White Dust – 28 Apr 2006:

For up to two years Wal-mart lobbyists have successfully waged a war against a fair viewpoint on Wikipedia’s Wal-mart page. Although the Wal-mart page was originally highly critical of Wal-mart, it has slowly shifted to a very positive perspective. Although Wikipedia maintains a ‘Neutral Point of View’ (NPOV) policy, the Wal-mart page is highly biased. Additionally, all criticism has, contrary to policy, practice, and the general opinion of those concerned, been moved to a Debates Over Wal-mart section. Even that page has noticeable resistance to negative points of view about Wal-mart.

  1. SN says:

    Hey Paul! You should be proud of me. I didn’t even mention that Wikipedia president Jimmy Wales used to run a porn site!


  2. RTaylor says:

    Wal-Mart won, time to move on. This comes from a one time small business owner that closed after they came to town. The people and the free market spoke. They wanted discounts and tons of cheap crap over service and fewer quality items. Brother Sam just provided what they wanted while maximizing profits. If you’re going to blame someone, blame the consumer.

  3. Everyman says:

    I saw the video, “Walmart: the high cost of low prices”… interesting viewing, I recommend it. I don’t think they can put enough positive spin on their company line to reverse the perceived negative reality of their business model.

    Two companies in need of a union right now: Walmart, and Home Depot. By the way, the CEO of Walmart will be paid more than you this year. A lot more. Check this out: http://www.ips-dc.org/projects/global_econ/walmart_pay_gap.htm

    Sherman, set the Wayback Machine for 3000 years ago…
    Concept: hunting, gathering. Result: inefficient, food and other life necessities difficult to acquire and share.
    Concept: farming, producing food and other stuff needed for survival, those being food, clothing, and shelter.
    Concept: barter whatever you can personally produce, to get things you don’t or can’t produce.
    Concept: money. Intent: replace bartering because the blacksmith didn’t need hundreds of pounds of grain and chickens every month.
    Long term result: compensation is no longer tied to your personal abilities, leading to an economic imbalance that has been worsening for thousands of years.

    Currently, executives, entertainers, and athletes are the highest paid people in America. Most executives don’t execute anything anymore, they pass the buck to subordinates, collect a check, and head for the golf course. Entertainers make millions because you’re stupid enough to go pay $8 to see a movie, and a bad movie at that (get a refund if you didn’t like the movie, I ALWAYS do). Athletes? They’re quite possibly the least useful humans on the planet. Great, they kick a ball into a net, or hit a ball really hard with a stick. This time next year, nothing an athlete does will have made the world a better place.

    Most underpaid people on the planet: our mothers.

    My controversial suggestion: global salary caps of $xxx,xxx annually. Redistribution of wealth, keep capitalism, endeavor to eliminate greed.

    Hmm, that’ll churn the stew!

  4. Bruce IV says:

    Umm … can’t you just go back and change it, if you really care? I mean, that is the point of Wikipedia – and if no one cares enough to change the Wal-Mart page back, then what? Maybe they can neutralize it and get some admin to lock out all the Wal-Mart PR people from posting to it.

  5. adam says:

    boo hoo.. who cares?

  6. Anthony says:

    Who cares if Wal-Mart’s CEO gets paid $17 million a year? He has helped bring the company billions of dollars. Something very few people could do. Even when you subtract the nobodies, and only include high profile CEOs.

    Don’t get me wrong I hate Wal-Mart, but give credit where credit is due.

  7. blank says:

    Wikipedia is ONE SOURCE. If you go there researching something and then only use that one source to make decisions or write a research paper, then you’re a fool. Then again, to use any single source of information…no matter what it is….is foolish also.

    I know Wikipedia’s limitations and it’s flaws. I also know Britannica’s limitations and flaws. I would use neither as a single source of information. I never used Britannica as a single source before Wikipedia came along, so why should I start now? But to simply cast away Wikipedia and not use it would also be foolish. There is a wealth of information there. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater in this case. Also, in the course of your research into something you find that Wikipedia is in error, you can always fix it….if you have the time. I never do have the time myself because I’m always commenting on these stupid blogs.

    (PS…notice I didn’t say anything about SN and his war against Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales?)

  8. Seth says:

    Paul, Wikipedia may not be the most accurate thing out there but can you tell me what your paper back has on Wal-Mart? I bet there is no entry in just about every encyclopedia out there. People aren’t doing term papers based on these articles (or at least I hope not). I think the majority of people use it as I do; for a quick reference about something you’re not familiar with. Also wikis in general are amazing; I am Gentoo zealot and their wikis have gotten me through many obstacles.

  9. SN says:

    “PS…notice I didn’t say anything about SN and his war against Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales?”

    I’m flattered, but saying I’m at war with Jimmy Wales would be like saying a single mosquito is at war with humanity. I have nothing against Wales, I just think his porn past is hilarious considering how high and mighty he his now.

  10. Don Marsh says:

    If you don’t like it, don’t shop there…

  11. John Wofford says:

    Wal-Mart is a store, and not the only store, and Wiki is just an overgrown blog. Nothing there to get emotionally attached over.


Bad Behavior has blocked 6608 access attempts in the last 7 days.