Jump to content

Talk:Zoom Communications

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 1 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saghakian, Mylatayl, Engrachel, Benjammr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Product article?

[edit]

I am wondering to myself whether it is appropriate to create an article on Wikipedia about the product itself (Zoom Cloud Meetings) rather than speak about it extensively on an article that's supposed to be focused on the company itself. What does anyone else think about this? Meşteşugarul - U 20:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mestesugarul:I have written some advice for this at WP:ORGVANITY. Basically I use WP:LENGTH as a guide. If a single product has a large-enough body of source material such that covering it here creates unreasonable weight or length on the company page, we can create a separate article on it. Otherwise we consolidate them under whichever is most notable (the company or product). CorporateM (Talk) 20:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! According to WP:ORGVANITY, it is wiser to let time pass instead and remain with both the product and company consolidated. There's just not enough material to merit such a separation. I appreciate your clarification on this. Meşteşugarul - U 21:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Lots of good advice on there for org pages. BTW - the Reception section could probably be trimmed a bit. I'm not sure a "commentary"[1] is really a reliable source. CorporateM (Talk) 21:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article reads like it was written by Zoom's PR people

[edit]

It really does. IMO. Boscaswell talk 09:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it does -- either official PR or an unappointed Zoom "Fanboy". I might have made that worse by my new paragraph about supported platforms. My only connection with Zoom is that I am a new user (new today!) of their software and have not yet discovered if I will be a fan or not. I included what I did because it seemed relevant to me when learning about their product. IF there is some bias there, it is that I am not writing about any competitors that I chose not to use.

Question for more experienced wikieditors: Is the natural inclination of editors to write about things they like a forgivable bias, or one that must be rooted out? Truerivertoo (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The receptions are all positive and, while it's possible that most like it, I doubt that there was no critique reception at all. Also no Critique section exists - again possible that no relevant critique has been raise but again hard for me to believe ;) Florian Finke (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who would like to take action on the neutrality of this article, my suggestion would be to remove the Recognitions section (or merge into Reception as prose where appropriate). I was going to suggest adding critical reception to the Reception section, but only do so if you feel there is notability (and there is already a section on security vulnerabilities).Tar-Elessar (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on this. --ZimZalaBim talk 12:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete / Updated Reference(s)

[edit]

Ref 40 is not a broken link as such, because the link still works. It is obsolete because the blogger has updated the entry with a more up to date assessment of "the best 5 solutions", which no longer include Zoom this time round. I could not find any trace of the 2013 post on their blogsite - perhaps others will be more lucky. I am not sure how this should be addrfessed and I leave it to others with more experience to mend it Truerivertoo (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Request Edit: some proposed changes

[edit]

Zoom has had a number of changes we would like added to our page, including an entirely new product in an entirely new market (Zoom Voice), and other milestones. When we have tried to make these changes ourselves, they have been deleted. As such, we are hoping administrators may place the changes themselves or give us guidance as to why they have been rejected. Please see below for updates with references. Thank you!

PRODUCT SECTION:

RECEPTION SECTION:

References

  1. ^ https://zoom.us/docs/doc/PIPEDA_PHIPA%20Canadian%20Public%20Information%20Compliance%20Guide.pdf
  2. ^ https://www.glassdoor.com/about-us/best-places-to-work-in-2019/
  3. ^ http://openexc.com/zoom-partners-with-openexchange-to-provide-video-communications-for-financial-services-market/
  4. ^ http://www.channelemea.com/spip.php?article40184
  5. ^ https://zoom.us/contact
  6. ^ https://www.pcmag.com/business/directory/profile/1984-zoom
  7. ^ https://www.uctoday.com/reviews/video-conferencing-reviews/zoom-meetings-review/
  8. ^ https://www.trustradius.com/web-conferencing
  9. ^ https://www.gartner.com/doc/reprints?id=1-5ET2NJA&ct=180905&st=sb

Reply 22-JAN-2019

[edit]

