Ask the Wikipedia "Article wizard", Company notability Options

[thekohser]

Has anyone seen the "Article wizard", intended to help newbies become more scared of Wikipedia -- in an automated fashion?

I like this particular knee-slapper of a section, the one on Company notability.

There are millions of companies in the world but less than one-tenth of one percent of these companies are notable enough to be considered for inclusion into Wikipedia.

There are about 6 million US businesses with employees. If we extend that ratio to the rest of the developed world, maybe there are (help me out here) 30 million legitimate business entities with employees worldwide, including Mzoli's Meats.

One-tenth of one percent of these would be 30,000. Wikipedia says that your business is worthy of inclusion if it's included in the calculation of a stock index. If we look at the various Dow, S&P, Wilshire, MSCI, CAC, FTSE, and other targeted stock indices, I'd guess there would be little trouble finding at least 30,000 unique equities that would therefore qualify for a Wikipedia article. And that's just on the stock index rule.

Then, you'd have all the businesses that have had significant coverage in reliable sources -- the places like Old Mill Crab House in Delmar, Delaware, or Mike's Famous Harley-Davidson. Surely there are more of these establishments than corporations found on stock indicies.

I don't know why I'm even complaining. It just seems petty to me to have some administrator like User:Rd232 telling the world of commerce that "less than one-tenth of one percent" of companies are notable enough for Wikipedia, when that's just a number this novice pulled out of his ass.

Yeah, I said "ass".

This post has been edited by thekohser: Sun 28th February 2010, 3:26am

[Emperor]

Holy cow! Talk about tl;dl. You should pay $25 to anyone who can make it all the way through that wizard.

[everyking]

Wikipedia's articles on companies are uncharacteristically deficient--there's definitely some tendency to suspect anyone improving such articles of doing so for promotional reasons. I still remember the case, probably four or five years ago, when an admin deleted the articles on Chips Ahoy cookies and a few dozen other household name products, on the grounds that the articles were inherently promotional.

[Jon Awbrey]

I don't know why I'm even complaining. It just seems petty to me to have some administrator like Rd232 (T-C-L-K-R-D) telling the world of commerce that "less than one-tenth of one percent" of companies are notable enough for Wikipedia, when that's just a number this novice pulled out of his ass.

Yeah, I said "ass".

FYSMI, I just watched an old DVD of Gone In 60 Seconds (2000), and there's a scene where the dog swallows the keys to 3 Mercedes, so they have to give him Ex Lax …

Jon

[BelovedFox]

Another issue with writing an article on a company is sources, or lack thereof. Pick a small company, and you'll have a hard time finding good independent sources. Pick a slightly larger one, and it's often an issue with the easiest sources to find being either "X is the devil" or their corporate PR. The only companies whose articles I edit don't really have any "controversies", which makes them far easier to edit.

[Emperor]

Write a crappy flash-based game, and you'll be immortalized in a crappy web-based encyclopedia.
e.g. McDonald's Videogame

Yet start a McDonald's franchise, feed people for twenty years, make millions of dollars, donate to charities, employ hundreds of people, get mentioned in the local papers, and your little enterprise still won't make it past the wizard.

[MZMcBride]

Write a crappy flash-based game, and you'll be immortalized in a crappy web-based encyclopedia.
e.g. McDonald's Videogame

Yet start a McDonald's franchise, feed people for twenty years, make millions of dollars, donate to charities, employ hundreds of people, get mentioned in the local papers, and your little enterprise still won't make it past the wizard.

I always struggle to find the point you're trying to make in your posts. Can you clarify what it is here?

[Emperor]

Write a crappy flash-based game, and you'll be immortalized in a crappy web-based encyclopedia.
e.g. McDonald's Videogame

Yet start a McDonald's franchise, feed people for twenty years, make millions of dollars, donate to charities, employ hundreds of people, get mentioned in the local papers, and your little enterprise still won't make it past the wizard.

I always struggle to find the point you're trying to make in your posts. Can you clarify what it is here?

Wikipedia is biased, irrational, and difficult to use.

[John Limey]

Another issue with writing an article on a company is sources, or lack thereof. Pick a small company, and you'll have a hard time finding good independent sources. Pick a slightly larger one, and it's often an issue with the easiest sources to find being either "X is the devil" or their corporate PR. The only companies whose articles I edit don't really have any "controversies", which makes them far easier to edit.

