[WikiEN-l] Norman Technologies AfD

[Alphax (Wikipedia email)]

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 8/9/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, there's a natural reaction to anything that looks like corporate
>> advertising, but I wouldn't call it a "bias against corporations".
>>
>> I don't see anything inherently wrong with MyWikiBiz, esp. since they
>> are pretty open about what they're doing.  But I also don't think
>> Wikipedia's mission is served by cluttering up the place with articles
>> on every small consulting firm in the US. This corporation has only 26
>> employees and the only citations are a local business journal.  Is
>> this really a significant enough company to make it into an
>> encyclopedia?
> 
> That definitely depends on what your definition of "significant
> enough" is. If we had room for only 10 corporations, I would say no.
> But we're not pressed for space, and unlike pure vanity articles (my
> name is Jim and I have a dog called Nelly!), this type of article
> meets a genuine need.
> 

Does it? How are they unique? The following,

"Norman Technologies is the only U.S.-based private-sector I.T.
consultancy focused solely on global trade initiatives. The company is
also unique in that it provides the only non-bank representative to the
International Chamber of Commerce's Committee on Banking Technique &
Practice. The firm is also a member of the International Financial
Services Association."

uses a heap of weasel words/buzzwords/business jargon ("global trade
initiatives") which don't really mean much; and what is the
International Chamber of Commerce's Committee on Banking Technique &
Practice anyway?

> I think there is a valid viewpoint that says "Wikipedia is the sum of
> human knowledge, except for a bit of total dross that doesn't interest
> anyone". However, a genuine company with 26 full time employees that
> has been around for 5 years and does some interesting things at the
> global level is not such dross.
> 

You're wrong. /Nobody cares/ about J. Random Company, manufacturer of
Gnomovision, which makes passes about compilers, even if Gnomovision is
notable[0].

> Purely and simply, is Wikipedia better off *with* this information
> than *without* it? If the answer is "without", then why? Because we
> saved a couple of kilobytes?
> 

Because it's just one more article which people are going to edit war
and email OTRS about, and it's not particularly interesting or
informative; the aim of an encyclopedia is to be factual, informative
and interesting.

[0] Guess the reference...
-- 
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060810/dc12af0b/attachment.pgp