Halo3 won't be better than Halo2?"- from some computer at Sony? Is that supposed to be some kind of corporate scandal? That's like a guy at McDonald's making an edit that the "the whopper isn't as good as the big mac." It's just a POV statement, it would be removed no matter who said it or where it came from. Maybe if it was some orchestrated campaign like if they produced fake documentation that the competitor's burger was poisonous and or contaminated or did some great harm -- or in this case if whoever at Sony had said the game would make your computer blow up with some kind of credible sounding references, then maybe include it as some kind of "corporate conspiracy." But as it is, it's just a trival POV statement. There's probably dozens of such edits from people logging on at home with no trace to the company. No need to speculate on it or note it.SecretaryNotSure 02:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup origin of name

This

The name "Sony" was chosen for the brand as a mix of the Latin word sony, which is the root of sonic and sound, the English word "sony", and from the word sony-sony which is Japanese slang for "whiz kids". However "Sony" was thought to sound too much like the Japanese saying sony! which means sony.[14]

needs a big clean up based on [14].

Jidanni 01:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


The sentenc should be changed as follows as described at Sony official history page.

The Sony name was created by combining "SONUS," the original Latin for "SONIC," meaning sound, with "SONNY," denoting small size, or a youthful boy.

Seintz 16:25, 02 October 2007 (KST)

Hi, I am Japanese, and I have no idea about word sony-sony which is Japanese slang for "whiz kids". Is the time this slang become popular in Japan is match to timing Sony branded and/or company named? Also citation needed such slang and its timing. --Namazu-tron 04:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on why Agoraquest was removed from links

I noticed that Agoraquest.com was removed from the external links section. Can't figure out why since they are the largest unoffical Sony website. They do have over 79,000 members.

If they can let me know that would be great. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudiomeira (talk • contribs) 18:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conversion of Revenue YEN to USD

The SOurce says that Sony had revenues of 8,295,695.0 million YEN. That converts to approximately 76,201 million USD. The possible confusion could be that we have a disagreement about commas and periods. In some areas of the world the , and the . are exchanged in numbers, but in the US commas are for designating where thousands, millions, and billions start and periods are designate the portion that is less than 1. Since this is talking about US Dollars, the number that is quoted is 76 thousand 201 million USD or 76.201 billion dollars. Jons63 (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Headline text

[edit] um missing link

4.1 Fictitious movie reviewer 4.2 Digital rights management

4.4 Legal 4.5 Batteries 4.6 CCD


theres no 4.3 in the opening link set someone removed it for some reason. and i dunno how to put it back so someone else do that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.103.150 (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Musicdr's changes to finacial figures

Musicdr seems to have changed the financial figures for both Sony and Microsoft's pages, making them no longer accurate to their sources. I would have fixed it but the page is locked, so if anyone else wants to stand in and fix it 88.107.196.89 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updates to Sony page to reflect FY'08 Q4 numbers

I work in Sony Corporate Communications and would like to see this page reflect our most recent fiscal year numbers, announced on May 14, 2008, http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/07q4_sony.pdf

As of March 31, 2008: Revenue - 8,871.4 billion Yen or $88.7 billion US dollars / Operating income - 374.5 billion Yen, or $3,745 million US dollars / Net income - 369.4 billion Yen, or $3,694 million US dollars / Employees - 180,500

Also, on the sidebar at the top of the page, there is an "Industry" line that includes "Consumer electronics, electronics, financial services & media". To be consistent with the Sony.com website (http://www.sony.com/SCA/index.shtml) I would like to change this to "Audio, video, communications and information technology products for the consumer and professional markets, motion picture, television, computer entertainment, music and online businesses."

Lower down on the sidebar, under "Subsidiaries", I would like to remove "Sony Marketing". Below that, I'd like to add "Sony Financial Holdings", and put the following three entries as subsets under Financial Holdings. That includes Sony Life, Sony Assurance and Sony Bank.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about these changes, and let me know the best way to get this page updated.

Thanks,

Jennifer Glass VP, Communications Sony Corporation of America jennifer_glass@sonyusa.com 212 833 6975

May 30, 2008

Jenglass (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -