Talk:LexisNexis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
LexisNexis is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|
|
Suggested article edit guidelines:
|
|
 |
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. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating assessment scale. | |
 To-do list for LexisNexis: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
|
"Besides all current statutes and laws, Lexis contains nearly all published case opinions in the United States back to the 1770s" 1770? This has to be 1970! -- 172.180.145.57 06:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
No, 1770 is correct. Actually, they have a lot of English opinions as far back as the 1500s as well, and lots of Canadian opinions, and Australian opinions, and so on. It's because they have such a ridiculously enormous and comprehensive database that people were willing to pay hundreds of dollars per hour for many years to use Lexis --- although since 2000, customer pressure (and competition from newer companies like Loislaw) has finally forced Lexis to switch nearly all accounts to flat monthly fees. --Coolcaesar 02:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Finally, I got around to adding a second screenshot (showing a 1768 case retrieved through LexisNexis Academic Universe) to dispose of ignorant skeptics who doubt the depth of LexisNexis's content coverage! --Coolcaesar 04:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia:Wikipedians with LexisNexis access exist? It would be awesome if it did... we could create a page where people could list search requests... what Wikipedia really needs is get information from sources other than the (shallow) Web. Pcb21| Pete 10:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not, and even if it did, no one would add their names to it for fear of getting into BIG trouble with Lexis, and their law schools or law firms. Lexis tracks all database transactions so they can bill accordingly.
- Anyway, there's already a lot of information available from other databases like ProQuest and InfoTrac. See Wikipedia:How to write a great article (most of which I drafted). --Coolcaesar 03:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
- You might be interested to see Wikipedia:Resources. --80.1.192.28 04:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Also, ProQuest has the ProQuest Historical Newspapers service. They scanned in all pages of the NYT (even ads) published between 1850 and 2001. Unfortunately, individual subscriptions are quite expensive. Fortunately, my local public library subscribes, and also has the remote access feature, so I can do research in the New York Times from home. That's how I got the citations from the 1930s for the Freeway article. But Internet users outside the U.S. may not be so lucky.
-
-
-
-
-
- I should also note that ProQuest also has an Early English Books Online service which contains the full text of a huge amount of English literature.--Coolcaesar 17:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Contents |
[edit] Personal point of view text removed
I just removed the following text added a few hours ago:
- LexisNexis once was the premeiere on-line reference for news and legal information. Throughout the 1980's and early 1990's LexisNexis could legitimately claim the title to being the premeire on-line search engine. A combination of errors forced it to relinquish that leadership as the World Wide Web took off and LexisNexis was left behind. Today LexisNexis is confined to compete in narrow nich markets for business consumers. It could have been Google but lacked the vision and undrestanding to embrace the new business models.
This edit violates all three core Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. One, it is not verifiable; no source has been provided. Two, it is the author's personal point of view and is thus original research. Three, it is wrong, which explains why no sources are available to back up this point of view, because the author clearly has no understanding of the difference between search engines and information services. A search engine simply provides links to content by third parties; it is simply one tier in the n-tier infrastructure. Certainly, Google and Yahoo have gotten into the content business themselves in recent years, but the vast majority of their searches return content offered by third parties. An monolithic information service like LexisNexis provides a search capability for proprietary content which is available online only through the service. Search engines always catered to the broad audience of the Web with an advertising-based revenue model, while LexisNexis has traditionally catered to an elite group of wealthy businesses (news conglomerates and law firms).
Fourth and finally, the author has no grammar or spelling skills. Correct spellings are "premiere," "1980s," "1990s," "niche," and "understanding," and I don't know where to even begin with all the grammar errors. --Coolcaesar 09:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
I added the tag because of the two previous comments, and indications that the problems noted there may be more pervasive in the article. 20:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Google and LexisNexis have different business model, LexisNexis could have created a Google type search engine, but LexiNexis is in the business model of agregating and catloging and Indexing properatory premium contents from varous leading publishers which will never available as a free content any where either with Lexix Nexis or with the authors. Lexis Nexis also loaded with atchived information dating back to last 30 years. Does Google has those archives?. Atleast last few years archive of HBR..
Google provides only publicaly available content which does not have structured searches as LexisNexis have it.
In future Google may come up to those query facility, however It will never be able to provide properatory contents unless untill it is ready to pay royalty as LexisNexis does to it's content providers. This would make shift in Google's business Model. Is possible for Google to take a shift?
Yes!! there could be a marginal impact on the business of LexisNexis by Google's free content, but Google will never be able to replace LexisNexis with existing business Model.
Can you show me any premimum content from Google for free other than public information? It can just give a link to the publiher's web page where you will be asked access password , some time you may be brought in to LexisNexis site for the information you look from Google.