  Unable to review edit request  
Your edit request could not be reviewed because the provided references are not formatted correctly.[a] The citation style predominantly used by the Zoom Video Communications article is Citation Style 1 (CS1). The citation style used in the edit request consists of bare URL's.[b] Any requested edit of yours which may be implemented will need to resemble the current style already in use in the article – in this case, CS1. (See WP:CITEVAR.) In the extended section below titled Citation style, I have illustrated two examples: one showing how the edit request was submitted, and another showing how requests should be submitted in the future:

Citation style
Bare URL reference formatting:

The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles,<ref>https://www.booksource.com</ref> while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.<ref>https://www.journalsource.com</ref> The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.<ref>https://www.websource.com</ref>

Displays as:

The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.[3]


References

1. https://www.booksource.com
2. http://www.journalsource.com
3. http://www.websource.com

In the example above there are three URL's provided with the claim statements, but these URL's have not been placed using Citation Style 1, which is the style predominantly used by the Zoom Video Communications article. Using this style, the WikiFormatted text would resemble the following:

Citation Style 1 formatting:

The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Sjöblad|first1=Tristan|title=The Sun|url=http://www.booksource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2018|page=1}}</ref> while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Duvalier|first1=Gabrielle|title=Size of the Moon|journal=Scientific American|issue=78|volume=51|url=http://www.journalsource.com|date=2018|page=46}}</ref> The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Uemura|first1=Shu|title=The Sun's Heat|url=http://www.websource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2018|page=2}}</ref>

Displays as:

The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.[3]

References

  1. ^ Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2018, p. 1.
  2. ^ Duvalier, Gabrielle. "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78):46.
  3. ^ Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2018, p. 2.

In the example above the references have been formatted according to Citation Style 1, which shows the author, the source's name, date, etc., all information which is lost when only the links are provided. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, larger edit requests such yours are generally expected to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review.

Kindly rewrite your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example shown in the collapsed section above, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions about this formatting please don't hesitate to ask myself or another editor. Regards,  Spintendo  17:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ The fault for this formatting error most likely originated from the prompts used by the edit request template. These prompts ask the COI editor to "supply the URL of any references used". While this omission of information is not the fault of the requesting COI editor, it nevertheless remains their responsibility to supply the references formatted in the style used by the article.
  2. ^ The use of bare URLs as references is a style which is acceptable for use in Wikipedia. However, general practice dictates that the style already in use for an article be the one that is subsequently used for all future additions unless changed by editorial consensus.[1]

References

  1. ^ "WP:CITEVAR - Wikipedia:Citing sources". Wikipedia. 20 October 2018. Retrieved 22 October 2018. It is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it.

Edit request follow-up 27-FEB-2019

[edit]

@Farshad408: I'm afraid that the citation style used in the edit request still does not align with that used by the article. You may find information on adding references using Citation Style 1 at HELP:CS1. Regards,  Spintendo  20:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2020

[edit]

to the certificates and compliance sction please add GDPR per https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/360000126326-Official-Statement-EU-GDPR-Compliance 71.254.10.141 (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}Copy and paste the code to reply(Talk) 20:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mention if it costs money to use

[edit]

Mention if it costs money to use, or how they make their money. Jidanni (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a brief mention with this edit. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Open source and security

[edit]

80.1.217.212 (talk · contribs) seems insistent in including the statement "Zoom is not open source" in the "Security Issues" section of the article. This appears to be an assertion that not being open source presents inherent security threats. I reverted and edit warring occurred resulting in the current temporary page protection. If anyone has sources to suggest that the proprietary nature of Zoom's software has actually led to security threats, please feel free to provide them. --ZimZalaBim talk 12:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a potential security problem because any system that is used for communications which is not open-source, is potentially relying on security through obscurity and could therefore be in conflict Kerckhoffs's principle of cryptography. Vliegendehuiskat (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there certainly is that potential. But until there is a reliable source that confirms a security threat has originated from the fact the software is proprietary, such an assertion doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 March 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 14:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom Video Communications → Zoom Video – per WP:Common name, now it's being used a lot more in schools and colleges 2607:FB90:5E98:B508:A914:F2F9:E509:EC4E (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 2607:FB90:5E98:B508:A914:F2F9:E509:EC4E (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question seems to be whether this article is about the country company or about the app. The common name of the company itself is less likely to have changed. The app is generally just called "Zoom", not "Zoom Video". Dekimasuよ! 05:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Only that "zoom" itself is a disambiguation page. So "Zoom Video" would avoid a clumsy title like "Zoom (video)". ThomasPusch (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2020

