Talk:Text analytics

	Linguistics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
	This redirect is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Statistics

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles

Linkfarm

The external links in the application lists should be removed per WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:NOT#LINK --Ronz 04:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the lists and external links section, removing the linkspam and the entries in the lists that don't have their own articles. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstated many links per "Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information/Notability and inclusion guidelines" -- these are companies that are notable providers in this category. Many/most people who come to Wikipedia for a definition of text analytics will be looking for companies including these. Same with the reference links. 1 February 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SethGrimes (talk • contribs) 10:42, 1 February 2009

I disagree strongly, Seth. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Specifically, external links should never appear in the body of an article but only in the External links section. Even there, you must select only a few. Please read the guidelines at WP:EL. --Thüringer ☼ (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept that you're correct here, but in this case, the whole software section should be removed for both open source and non-OS software in favor of a link to a directory site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.50.218 (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis vs. Analytics

OMouse, while your changes to the text analytics article were surely well meaning, the fact is that the field in question is "text analytics," not "text analysis." Check out for instance the (IBM) SPSS PASW software and IBM LanguageWare sites and you'll see their use in their product names of "text analytics," contrary to the change to "text analysis" you introduced in the article.

To explain further: "text analytics" is a field that includes "text analysis," a.k.a. natural-language processing, it's raison d'etre, but "text analytics" goes beyond to apply BI & data mining techniques common to what's called "analytics" in the IT world to discover information contained in the textual sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SethGrimes (talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The field is text analysis because you are analyzing text. Analytics is marketing jargon and a recently invented buzzword so of course it would be used in product names. Analysis sounds plain compared to analytics. I'm opposed to the word "analytics" in general because the word "analysis" already covers pretty much everything it's supposed to cover.

However, here's a compromise: let's use the word analysis, but add that companies alternatively call it "analytics" and use it in their product names. This ensures that readers won't be confused and we can even add a new page called Text Analysis that redirects to Text Analytics (or the other way around, doesn't matter to me as long as readers can get to where they want to go). Also, if you feel that "text analytics" goes beyond "text analysis" then we can add that to the article as well. Maybe say something like "text analysis, which covers X, Y, and sometimes Z" where Z is whatever text analytics covers. What do you think? --OMouse (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omouse, thanks for your response. Text analytics involves but goes beyond analyzing text by analyzing the content of the text -- and not just of individual textual documents, but of what are now termed "data spaces" -- using BI, data mining (statistical), and other methods that are generally, widely, and acceptably termed "analytics." That's why this field, and this article, are about text analytics rather than text analysis. Another difference is that text analytics is automated while text analysis is not necessarily.

So I suggest that you create a "text analysis" article and populate it however you wish. Text analysis has been going on for millennia -- with a link in the See Also section to the "text analytics" article in its current form.

Further, I don't know of any company that headlines its product/service description with "text analysis" or even systematically or at all widely uses "text analysis" as an alternative for "text analytics." The main content is between "text analytics" and "text mining" with, as the current "text analytics" article explains, "text analytics" perhaps more widely used in business settings.

Lastly, any change you wish to make should subscribe to Wikipedia guidelines, which call for reference, with citations, to external materials. I believe Wikipedia frowns on first publication of new scholarship or opinions. Any changes to this article, whether toward the usage "text analysis" or for any other purpose, should carry citations of credible reference materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SethGrimes (talk • contribs) 12:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]