[Foundation-l] Corporate vanity policy enforcement

[Anthony]

On 9/30/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In fact maybe we can beat them to the punch.  Create a verifiable
> > neutral article about them *before* they get around to it.
> >
>
> True to your belief everything should be in Wikipedia, Anthony.  I disagree.
>
In a perfect world "everything" should be in Wikipedia, I suppose, but
I don't believe we live in such a perfect world.  Please don't
misrepresent my position.

> > Wikipedia gets what it wants.  The companies get what they want.
> > Everyone is happy, except I suppose some people who calculate the
> > value of the encyclopedia based on the popularity of the article
> > titles.
>
> You have it backward.  Whether we like it or not, people in the world
> perceive they aren't somebody unless they are in Wikipedia.  Companies
> especially so.

So what?  Is the purpose of Wikipedia to tell people whether or not
"they are somebody"?  Of course it isn't.  Moreover, is the purpose of
Wikipedia to tell society whether or not a company is deemed notable
by a self-selected group of admins/AfDers/whatever?  I'd suggest this
isn't the purpose either.

> Nobody would argue publicly traded companies, Fortune
> 500, etc. count, I don't believe.  But walk a mile in our shoes for a
> moment.  Every numbskull with letterhead on the planet believing they
> have a "right" to have their brother-in-law marketing partner spam us
> with corporate schmutz?  Please.
>
Actually, my suggestion above was that we write the articles, not the
marketers.

> But honestly, where is your line?  What does it take to plunge off the
> cliff of oblivion for you before something can be considered non-WP
> worthy?
>
I believe there are lots of things that are non-WP worthy.  Please
don't misrepresent my position.

Anthony