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