Well, you have to define "small company" I guess. If you mean "that mom and pop hardware store down the street", then there may be some difficulty. If we're talking about relatively small, but not tiny, publicly traded companies, then there shouldn't be much trouble. There are many databases that exist solely to supply information on publicly traded companies, and most companies make it into at least the local press with a high degree of regularity. Give me an example of a small company, and I will do my best to demonstrate.

At the very least, it seems like it would be reasonable to make the standards of inclusion similar for people and companies. Take WP:ATHLETE, for example, which allows anyone who has played one minute in a professional league to be "notable". For most of those people, all you will ever find is information on some sports statistics site that gives a date of birth, a height, a weight, the teams played for, and the appropriate statistics for the sport involved. The equivalent for a company would be allowing an article on any company for which you could find a date founded, number of employees, revenue, and profit. In other words, any publicly-traded company whatsoever.

Britannica also appears to do a good job of listing companies. It has all of the major ones I looked for, from Alitalia to Xerox (I couldn't think of any companies starting with Y or Z), and some fairly small ones too: like the Fruehauf Trailer Corporation (subject of only a mini-stub on Wikipedia), Champion International Corporation (another mini-stub on Wikipedia), Warner-Lambert Company (redirect to Pfizer - of which it is a subsidiary - on Wikipedia), and many others.

[Push the button]

The equivalent for a company would be allowing an article on any company for which you could find a date founded, number of employees, revenue, and profit. In other words, any publicly-traded company whatsoever.

Wider than that - certainly in the UK, and I believe most US jurisdictions as well, all companies, whether public or private (even dormant ones) have to file their accounts with the relevant registrar every year. Dormant ones can file dormant company accounts (just a form, essentially), and small and medium sized ones can file abbreviated accounts (still with the headline numbers). Can't remember if either abbreviated or normal accounts would have to include employee numbers.

[Jon Awbrey]

One of the issues that is always missed in these discussions of Notability is that Wikipediots are constantly — and now, automatically — violating their advertised principles every time they declare a person or thing notable without exhibiting a broad consensus of reliable independent sources that literally call it "notable".

Why? Because Wikipediots are thereby assigning Wikipedia the status of a Primary Source for an opinion, and their advertised principles supposedly forbid them to do that.

Yet Another Hyper-Hypocrisy — So What Else Is New?

Jon

[thekohser]

One of my favorite non-articles on Wikipedia is KidsHealth.

The site has been mentioned about 1,200 times in the news across the past 15 years.

Can you guess why it was deleted from Wikipedia?


Meanwhile, Agitprop! Records has its article in place on Wikipedia.

The business has been mentioned about 2 times in the news, ever.

Can you guess why it is nurtured by Wikipedia?

This post has been edited by thekohser: Sun 28th February 2010, 5:09pm

[Jon Awbrey]

One of my favorite non-articles on Wikipedia is KidsHealth.

The site has been mentioned about 1,200 times in the news across the past 15 years.

Can you guess why it was deleted from Wikipedia?

It probably warns Kids about Geeks Bearing Gifs.

Jon

[Trick cyclist]

Well, you have to define "small company" I guess.

In Europe there is The Small Businesses Act

http://fs4b.wales.gov.uk/bdotg/action/deta...emId=1083721477

which I assume contains a legal definition of a small business but I cant find a link.

I couldn't think of any companies starting with Y or Z

Heres three beginning with Y.

http://www.ykkeurope.com/

http://www.hemscott.com/companies/company-...?companyId=4478

http://www.hemscott.com/companies/company-...o?companyId=737

The first two indeed have articles: YKK Group (T-H-L-K-D), Yell Group (T-H-L-K-D).

[Push the button]

Well, you have to define "small company" I guess.

In Europe there is The Small Businesses Act

http://fs4b.wales.gov.uk/bdotg/action/deta...emId=1083721477

which I assume contains a legal definition of a small business but I cant find a link.

Companies Act 2006 s. 382 (and thereabouts) defines what constitutes a small or medium sized business. Turnover under £2.8m, balance sheet total under £1.4m and no more than 50 employees for a small business. £11.2m, £5.6m and 250 for a medium business.

[thekohser]

User:Rd232 pointed out to me via e-mail that an earlier version of The Wizard existed before he got his hands on it to re-format it. Thus, the actual person who was responsible for pulling the "less than one-tenth of one percent" number out of his or her ass was...

User:Shinmawa, who seems to have about quit Wikipedia about 6 months ago.

By the way, Rd232 reads here, but the moderators won't let him join, thanks to an e-mail address barrier.