On 02/07/2008, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/7/1 Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com>om>:
> I find it leaves out the truism that if people that own or work for
> the company have to create the article themselves, it's very unlikely
> to be truly notable. (Irrespective of whatever the policy says today).
>
> There's a lot to be said for organic growth and shamefacedly poking
> you or your company in the wikipedia is in no way organic.
More seriously, they're going to do it anyway,
whether we tell them to
or not. We may as well encourage people to tell them how to do it
effectively and without causing trouble or producing actively bad
material.
My point about organic growth is that if an article isn't linked in,
then in a hypertext environment like the wikipedia, it shouldn't be
there. And there's a lot of companies sitting there, unlinked, because
every time they linked themselves, somebody went 'who cares' or 'link
spam' and unlinked them. That doesn't happen with truly notable
companies though.
I think any guidelines should start from another article, whereas
right now it starts from the company. Just adding in data along the
lines of 'there exists a company called X that makes Y, and Z said
they were really good!' into the wikipedia is ultimately useless.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.