WikiEditCrunch (talk | contribs) |
→Scope: r |
||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
{{reply to|Jytdog}} I cannot do it all by myself but I will do my best.In the end the other project members also have to decide on this issue.And I believe notability is important but definietly not the standard. |
{{reply to|Jytdog}} I cannot do it all by myself but I will do my best.In the end the other project members also have to decide on this issue.And I believe notability is important but definietly not the standard. |
||
Cheers. [[User:WikiEditCrunch|WikiEditCrunch]] ([[User talk:WikiEditCrunch|talk]]) 20:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC) |
Cheers. [[User:WikiEditCrunch|WikiEditCrunch]] ([[User talk:WikiEditCrunch|talk]]) 20:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC) |
||
:As somebody taking a leadership role I find your dismissive attitude about this disturbing. If you don't take this kind of thing seriously this project will become a problem and will get deleted by the community. That is what happens here. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 20:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Are [[Investment goods]] completely different from [[capital good]] == |
== Are [[Investment goods]] completely different from [[capital good]] == |
Revision as of 20:31, 24 August 2017
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, |
Scope
How is it that Serono is within the scope of this project? It is not in any of the categories at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Investment#Scope. Am asking this b/c i work on biotech/pharma stuff and people edit them from an investor perspective which is godawful. Investment opportunities is not within scope is it? Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: It is somewhat in the scope as it was a stock corporation.But I mainly just added it to remind myself to keep working on it (the page needs updating). Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying but again, in my view investment opportunities should specifically excluded from the scope.
- I am not just talking theoretically. I became the subject of discussion at Investorhub early last year, when I wrested the WP article about Peregrine Pharmaceuticals and the company's drug candidates from the people who were following Peregrine stock at investorhub; they had hijacked Wikipedia to hype the possibilities that the drugs would work and their penny stock would become worth lots of money. Well that is the worst interpretation; they really believed in the company and wanted it to succeed and wanted others to think so too, so the company would have money to do stuff. But the COI is blatant either way. The people on the board dug into my editing history, tried to figure out who I was in the real world, and a bunch of other shit. Fortunately the member of investorhub who had been editing WP on behalf of the group was somewhat clueful and told them to cool it. But none of that was good.
- That is the most egregious example but I find this kind of stuff all the time, where people add excited content about "promising" drug candidates sourced to crappy references.
- Really - investment opportunities should be strictly out of scope for this project, and this exclusion should be stated in the scope section. Would you please do that? Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- The scope is great otherwise... having a project dedicated to improving content about investment -- the law, regulations, contracts, processes, structures, kinds of parties involved, etc -- something that is complex and really fits our mission to help people learn -- is great. Learning about investment opportunities is not what we do here, at all. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I agree.Thanks for letting me know of that. Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Here is a second question - what about companies that offer services to individual investors, like the pending request for an article for Northwestern Mutual Investment Services? That is currently in-scope. How to handle the COI issues around that?-- Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: NMIS is a very big company so it just generally needs an article in my opinion. Cheers.WikiEditCrunch (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- thanks for replying, but that isn't responsive. So you ~could~ turn and ask about say... articles about drugs in WP:MED - huge opportunity to influence doctors there, right? Well we address that in two main ways -- sourcing and the style guide. We are really demanding about high quality, independent secondary sources, and we are really careful to split off actual uses of a drug from research about potential uses (most of the corrupt-y stuff in medicine comes from marketing off-label uses). So we have an answer.
- this project should have an answer as to how to avoid becoming a marketing vehicle for companies selling personal finance services. Jytdog (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: All this project wants is to improve the topic of Investment (for individual investors) on Wikipedia. I think companies are important to individual investors and investments in general.Not for marketing but for information. Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Another reply that is not answer. This is a structural issue that the project should address. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog:Well what is the issue even?Please elaborate. Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Let me try to explain. ... Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Due to its popularity and its open nature, a LOT of people come to Wikipedia thinking it will be a great way to get visibility for their product or company or video game or whatever, and create articles or content that are basically advertisements. This is common as dirt. it is why we have WP:NOT but again because this is an open project and because people can do it, they actually do it.
- We get most of this kind of content around video games, companies, product, and biographies (entrepreneurs, business executives, etc). We get this a ton from academia as well, as both universities and faculty look to burnish their reputations through WP.
- As long as we remain an open project (which is likely forever) this is going to be an issue.
- One of the ways that most everybody agrees on to keep this stuff out (and to validly remove it when you find it), is having clear policies and guidelines about notability, style, and sourcing.
- In WikiProject Medicine, we have done that pretty well - WP:MEDRS is widely accepted and used, and WP:MEDMOS (our style guideline) also helps keep promotional language out.
- As a WikiProject focused on personal investment, it is obvious as hell that this project is going to include articles that are rife with promotion. (If you cannot see this, then I urge you to look until you do)
- The kinds of articles that are going to be most prone to this, are companies offering financial services to personal investors
- There is also a high risk of WP:REFSPAM in articles that are meant to teach - what better way to lead someone to your financial services firm, than to be a reference in a Wikipedia article about say "crowdfunding?" (that article gets spammed daily btw)
- So - what kind of style guidelines and sourcing guidance can this WikiProject put in place, to help manage the very obvious risk that articles in the scope of this WikiProject are going to be targets for a very specific kind of promotional editing?
- Is that more clear? To put it in business terms - I am asking what is your risk management strategy to ensure that articles in the scope of this project remain on-mission? Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Alright.Well I can see now why there are certain riskis.I think we could form some guideline(s) on notability to prevent certain promotional editing on investment-related articles.But then again there are already guidelines for companies (WP:COMPANY).Arent those enough?
Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, everyone who thinks about these issues says NCORP is a joke. And the risks are particular in this project. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, we don't want every single notable company to be included within the project, so the standard has to be something more than notability. John M Baker (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I cannot do it all by myself but I will do my best.In the end the other project members also have to decide on this issue.And I believe notability is important but definietly not the standard. Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- As somebody taking a leadership role I find your dismissive attitude about this disturbing. If you don't take this kind of thing seriously this project will become a problem and will get deleted by the community. That is what happens here. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Are Investment goods completely different from capital good
I noticed that there are 2 different articles but almost with the same meaning.Investment goods are also known as capital goods according to Economics point of view.Investment goods are the goods that are used to produce other goods and capital is the man made resource. We all know investment means investing money in bank,putting money in savings deposit,current deposit,fixed deposit,treasury bill and bonds,purchasing shares,acquiring fixed assets.But probably we aren't considering investment is a production process of producing capital goods/investment goods. Therefore there are several misconceptions for a particular term in Economics,Accounting and Business view. Abishe (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Abishe: I would say that they are two completly different things:Also the two articles are more in the interests of Economics than individual investors (in my opinion), but could be important to this projects scope. I will familiarise myself with the two articles. Cheers mate! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)