[edit]

In paragraph "1.1 2019–20 COVID-19 Pandemic", second section

change 

through events such as "Zoom Blind Dates", Zoom Recess", and

to 

through events such as "Zoom Blind Dates", "Zoom Recess", and

(added a " ) Sebas39 (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoombombing

[edit]

I don't think we need a section on "Zoombombing", especially in the History section of the article. This isn't a major aspect of the company's history, or even distinct to Zoom's platform (this could potentially happen on Skype, GoToMeeting or any other videoconferencing tool). This seems very much a case of WP:RECENT. Thoughts? --ZimZalaBim talk 14:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the Zoomboming has as sources The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and a few others. The coverage by WP:RS seems very well established. Sure, it is recent, but we have no CRISTAL at this point. Better leave the sources standing and see what develops. XavierItzm (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt that RS have discussed the phenomenon, but I'm far from convinced it is a lasting thing worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's an article on Zoombombing that largely repeats what's here. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stand-alone articles routinely include content and sources already present in abbreviated form in other articles, and then fully expand on it with additional facts and sources that might not be germane. For example, the stand-alone article you mention includes examples that have occurred on other platforms (which obiously cannot and should not be at all mentioned on the Zoom article) and are backed by gold-plated WP:RS such as NRK of Norway which obviously cannot and should not be included here on the Zoom article. XavierItzm (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Zoom video listed in ANY of the comparison charts or tables below?

[edit]

Why isn't Zoom video listed in ANY of the comparison charts or tables below? do we need to correct this? can someone please advise??!!

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sm8900: If you think it should be included on those pages, go ahead and do it yourself. If it's not included it's likely because no one has thought to do so. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of privacy and data security sections

[edit]

Hi, I am planning to rewrite the privacy and data security sections. Please let me know if you have any objections or comments. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I ask is that you look at all of the material from privacy and security that has been deleted in the last couple of weeks. In the guise of streamlining the article, a lot of WP:RS and clarification for the reader was left on the cutting floor. XavierItzm (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Free software"?

[edit]

The article headline mentions that "Zoom is one of the most popular free software applications worldwide." When used like this, "free software" has, to me, strong implications of being FOSS, whereas Zoom is proprietary. Wikipedia's Free software page suggest that "Freeware" would be the name for proprietary software distributed at no monetary cost.

I'm not sure whether this is just a personal bias (though the Wikipedia article above seems to support it); would anyone else agree with changing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.55.125 (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is misuse of the word "free" in the context of software. 2001:1970:52E7:D000:0:0:0:F63A (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "free software" does not currently exist in the article. It simply refers to the fact that "Use of the platform is free for video conferences of up to 100 participants..." --ZimZalaBim talk 19:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not free.😕 Amazing articles (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible attempt at presenting false information within the article?

[edit]

There is currently a paragraph under the "Privacy" section of the "Criticism" segment which reads as follows:

"On 19 of April 2020 the FBI Research Unit announced that over the past 3 months the Chinese Government had been tracking biometric data on all users across North America and Europe. On 21 April, the Chinese Government claimed responsibility over COVID-19 initial diffusion.[73]"

The point of interest/concern is in the second sentence which states "On 21 April" and includes footnote [73].

At the time of reporting this sentence it is currently the 20th of April, 2020 - 18:18 GMT.

Initially I thought this to simply be an error by the person who wrote the sentence, or possibly related to a difference in time zones, but upon further investigation I found that the hyperlink provided in footnote [73] redirects to a pinterest buzzfeed article titled "Why Would You Die In A Disney Movie?" with a picture of Winnie the Pooh, and not anything related to the paragraph at hand.