Google do not have a data which is not publicaly available and free. Please do not compare the both.
[edit] Lexis.com vs. Nexis.com
Lexis means " Legal" in Latin and Nexis means "News" in Latin. So you can make out the difference. Lexis have some news content which is kept for the use of lawyers in litigation .
Nexis companion has news , company and industry research reports aggregated from thousands of sources. Lexis has caselaws, Statues, Legal, General news and analytical materials on various areas of law makes it an ultimate refernce tool for the lawers, But Nexis helps you in business research.
So Now , It's how you know!!!..Lexis Nexis. {{--Moovendhan 07:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)|202.63.162.190}}
- I've incorporated this into the article. Seahen 01:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] P-Trak Controversy
Why is there no mention of the P-Trak flap from a few years back, documented (albeit in passing) here: http://www.cdt.org/privacy/issues/pii/ not notable enough? Zero sharp 21:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Size
Anyone know what the size of the database is, in bytes?--Rotten 15:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
There are thousands of databases, which take up many terabytes of data.Derwood5555 (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Subscriptions?
Is it possible for a curious individual to subscribe to their services, or do you have to be owned by a company that has a subscription? -- 70.15.116.59 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Individuals can subscribe if they have a credit card, but you had better have a lot of cash in your savings account ready to burn and a high credit limit (like $20,000 or higher). One can easily burn through $20,000 on a single Lexis session if not careful; in law schools, they teach students that the fastest way to get fired is to use up an amount in Lexis subscription fees that is higher than the amount in controversy in the case! That's why most users access Lexis under an organizational affiliation, either authorized on a user-by-user basis by the firm's IT administrator in coordination with Lexis support, or by IP address ranges. The organization will already have negotiated a monthly flat-rate fee for an appropriate package of "unlimited" access services. Depending upon the package negotiated, all databases outside the organization's package may be blocked. Or they may be displayed but will have a dollar sign next to the links and there will always be an "additional charges" warning before one enters the pay-per-use areas.
- Most major universities subscribe to LexisNexis Academic, lexis.com's ugly stepsister. It used to be absolutely awful (to discourage lawyers from using it as a cheap substitute to lexis.com) but now it is mildly tolerable except for the occasional quirk here and there (again, to encourage lawyers to stay with lexis.com). If you live close to a public university they are usually required by law to let the general public access their libraries, so you can go in and try out LexisNexis Academic for free. But it's still not as slick or powerful as the real lexis.com. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually the general rule of thumb at university libraries seems to be that whatever it is, if it's online it's for authorized passwords only and community members are SOL. But how can it be so expensive to access documents that started in the public domain? Maybe it's time for "Wiksus"? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 22:50, 21 November
2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism re current location of LexisNexis headquarters
The article was vandalized months ago and no one caught it! The LexisNexis Web site clearly indicates that the address is 125 Park Avenue. I am fixing this right now. If this happens again, the article may need to be semi-protected or protected completely. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching it, but that appears to have been a good faith edit, not vandalism. Assume good faith, and be civil -- knee-jerk accusations of vandalism are not civil. FWIW, http://www.aboutlexisnexis.com/presscenter/contact/ says New York, http://support.lexis-nexis.com/contact_us.asp says Dayton. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- ... and Hoover's still has Miamisburg too: http://www.hoovers.com/lexisnexis/--ID__43553--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] US Supreme Court decision
A SCOTUS decision, MeadWestVaco Corporation, successor in interest to the Mead Corporation, Petitioner, v. Illinois Department of Revenue et al., came out today (Tax Day, 2008) about the tax issues around Mead's sale of Lexis/Nexis. The PDF of the decision is here, and I'm sure there's a plain-text version on one of the free legal sites. Someone may wish to add details about the company's history from pages 3-5 of the decision (pages 6-8 of the PDF, as the file also includes a 3-page synopsis at the beginning).
One thing that's not addressed in either the decision or this article: When did "Lexis/Nexis" drop the slash and become just "LexisNexis"... or did it? On page 5 of the PDF, the Court says that the service is "now known as Lexis/Nexis", yet when I came to check out Wikipedia, I found that there was no article for Lexis/Nexis (I've since created a redirect). I was rather surprised at that, but after searching for a bit I found this article with a similar name. Why is there no mention in the article about the version of the name with the slash, which is apparently the legal name of the service (even if it doesn't appear on their website)?
--ΨΦorg (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Probably because no one asked the court to take judicial notice of that fact (the name change probably occurred after the trial and thus wasn't in the record). Remember, Lexis wasn't before the court; the party before the court was Mead, its former parent. This wasn't a case where names were a big deal (in tax cases people care about numbers not names), so no one bothered with this issue. Notice how the court did take judicial notice of Mead's name change to MeadWestvaco. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
