[Wikipedia-l] Articles that might draw fire.

[Ray Saintonge]

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