Ray Saintonge schreef:
Delirium wrote:
Christopher G. Parham wrote:
On 1/27/2007 3:15 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
A reasonable criterion for companies would be the
listing of its shares
on an important stock exchange.
Sadly our actual "notability guideline" explicitly reject that
as a
criterion.
It's strange that a small elementary school is inherently notable by
virtue of existing, but a corporation that's actually publicly traded on
a major exchange isn't. I guess the Wikipedia school lobby has more
clout than the Wikipedia corporate lobby?
While most Wikipedians have probably attended some elementary school, I
sometimes can't help but feeling that there is a profound lack of
understanding about the corporate world. Maybe it's just that our
younger crowd has never had the occasion to figure out what the
financial pages are about. Listed companies have their share prices
reported on a daily basis. Objective studies are constantly being done
and published by brokerage and other investment firms. Even a confirmed
opponent of most corporate activities needs to "know his enemy" in oder
to fight them more effectvely. I wonder whether those who support the
current guidelines for corporate notability have ever bought, owned or
sold any stock in their lives. The usual image of a corporation st
least gives the appearance of being contrary to any kind of open access
to information. We probably don't have much of a corporate lobby at all.
Ec
Hoi,
I have bought, owned and sold stocks. I have read the financial pages.
My observation would be that it is exactly the publicly traded companies
that the financial pages are concentrated on. Many companies that are
economically as relevant do not get the same degree of attention. When
you aim to say that companies, organisations are relevant and that they
are under represented I do agree with you. It is just that many of these
companies, like imho almost all schools are not relevant. When people
want to write about them, like with schools, people will have strong
opinions about them. People of these companies will try to game the
system for their marketing benefit. When there is a project with a
strong community of people who nurse this content, fine.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and many companies have no lasting
relevance. Some companies have anecdotal relevance like this company
that sold pet food over the Internet...
Thanks,
GerardM