[Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

[George Herbert]

On 1/28/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ray Saintonge schreef:
> > Delirium wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Christopher G. Parham wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 1/27/2007 3:15 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> A reasonable criterion for companies would be the listing of its shares
> >>>> on an important stock exchange.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Sadly our actual "notability guideline" explicitly reject that as a
> >>> criterion.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> It's strange that a small elementary school is inherently notable by
> >> virtue of existing, but a corporation that's actually publicly traded on
> >> a major exchange isn't.  I guess the Wikipedia school lobby has more
> >> clout than the Wikipedia corporate lobby?
> >>
> >>
> > While most Wikipedians have probably attended some elementary school, I
> > sometimes can't help but feeling that there is a profound lack of
> > understanding  about the corporate world.  Maybe it's just that our
> > younger crowd has never had the occasion to figure out what the
> > financial pages are about.  Listed companies have their share prices
> > reported on a daily basis.  Objective studies are constantly being done
> > and published by brokerage and other investment firms.  Even a confirmed
> > opponent of most corporate activities needs to "know his enemy" in oder
> > to fight them more effectvely.  I wonder whether those who support the
> > current guidelines for corporate notability have ever bought, owned or
> > sold any stock in their lives.  The usual image of a corporation st
> > least gives the appearance of being contrary to any kind of open access
> > to information.  We probably don't have much of a corporate lobby at all.
> >
> > Ec
> Hoi,
> I have bought, owned and sold stocks. I have read the financial pages.
> My observation would be that it is exactly the publicly traded companies
> that the financial pages are concentrated on. Many companies that are
> economically as relevant do not get the same degree of attention. When
> you aim to say that companies, organisations are relevant and that they
> are under represented I do agree with you. It is just that many of these
> companies, like imho almost all schools are not relevant. When people
> want to write about them, like with schools, people will have strong
> opinions about them. People of these companies will try to game the
> system for their marketing benefit. When there is a project with a
> strong community of people who nurse this content, fine.
>
> Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and many companies have no lasting
> relevance. Some companies have anecdotal relevance like this company
> that sold pet food over the Internet...


I think it's reasonable to consider whether the company notability
criteria are too strict, as currently written and applied.

That we should not open the floodgates to letting companies promote
themselves using Wikipedia doesn't mean that we shouldn't cover more
companies in a fair and neutral manner...


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com