Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 195.93.21.10 Edit  
1 comment  




2 NPOV Dispute  
1 comment  




3 Article Re-write  
2 comments  













Talk:Corporate behaviour: Difference between revisions




Page contents not supported in other languages.  









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 




Print/export  



















Appearance
   

 





Help
 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


Browse history interactively
 Previous editNext edit 
Content deleted Content added
Line 10: Line 10:

Clearly 195.93 does not fully understand what Wikipedia is about. When some one states that Wiki is to "provide non-contentious information" that person has missed its purpose. What we all want is a balanced, some might say neutral, article and one that includes all relevant information and views. We don't want some one-sided durge. And we really don't want an article that avoids truths or facts.

Clearly 195.93 does not fully understand what Wikipedia is about. When some one states that Wiki is to "provide non-contentious information" that person has missed its purpose. What we all want is a balanced, some might say neutral, article and one that includes all relevant information and views. We don't want some one-sided durge. And we really don't want an article that avoids truths or facts.



At present, the article might be out of balance due to its embryonic nature, but that does not mean a person or persons should edit out text they personally disagree with. If a person(s) don't agree with a characteristic, for example exploitation, then they should provide evidence for that viewpoint under that heading or for now state that some may find a characteristicis contentious. There is certainly evidence that certain corporations have been involved in exploitation, for example, some corporations continue to exploit differences in wages and environmental legislation. These are observable and published facts, not Marxist viewpoints.

At present, the article might be out of balance due to its embryonic nature, but that does not mean a person or persons should edit out text they personally disagree with. If a person(s) don't agree with a characteristic, for example exploitation, then they should provide evidence for that viewpoint under that heading or for now state that some people may find this characteristic contentious. There is certainly evidence that certain corporations have been involved in exploitation, for example, some corporations continue to exploit differences in wages and environmental legislation. These are observable and published facts, not Marxist viewpoints.



As for other edits, such as the removal of the Growth heading and text, this is very odd. 195.93 mentions it in the text below but seems not to think it a characteristic of corporate behaviour. Do not profit-seeking corporations, especially those floated on stock exchanges, go for growth? All the companies I have invested in are doing this. It is a characteristic. There is massive amounts of evidence to prove this.

As for other edits, such as the removal of the Growth heading and text, this is very odd. 195.93 mentions it in the text below but seems not to think it a characteristic of corporate behaviour. Do not profit-seeking corporations, especially those floated on stock exchanges, go for growth? All the companies I have invested in are doing this. It is a characteristic. There is massive amounts of evidence to prove this.



Lastly, I think it would be good to add that just because there are proposed characteristics from a published source that can be dissected, this does not stop an individual bringing in information from other sources. Has there been another set of characteristics of corporate behaviour published elsewhere? I think there are lots of books on the history of corporations and companies. Let's have them in this article.

Lastly, I think it would be good to add that just because there are proposed characteristics from a published source that can be dissected, this does not stop an individual bringing in information from other sources. Has there been another set of characteristics of corporate behaviour published elsewhere? I think there are lots of books on the history of corporations and companies. Let's have this info in this article.

'''S.J.Davis 9/1/06'''

'''S.J.Davis 9/1/06'''




Revision as of 15:32, 9 January 2006

195.93.21.10 Edit

This edit removed most of the original sourced material and is not particularly well written, would anyone mind if i reverted this back to the previous edit? Would people prefer if I attempted to include the new info into the (largely deleted) original charecterisitics? Muppet317 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Muppet317:

I say revert back. It is not right for 195.93 to edit in that manner.

One small change I would put forward would be to exchange the word rules for characteristics on that one line with the link to the external website where the rules and reference are found.

Clearly 195.93 does not fully understand what Wikipedia is about. When some one states that Wiki is to "provide non-contentious information" that person has missed its purpose. What we all want is a balanced, some might say neutral, article and one that includes all relevant information and views. We don't want some one-sided durge. And we really don't want an article that avoids truths or facts.

At present, the article might be out of balance due to its embryonic nature, but that does not mean a person or persons should edit out text they personally disagree with. If a person(s) don't agree with a characteristic, for example exploitation, then they should provide evidence for that viewpoint under that heading or for now state that some people may find this characteristic contentious. There is certainly evidence that certain corporations have been involved in exploitation, for example, some corporations continue to exploit differences in wages and environmental legislation. These are observable and published facts, not Marxist viewpoints.

As for other edits, such as the removal of the Growth heading and text, this is very odd. 195.93 mentions it in the text below but seems not to think it a characteristic of corporate behaviour. Do not profit-seeking corporations, especially those floated on stock exchanges, go for growth? All the companies I have invested in are doing this. It is a characteristic. There is massive amounts of evidence to prove this.

