I was just reading that page and my mouse slipped and hit the edit button. Then I tripped and as I was falling I hit the keyboard and typed all that content. As I struggled to my feet I was pawing at the desk and the mouse came down and hit save.
The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming.
If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy.
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.
Has anyone else noticed how spammers and other conflict of interest editors think the guidelines are for the other guy and what they are doing is "useful" and shouldn't be questioned? And they are completely sincere about that.
It's entirely plausible that an editor can plow blithely on, unaware of guidelines. Perhaps we need a corollary to Assume good faith called Assume no clue.
This genius paid Mensa dues 1986–2001 and cherishes the annual invitations to rejoin.
This editor values third opinions and occasionally provides one.
“Change is the elixir of the human circumstance, and acceptance of challenge the way of our kind. We are bad-weather animals, disaster’s fairest children. For the soundest of evolutionary reasons man appears at his best when times are worst.” •  Robert Ardrey, African Genesis (1961)
"A skepticism concerning what one beholds—whether in the arts, in the sciences, or in the deeply etched channels of fashionable response—contains a force essential to the survival of civilized man." •  Robert Ardrey (1968)
E. O. Wilson, himself called "the father of sociobiology", called Ardrey "the lyric poet of human evolution".
A straight line is an arc on the circumference of a circle of infinite radius. (1986)