Here's another one that I wandered across the other day. BlueHippo Funding (T-H-L-K-D) is an article about a consumer lending company that has apparently raised the ire of at least some of the citizenry; the article is barely more than a scandal rag recapitulating the complaints of consumers raked from the (Internet) headlines.

Having previously worked in the leasing and credit industry, I'd not be terribly surprised if all the allegations in the article are true. (The leasing-specific industry newsletters I occasionally read are rife with stories of fraud, deceit, and genuinely outrageous criminality, and the bankruptcies have been fast and furious in the past year or so.) However, I don't think this article reflects an appropriate level of detail, or anything resembling a neutral tone.

Just another example of how Wikipedia fails neutrality on articles about financial corporations, I suppose.

This illustrates my point that BLP ought to apply equally to companies and we should not encourage people to create articles on companies.

You're breaking character Mister Happy Drinker. Enough of that.

Looking at Elvey (T-C-L-K-R-D) 's editing history (he's the major edit of the BlueHippo article) I'd say that Elvey's main reason for involvement in Wikipedia is his interest in certain aspects of consumer protection. In addition to BlueHippo, Elvey is active in topics like TigerDirect, credit cards, and phone and email spam. He also spend a lot of energy back in May on Deletion Review trying to do something with respect to an image, now deleted, called "PhillipBrutus.jpg" (presumably Phillip Brutus (T-H-L-K-D), a Florida politician of little repute). There's evidence he fancies himself a copyright expert.

Elvey actually seems to be a reasonably decent editor, but I definitely see signs of an agenda. As Doc recently pointed out elsewhere, Wikipedia fails neutrality as much by what it leaves out as by what it includes, and the fact that so many of its editors are there to pursue agendas (such as Elvey here) means that Wikipedia's "neutrality" is defined relative to the sum of those agendas.

Mr Anthony, I'd have thought that you of all people here would appreciate my satirical point, that the theory that BLPs should be banned is silly because equally you'd have to ban articles on companies.

And please don't make assumptions about me.

Everyone makes assumptions, all the time. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. I had initially assumed you were simply a tedious moron, but know I'm wondering whether you might be a tedious and hostile provocateur. When you have a name like "Happy Drinker" (or Gomi, for that matter), you are exactly the sum of what you have said plus the assumptions people make. Welcome to pseudonymity on the Internet.

What am I provoking people to do? I'm not, whatever people say, a "Wikipedia is always right" fanatic. I'm happy to agree that things are wrong at times and to work with others here to improve them. Does anyone think I'm as pro-Wikipedia as (in their different ways) posters such as SlimVirgin, Durova, NewYorkBrad, CoolHandLuke, ... ? All I'm trying to do is inject a little impartiality and rationality into a debate too often dominated by extreme anti-Wikipedians.

I'm happy to be the sum of what I've said here. But once you add in people's assumptions (which will no doubt differ wildly from person to person) I cease to be one entity, I become legion.

How tricky of you.

What's wrong with "banning" articles on companies?



Why not?

(Okay, I'll correct one assumption - make that "Mister and/or Ms Happy Drinker")



I have no idea about you, but your character has certainly drank more of the Kool-Aid than any of those others you mention.



Was that meant to be an admission?

Happy Drinker often gets offended when they are referred to as male.

But as they have sough election for Parliament as a third-party candidate, who gives a shit!

Lar, NYB, and even CHL are capable of intelligent discussion and rational thought. SlimVirgin and Durova are here, first and foremost, to defend themselves against various accusations, some good ones and (regrettably) a few scurrilous ones. We have those members and many others, including ArbCom members, admins, Checkusers, and all manner of Wikipedia factoti, so I don't think we want for "impartiality and rationality" or even for pro-Wikipedia voices. You, on the other hand, are incapable or unwilling to make rational arguments, preferring to simply inflame. Of course, feel free to enlighten us all as to which you are: an annoying idiot or a hostile troll. Your contributions to date would seem to eliminate the middle ground.

Actually, you'll find it works more like Ohm's Law (T-H-L-K-D). The more inconsistently you portray yourself, the less you become. Only Zeno's Paradox (T-H-L-K-D) keeps you from disappearing entirely, but in effect, you're a short to ground.

Then what are you doing on WR, babbling?

Go to WP. And fix something.

No doubt there are those here who wish to shut down Wikipedia completely. However, most others (including I suspect Mr Kohs) would regard it as absurd not to have articles on companies.

I doubt it. Maybe it's just that NYB and CHL are a little too reticent.


No, a protest.


The Liberal Democrats are not a third party in large parts of the country, but the leading or second party.


That can't be it, or you'd be complaining about several people here, like Victim of Censorship. Is that code for "I don't like people making sensible arguments that are NPOV about Wikipedia"?


I do, frequently. And I do appreciate your assistance.

Wouldn't those same people regard it as absurd not to have article on people?

If there are people arguing that all BLPs should be deleted, but that articles on companies should be kept, those people are certainly taking a ridiculous position. But I don't see anyone doing that.

Whether it's opt-in or opt-out or keep them all or delete them all or protect them all or flagged revision them all or stubbify them all, I don't see an argument for treating articles on companies any differently than articles on people.

Happy Drinker is a hot chili mama?

The only thing I regard as "absurd" about Wikipedia is the utter lack of responsible governance and ethical accountability demonstrated by the Wikimedia Foundation, which has largely (and unfortunately) rubbed off on too many of the key players in the "community". As far as I'm concerned, company inclusion or exclusion on Wikipedia should be handled as follows:

If the CEO of the company wants the article on Wikipedia in an unfettered state, so be it. If the CEO wants the article, but in a state of semi- or full-protection, so be it. If the CEO of the company wants the article removed from Wikipedia and salted, so be it.

Same goes for biographies of living persons. My logic on this is perfectly sound, even if it may disturb certain drinkers.

Pro-encyclopedia enthusiasts may reject my proposal, contending that it is the encyclopedia "community" itself that should have the final say on inclusion and exclusion. However, what they fail to recognize is that the Wikipedia governance and community system have wholly forfeited their ethical high ground on this factor, as evidenced by the repeated and sustained unaccountable abuse of the subjects contained on Wikipedia pages -- corporate and living entities alike. Saying that "Wikipedia" should have the final say on inclusion and exclusion issues is like saying a 10-year-old boy should have the final say on inclusion or exclusion of bullets in the chamber of the firearm he wants to play with.

Does the same apply to Wikipedia Review? Did you seek the opinion of for example Steven Leer or John Eaves about Arch Coal?

Since companies are legally considered to be individual entities (at least corporations are) and the consequenses for defamation are similiar if not worse than that for a living person, then I would say the same standards should apply to articles about corporations as they do for living people. The consequenses of someone inserting fabricated defaming information about a corporation could have dire consequences to its employees, its investors, and the general economy at large, depending on the size of the corporation. The results of disclosure of trade secrets and prorietory information could also be detrimental. It's bad enough we have someone like Justen Deal (T-C-L-K-R-D) as an editor.

That's more or less what I said. Thanks for the support.

That's an interesting question. For me to answer it, I would need to know whether you are inquiring about my mindset in September 2006, when I created the world's first wiki-based article about Arch Coal, on Wikipedia Review.com, or whether you are inquiring about the present day, or whether you would enjoy two answers from me, written from each vantage point on the timeline.

All I want is a straight answer to a straight question, please.