This is the link to said article included as a source in footnote 73: https://www.pinterest.nz/pin/801007483694417810/

Is this an attempted at sabotage, or is it just negligence in ones editing/updating of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveller from an antique land (talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New source about security criticisms

[edit]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/technology/zoom-security-dropbox-hackers.html --Tuxayo (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Zoom (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 April 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: I am closing this request early because of the high rate of opposition. JE98 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom Video Communications → Zoom (social network) – Zoom is clearly receiving a lot of attention for video calling right now due to COVID-19. No one refers to it by wanting to go on "Zoom Video Communications". Per WP:COMMONNAME, it should simply just be "Zoom". Now I understand if you may want something else in the parentheses, but "Zoom" is the simplest and most appropriate title. JE98 (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 28 April 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a consensus that Zoom (software) should be created as a separate article focusing on the product. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist|wear a mask 14:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Zoom Video Communications → Zoom (software) – I thought about a better term to put in parentheses, and I feel that "software" is more appropriate. Bottom line is, like I said before, that people do not refer to Zoom by its full name and it would be easier to have it as a simpler title per WP:COMMONNAME. JE98 (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Avoiding PR insertions

[edit]

We've come a long way with this article since early March when it seemed be mostly a PR page highlighting corporate press releases. But recently it seems thers's been an increase in edits from random accounts trying to insert more PR-friendly content, such as this insertion and subsequent revert. I'm worried that PR teams have been hired to shape the article. What do other's think? --ZimZalaBim talk 01:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

[edit]

Per WP:GNG and the comments above for my previous move request, I would like to follow-up and propose that parts of this article be split into a separate page called Zoom (software). JE98 (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this information will be included in the article. I have watched several TV series where people were on some Zoom type software. In one case, it was the stars of two shows watching their own series and the other person's series. Whoever was talking, when all were on the screen, had a blue border around them. In a commercial, the border was green. Although what we saw may have been simulated in some way. I'm curious about how that works.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that there is consensus to do it, the details of the split can be handled WP:BOLDLY AFAIC. ~Kvng (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a link to this article from Google Meet. I don't know how many other potential links to the new article there could be.
Also, there is not one word about COVID-19 in Videotelephony. If anything, that article is tagged as too long. I'm not sure what to add or what kind of source to use.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I handled it BOLDLY. Please see Zoom (software) if you would like to improve the page. Streepjescode (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Country portals

[edit]

@ZimZalaBim:

Hi! I was being bold, so do excuse my edits. Anyway this is certainly related to the United States (or more specifically San Francisco Bay Area) because of where the headquarters are: San Jose (San Francisco area). In principle a company belongs to the WikiProject of the headquarters location and it should display the portal relevant to the HQ location.

China may indeed be relevant though if the company has significant ties to China. There is already a section talking about how much of its workforce is in China. In fact one could raise the issue on Wikipedia:WikiProject China. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, portals are meant for articles with much broader connections to the essence of their topics. We certainly don't link every company based in the US to the US portal, nor any article that happens to have some kind of tie to China. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ZimZalaBim: Often we didn't need to link to every company based in the US to the US portal because there were multiple state and city-based portals. Lamar High School (Houston) didn't need a US portal because you could have a specific Houston portal, for example. However a lot of the smaller portals got culled, so the Louisiana portal for example no longer exists. Louisiana articles should link to the general US portal because no more specific portal exists. Portals and WikiProjects are about whats related and I think an issue is that articles about US topics are perceived as having no "national" ties when in fact they do. Anyhow, on another note, if the article has some connection to China and does not have a connection to Hong Kong, or if it has a connection to the Chinese national government or broader trends in China, it very much should have a China portal. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 November 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Zoom Video Communications → Zoom (company) – Zoom is by far the WP:COMMONNAME, the "(company)" would only serve as a disambiguate. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoom_Communications&oldid=1259642588"