[Wikipedia-l] Articles that might draw fire.

[Fred Bauder]

Generally speaking what goes into Wikipedia articles of this nature is just
material that has been reported in the press. As original research is not
included much that might be known cannot be included as it is not part of
the corpus of knowledge.

Fred

> From: "Omri Schwarz" <ocschwar at MIT.EDU>
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:07:20 -0400
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Articles that might draw fire.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l