Re: Corporate vanity policy enforcement
Maybe we need some kind of speedy deletion process for organisations
which are not notable, but which do assert notability. Of course,
there would need to be safeguards - perhaps allow any established
editor (>500 edits for the sake of argument) to remove the tag or have
the article undeleted without discussion, like a prod undeletion.
This would mean that we could remove many more articles about nn
organisations and people without having to go through a five-day AfD,
but anything which was notable enough for at least one established
editor to support it would still get the benefit of full AfD process
and discussion.
On 29/09/06, Brad Patrick <bpatrick@...> wrote:
> Dear Community:
>
> The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on
> Wikipedia is overwhelming. At the office, we are receiving dozens of
> phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing edits
> which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but self-aggrandizing
> authors, to scream bloody murder. This is as it should be. However, I
> am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more
> draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page
> creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.
>
> We are the #14 website in the world. We are a big target. If we are to
> remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be
> tolerated. This means the administrators and new page patrol need to be
> clear when they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly
> commercial - shoot on sight. There should be no question that someone
> who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and has exactly 2 Google hits
> - both their Myspace page - they get nuked. Ban users who promulgate
(Continue reading)
RSS Feed