Talk:Cognizant/Archives/2020
 | 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. |
Controversy
IP User 2405:104 ... from Himmatnagar in the Telangana region wrote, "There were fake allegations agaisnt [sic] the company which are being highlighted by the competitors[.] This is not acceptable and such issues pertaining to the company shouldn't be publicly highlighted[.] There are issues with Accenture as well[;] then [sic] why wiki isn't [sic] highlighting those?"
The allegations are well sourced. And it is wiki contributors and not competitors highlighting them. While it might be different in India, a company that claims to be American should live by American rules of transparency. I suggested that as a wiki contributor s/he was free to highlight items such as https://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Investigating-Outsourcing/Accenture-and-Capgemini-latest-corporations-identified-as-tax-avoiders. Indeed, I encouraged it. 75.191.81.167 (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC) J
Poor English and NPOV
Regardless of the edit war on this page trying to remove content critical of Cognizant, it is true that a lot of the "Controversies" section is written very poorly and violates NPOV. E.g.: "20 senior executives, above the Director's Level were dismissed because they were not able to catch up with the latest technologies. The number of the executives that were dismissed is unusually high and questions the ability of the company to catch up with the latest technologies." This is not encyclopedic style. 136.8.33.69 (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)