Lastly, I think it would be good to add that just because there are proposed characteristics from a published source that can be dissected, this does not stop an individual bringing in information from other sources. Has there been another set of characteristics of corporate behaviour published elsewhere? I think there are lots of books on the history of corporations and companies. Let's have this info in this article. S.J.Davis 9/1/06



      I'm new to this but edited the first paragraph and intend to edit the rest of the entry, ideally with everybody else's help and agreement to get an entry which we can all accept.  At the moment, the entry seems to me to be written from some sort of marxist, companies-are-evil stand-point and so is highly contentious.  My own stand-point is that capitalism is not a noble or beautiful system but it's the least bad system on offer - and it does produce growth.  I realise others think differently, but the aim of Wikipedia is to provide non-contentious information.  For example, the assertion is made that corporations are amoral because they aren't individuals but legal entities - the same could be said about any organisation, including the Anglican Church, Oxfam or the ACLU.  Organisations are run by individuals operating in more or less complex structures, and they are run within a framework of law, morality, custom and practice, habit, human psychology etc.  It is simply naive marxism to assert that because a company isn't a person it doesn't have a morality.  There is this kind of tendentious assertion throughout the entry.

NPOV Dispute

Someone put on an NPOV dispute on the page but didnt say why, although many may not agree with the rules of corporate behaviour as outlined they are are described as 'proposed' not actual, and thus (in my view) does not contravene NPOV. Does anyone have a specific dispute? Muppet317 17:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Muppet: As the person who put the dispute on this article did not sign in, or give reasons for the NVOP, it is probably right to seek the NVOP removed and revert to your text. Your are right to assert that they are only proposed rules. Perhaps you should capitalize the word proposed. S.J.Davis (9/1/06)

Article Re-write

A few questions that need resolving regarding this article

1) Why the inclusion of the actions of individuals? Surely the point of corporate behaviour is that it is the action of a corporation in itself, although these actions may not always be the intended ourcome of any individuals involved. Furthermore whilst the effects of corporate behaviour on individuals may be a useful sociological side effect I do not see this as central to the issue of corporate behaviour.

2) I think an explicit division needs to be made between business/capitalist corporations and noncapitalist corporations (NGOs, charities etc) as I think the proposed rules of corporate behaviour can only be seen to apply to capitalist corporations.

If no-one disagrees with this would people like me to attempt these changes (removal of references to indiviudals, creation of distinction between business and non-business coporations)? Muppet317 12/12/05

Muppet317: Go ahead and edit the page. Your points are well made. Divisions make sense and perhaps more divisions than you mentioned are required, for I feel there is are great difference between the circumstances, opportunites and and behaviour of the largest corporations and the smallest. I would, however, like you to please include a paragraph or sentence that indicates that it is possible for an individual or group to exhibit corporate behaviour (captialist form or otherwise), that is, think/behave like a corporation. This is justified under the title of corporate behaviour, but perhaps needs to be placed under a subtitle such as, 'The influence of corporate behaviour on society'. What do you think?

(Other titles also come to mind such as, 'The influence of corporate behaviour on the environment', 'The influence of corporate behaviour on the media' and 'The influence of corporate behaviour on politics and government'.)

By the way, my aim was not to post a anti-corporation or controversial article. I just wanted to start an article about something that is not often written/read about in this format and that people may need more information about. Clearly my first attempt contained information that may have made capitalist corporations seem a negative. This was not my whole intention. I hope the page can be developed in a more even way, but we should not avoid valid and factual information that makes certain corporations, people or groups feel uncomfortable. Regards, Stuart J. Davis 14/12/05

Stuart Cheers, Will do my best! Muppet317 14/12/05

The 81.179.253.7 edit (addition to 11 rules of corporate behaviour) was me, forgot to login Muppet317 18:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Rewrite done, please edit away, i took off the NPOV disputation as the article is now totally different, and I changed the word rules for characteristeritcs as although this word has wekaer connotations it is less likely to offend so hopefully this article can avoid any NPOV problems for a while! Muppet317 19:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muppet317 Looks good. I will give it a read and make some notes. If I make anything other than very minor edits, e.g., spelling mistakes or wording, I will not edit the text directly. I will instead place it on this discussion board. I think that will be best. Regards, SJD 15/12/05


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corporate_behaviour&oldid=34503446"





This page was last edited on 9 January 2006, at 15:32 (UTC).

This version of the page has been revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.



Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Mobile view



Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki