Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/9/06, Rob <gamaliel8(a)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