And everything else is covered under other policies. Is there anything new policy-wise here or is it just an essay about writing articles on corporations? Fagstein05:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I gather from the "Rationale" section that the problem is that complaints from companies are creating an administrative load on the Wikipedia office. Libel (at least in the US) to the point of actually losing a libel suit, isn't really the issue. Is that correct? --John Nagle16:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the current load is significant. I think the issue is fair articles and avoiding litigation, more than the prospect of losing a suit. Fred Bauder17:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice start, but...
Almost all the primary information (Stuff from Jumbo) relates to WP:BLP withg a little note "about the related policy on living persons". I strongly suggest someone ask him about this proposed policy and if he likes it, ask him to do another mailing list post explicitly dealing with this , so we don't keep having to say "He said this about BLP, but this is about the same thing, so it applies here too" over and over. 68.39.174.23815:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Balancing the policy
The proposed policy was almost pro-advertising. With that policy, most company articles would be puff pieces. I've made some changes to balance it more. --John Nagle19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Balancing user rights is not sufficient because of the growing practice of astroturfing. A growing number of professional spin doctors are defending corporate reputations on the internet, and I have seen at least one case where they are using extensive wikilawyering to do it. This policy would really help them. In order to compete against their greater resources (they're paid to do this full-time!) volunteer critics should be given more freedom than corporate cheerleaders.--Yannick02:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How big a legal problem is this?
How big a legal problem is this?
I don't want to see Wikipedia turned into a business directory, full of puff pieces. The bad news belongs in there too. Here are a few pieces of bad news about companies I've added, all currently in Wikipedia.
(From Moller Skycar): In 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Moller for civil fraud (Securities And Exchange Commission v. Moller International, Inc., and Paul S. Moller, Defendants) in connection with the sale of unregistered stock, and for making unsubstantiated claims about the performance of the Skycar. Moller settled this lawsuit by agreeing to a permanent injunction and paying $50,000. In the words of the SEC complaint, "As of late 2002, MI's approximately 40 years' of development has resulted in a prototype Skycar capable of hovering about fifteen feet above the ground."
(From Magnetix): On March 31, 2006, the Consumer Product Safety Commission ordered a recall of all Magnetix magnetic building sets. The official CPSC recall notice was issued after one death of a small child and four serious injuries requiring surgery. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
(From PowerBook):Model and serial number location on PowerBook battery On May 20, 2005, the Consumer Product Safety Commission ordered a recall of some Apple Powerbook G4 batteries. The official CPSC recall notice states that an internal short can cause the battery cells to overheat, posing a fire hazard to consumers. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The defective batteries can be returned to Apple for replacement. Approximately 128,000 defective units were sold.
The following units have been recalled:
Computer model name
Battery model number
Battery serial number range
12-inch iBook G4
A1061
HQ441 – HQ507
12-inch PowerBook G4
A1079
3X446 – 3X510
15-inch PowerBook G4
A1078
3X446 – 3X509
Both fires and battery explosions have been reported.[1]
We need more of this, not less. WP:VAIN seems to encourage this practice, discouraging puff pieces - live by the hype, die by the hype. I don't want to face pressure to remove negative info like that. --John Nagle23:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
Bad news should be included, and these are all important enough. However, Wikipedia is not a consumer rights magazine. Consumer warnings ("Consumers should stop" etc.), I think, should be deleted. Fagstein16:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Associated Press (1998). The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual. Perseus Books. ISBN 0201339854.
This is the working journalist's guide to libel law. It tells you how to stay out of trouble without being overly conservative. If Wikipedia management is worried about libel suits, that's the place to look for policy guidance.
On a personal note, during the dot-com boom and collapse, I ran Downside, a web site devoted to predicting which dot-coms would go under and when. Predictions of corporate "death dates" were generated by automated processing of company SEC filings. The accuracy was suprisingly good. I received hate mail and occasional legal threats, sometimes from CEO-level people. But nobody ever actually sued. They knew they'd lose. So don't cave in to corporate pressure when you don't have to. --John Nagle02:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Customer opinion sites
I've just posted a concern about linking to customer opinion websites on WP:WPSPAM:
What does everyone think about linking to websites which contain customer opinions?
For example consider http://www.airlinequality.com/ which contains passenger opinions on airlines (all links). I beleive such a site doesn't meet any of WP:ELs "when to link" guidelines (for #4 it's hard to consider it neutral & accurate) and hits against some of the recommendations on when not to link:
2: "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources"
9: "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself."
What is the definition of "ongoing enterprise"? Cub scouts? IBM? Democrat party? Israeli government? Mafia? A child-porn ring? A terorist organisation? Why? What is the criteria? Why is that criteria used for this policy? WAS 4.25011:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a proposal that we should apply BLP for every statement anywhere in wikipedia even on talk pages if someone somewhere could claim libel? WAS 4.25013:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding, that may be wrong, is that "ongoing enterprises" refers to "commercial ongoing enterprises", and not to movements, political parties, etc. ≈ jossi ≈t • @18:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that BPL has to do with morality, wiki-love, and the fact that the whole point of a free great encyclopedia for all mankind is that is a good thing good people volunteer to help. I see no reason to extend that to not-livings-humans. Staying legal is a concern in every article and while a special consideration is due living people, I don't feel the same way about IBM. I believe we should maintain the distiction between saying "Fictional Tobacco company Predident John Smith is morally guilty of mass murder" which is covered by BLP versus saying "Fictional Tobacco company is morally guilty of mass murder" which is not covered by BLP but is covered by Verifyability, no original research and NPOV which is quite sufficient. WAS 4.25023:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quote not supported by reference.
Moved this from the article to talk, because that quote isn't in the reference.
"Addressing the question of biographies of living persons, a subject analogous to articles about ongoing enterprises, Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, said: We must get the article right. [1]" Wales doesn't seem to have said that. The closest he came was to say "And the few people who are still sort of in the old days, saying, "Well, you know, it's a wiki, why don't we just... ", yeah, they're sort of falling by the wayside, because lots of people are saying actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right." --John Nagle19:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When should this policy in the works be taken seriously?
The ongoing enterprise article has been helpful to me and I saw the enterprise template and added it to the Starbucks article. But another editor removed it the next day saying it is only a proposed policy. Should we not be using the enterprise template afterall? And should we be using the proposed policy as a guide now, or ignore it until it becomes official policy? Thanks for any input you can provide. Mr Christopher19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The enterprise template was mis-worded given that this is just a proposal. I've fixed that. As for your other question, policies become policies because they are widely supported by the community. If you feel that this proposal should become a policy, you should follow the proposal right now. If the community is in agreement, other people will start to do so as well. If a lot of people disagree with it, then that should become pretty obvious really quickly. Note that this is not an opinion on the validity of the proposal itself, just a suggestion as to what you should do if you feel the proposal is valid. JYolkowski // talk19:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have upgraded this to a guideline. If there are objections, please revert and provide proposal to reach consensus on how to get it there. ≈ jossi ≈t • @00:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal should be neither a guide nor a policy. We should not have a certain sensitivity for IBM. Following all our other rules with regard to IBM is quite sufficient. Special sentitivity for humans, not organizations or statues or books or professions or countries or religions or ... WAS 4.25012:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same as any other article, but some version of this will be policy, simply because of the potential legal liability. As an alternative, I suppose we could shut the site down. Is there consensus on that?Fred Bauder19:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
