"George Herbert" wrote
There are around 6,000 NYSE and NASDAQ listed US companies; is en-wikipedia WP:CORP as it stands still the right filter, or should it be somewhat loosened up? Would roughly 6k companies be inappropriate in 1.5 million total articles? Is mere listing on a major stock exchange enough notability?
Good question.
I wouldn't say we need every NASDAQ listing.
It is a bit odd for companies not to be able to qualify at all by capital value. Of course if there really were _no_ sources, for a secretive private corporation, the article could reduce to 'secretive private corporation'.
People who come to Wikipedia in a search for information on what equities to buy - what can one say? Cheapskates, and foolish investors, almost by definition.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"George Herbert" wrote
There are around 6,000 NYSE and NASDAQ listed US companies; is en-wikipedia WP:CORP as it stands still the right filter, or should it be somewhat loosened up? Would roughly 6k companies be inappropriate in 1.5 million total articles? Is mere listing on a major stock exchange enough notability?
Good question.
I wouldn't say we need every NASDAQ listing.
If the only information we have about them is the NASDAQ listing we have a relatively uninformative stub. In most cases a little digging can probably find more information in the legally required filings for public corporations. If the supporters of a company aren't willing to do that little bit of research even the hardest core inclusionists can't help them.
It is a bit odd for companies not to be able to qualify at all by capital value. Of course if there really were _no_ sources, for a secretive private corporation, the article could reduce to 'secretive private corporation'.
Private corporations are not listed on NASDAQ, and you cannot buy their shares on the open market.
People who come to Wikipedia in a search for information on what equities to buy - what can one say? Cheapskates, and foolish investors, almost by definition.
Not at all, but for the fact that the amount of information that we now have is very limited. If it's going to be their only source of information you're right on the same level as using Wikipedia references on term papers. Having good NPOV information may not help a person to decide what equities to buy, but it can certainly influence him in deciding which equities _not_ to buy.
Such information on companies is one of our most seriously underdeveloped areas of knowledge.
Ec
These arguments over notability to me to be such an incredible non-issue except for one thing - we can't all just agree on something.
If it were clear which companies were in and which were out, then I really don't think it matters where that line was drawn. Any companies which clearly weren't in could just be included somewhere else. If there were a large number of them this could even be done within a Wikimedia project.
This whole notability argument is getting old.
"Such information on companies is one of our most seriously underdeveloped areas of knowledge." - I'd say information on freeware and free software is right up there too.
Anthony
On 10/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"George Herbert" wrote
There are around 6,000 NYSE and NASDAQ listed US companies; is en-wikipedia WP:CORP as it stands still the right filter, or should it be somewhat loosened up? Would roughly 6k companies be inappropriate in 1.5 million total articles? Is mere listing on a major stock exchange enough notability?
Good question.
I wouldn't say we need every NASDAQ listing.
If the only information we have about them is the NASDAQ listing we have a relatively uninformative stub. In most cases a little digging can probably find more information in the legally required filings for public corporations. If the supporters of a company aren't willing to do that little bit of research even the hardest core inclusionists can't help them.
It is a bit odd for companies not to be able to qualify at all by capital value. Of course if there really were _no_ sources, for a secretive private corporation, the article could reduce to 'secretive private corporation'.
Private corporations are not listed on NASDAQ, and you cannot buy their shares on the open market.
People who come to Wikipedia in a search for information on what equities to buy - what can one say? Cheapskates, and foolish investors, almost by definition.
Not at all, but for the fact that the amount of information that we now have is very limited. If it's going to be their only source of information you're right on the same level as using Wikipedia references on term papers. Having good NPOV information may not help a person to decide what equities to buy, but it can certainly influence him in deciding which equities _not_ to buy.
Such information on companies is one of our most seriously underdeveloped areas of knowledge.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l