Talk:Legal outsourcing/Archives/2012
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
prudency
- "While it will not be prudent to list those firms here for confidential reasons"
Is prudency a value for wikipedians and not transparency? 83.11.54.157 (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This article seems not to respect WP rule of Neutral Point Of View (NPOV)
I quote from the NPOV page : «Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.» I one takes a quick look at the History page of this article, most people having written the article are either from India or writing mainly if not only in the Legal Outsourcing Process (LPO) field. It looks as though author Ronz may be the best known LPO consultant on the Internet, Ron Friedmann. Also, the criticisms section is cleraly mcuh smaller that the advantages part. And the point is, there is no mention at all of language problems, legal knowledge problems, lack of knowledge and lack of practice before the courts. Also, the 40-60% percentage of growth is not proved (no reference). And the Evalueserve firm which gives data is obviously based in India.
This is not to say LPO is not in progress nor of poor value. This is a request for a more balanced article, in line with WP's rule of neutrality not in a formal, artificial way but in a real way.
Also, according to WP Talk Page Guidelines, «Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject». The above statement is clearly *not* respecting that rule. I therefore suggest to wipe it out.