Hi, folks. I and some friends have been discussing the issue of whether 10 years from now it will become important for your average corporate manager not to do anything that might wind up being documented in his company's Wikipedia entry. A brief look through Wikipedia does show articles detailing the controversial actions of some corporations, but not enough to indicate a concerted effort by any corporate history geeks or labor history geeks.

From: "Omri Schwarz" <ocschwar(a)MIT.EDU> Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:07:20 -0400 To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Articles that might draw fire. Hi, folks. I and some friends have been discussing the issue of whether 10 years from now it will become important for your average corporate manager not to do anything that might wind up being documented in his company's Wikipedia entry. A brief look through Wikipedia does show articles detailing the controversial actions of some corporations, but not enough to indicate a concerted effort by any corporate history geeks or labor history geeks. Said friends reached the conclusion that the addition of many articles on corporate history and ongoing activities would be a good thing indeed, but a concerted effort to do so would be obnoxious, since it increases the chance of Wikipedia facing disruptive efforts (in the form of legal threats or revert-wars conducted by paid minions). It would be a good thing since a wiki is not time indexed, like any press article, and cannot just be "ridden out." But before any effort is made to write articles on corporate activities, it would be good to come here and ask whether possibly controversial articles are wellcome in Wikipedia, or whether a fork of the project would be a better thing to do. So, what do y'all think? Thanks for your attention, Omri Schwarz _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l