Berto 'd Sera wrote:
There's more to writing about companies than such POV exposés..
LOL, this sounds funny, as I am myself a Radical Constructivist :) I do not believe there is anything in man's mind apart from POVs... so there is also nothing that can be written, apart from POVs. The very idea of the existence of NPOV things is absolutely POV. :)
Your premise is true enough. NPOV represents a consensus of the differing POVs that have been offered to the article. Ideally each edit brings us closer to NPOV, but only rarely can it be completely achieved.
Anyway, we have is a procedure called "consensus". If I wanted to candidate my POV for consensus I would not write it here. I'd click on a big number of Edit tabs and make it happen, which is not what I'm doing. Not that I'm not interested in being a winner, simply I do not give a damn about what gets published about company X, since I sold all my stocks many years ago and never got robbed again :))) I'd rather write about what can be of use for my beloved self, as anybody else.
Isn't that what we all do?
Our coverage of corporations is seriously deficient.
So click on those "edit" tabs and make it better People write about what is interesting to them. What you say basically means that wikimedians aren't interested in corporate economy enough for them to write about it...
The point that I was making there was that applying restrictions to what makes a corporation notable is meaningless when there is no movement to add this stuff in the first place.
Ec