[Wikipedia-l] Articles that might draw fire.

[Omri Schwarz]

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