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
Hi Omri,
NPOV (the Neutral Point Of View) is sacrosanct here.
As was just discussed a few emails back, it's not even enough to allow for one's point of view to get balanced by other people's point of view. At the Wikipedia it's actually expected to make an express effort to write in an NPOV fashion yourself.
Thus, if you're interested in making any sort of concerted effort to ''specifically emphasize and focus on'' corporate wrongdoing, you will probably find your own efforts more criticized than welcomed here. While I haven't properly read but a single of their articles (not to mention contributing), I am--based on hearsay--under the impression that disinfopedia.org may be a better place to go ''if'' I understood you correctly and the above is what you have in mind.
(And yes, granted, in theory it's probably possible to write about corporate wrongdoing in an NPOV way -- I just think that it's very, very hard and unlikely to accomplish, especially given a stated ambition to specifically write about such issues.)
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 14 Oct 2004, at 03:07, Omri Schwarz wrote:
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@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Omri Schwarz wrote:
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.
We (I, anyway) would be ecstatic if you started out by documenting basic company history, who owns who, what businesses they're in, etc. Many times we have articles making half-substantiated allegations, and there's not even information on when a company was founded or what it does.
Articles with the uncontested facts on major companies should an expected part of WP, just like articles on cities and provinces. Also, corporate malfeasance material will be far more plausible if the basic facts are correct.
Stan
Omri Schwarz wrote:
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.
Articles about particular corporations are a valid part of Wikipedia. Corporate edit warriors should be resisted just as much as individual ones. As long as we strive to be truthful in what we report we have nothing to be ashamed of. If we are to bow to and be censored by corporate intimidation we might as well all pack it in.
Ec
Generally speaking what goes into Wikipedia articles of this nature is just material that has been reported in the press. As original research is not included much that might be known cannot be included as it is not part of the corpus of knowledge.
Fred
From: "Omri Schwarz" ocschwar@MIT.EDU Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:07:20 -0400 To: wikipedia-l@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@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
regarding NOR policy:
Does NOR mean you cannot edit an article or create an article on a theory or concept you concieved, even if it is widely accepted or if you're not even the one who wrote the article?
I had thought that NOR applied only to statistical data and the like. Does it also apply to any information not to be found anywhere else?
--node
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:56:34 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Generally speaking what goes into Wikipedia articles of this nature is just material that has been reported in the press. As original research is not included much that might be known cannot be included as it is not part of the corpus of knowledge.
Fred
From: "Omri Schwarz" ocschwar@MIT.EDU Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:07:20 -0400 To: wikipedia-l@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@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
"No original research" just means don't add anything that's not been published elsewhere already. Doesn't matter if you're the author or not, the information just needs to be somewhere where a random WP editor can go and verify that an article says the same thing as the source publication. ("Publication" is generally broadly interpreted to include websites, and there is a ragged edge of dispute as to whether a random personal website is sufficient.)
Stan
Mark Williamson wrote:
regarding NOR policy:
Does NOR mean you cannot edit an article or create an article on a theory or concept you concieved, even if it is widely accepted or if you're not even the one who wrote the article?
I had thought that NOR applied only to statistical data and the like. Does it also apply to any information not to be found anywhere else?
--node
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:56:34 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Generally speaking what goes into Wikipedia articles of this nature is just material that has been reported in the press. As original research is not included much that might be known cannot be included as it is not part of the corpus of knowledge.
Fred
From: "Omri Schwarz" ocschwar@MIT.EDU Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:07:20 -0400 To: wikipedia-l@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@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Omri Schwarz wrote:
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.
Of course NPOV articles on possibly controversial topics are more than welcome. If you're looking to write "corporate expose" type of stuff, though, it might be more comfortable for you at disinfopedia? Or better yet, focus attention on both...
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org