Slashdot Mirror
Wal-mart's Wikipedia War
An anonymous reader writes "Whitedust is running an article which claims that lobbyists for Wal-mart have successfully waged a war against a fair viewpoint on Wikipedia's Wal-mart page. From the article: "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."
As someone who runs a City Wiki, I always felt that what makes a reference wikis work is that there are more people interested in having a NPOV article than people who have a financial interest at stake. However as companies and politicians become more familiar with the wiki movement and the whole anonyminity of it, they are more likely to see how easily you can edit articles as another PR platform and seek to control it. With the resources and ability to dedicate even a full time team to making sure the Wikipedia article keeps them in a good light, I fear we're entering the age where people who are interested in a NPOV are outmanned by those with a profit interest. After all, for years spammers have nearly outmanned those whole try to filter it.
The problem with information sources for a localized wiki like Bloomingpedia though is that since it is on a much smaller scale, its easier to obscure facts because there are not as many industry watchdogs paying attention to companies and organizations. You have to get the information by working for the company or accept the information that a company provides on its website or product brouchures.
All in all, I can't find any hard evidence to support his claims, and the remaining evidence he presents seems to be nothing more than, "I think this page should be more critical of Wal-Mart, therefore there must be lobbists at work!" While that's a nice sentiment, it doesn't make for a smoking gun.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Isn't it just possible that, on the whole, Walmart's contribution to society has been good?
I'm not saying Walmart are saints or anything, but it seems like many people are starting with the assumption that Walmart is bad and then trying to find evidence that supports their prejudice. C'mon. Have an open mind. Maybe Walmart isn't the great satan afterall.
Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopaedia. It uses a model of information where anybody can contribute. Although this leads to some vandalism and some disinformation, almost always an accurate and knowledgeable viewpoint prevails. The project has brought thousands of intelligent people devoted to its cause.
Why should Wikipedia be penalized or criticized for telling the truth about a bad company that exploits its workers and the taxpayer at the same time?
We need more truthfulness and facts in this world, not BS spin and PR from company spokesmen.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
A corporation that underpays its workers, illegally locks its cleaning crews in the store at night, illegally prevents unionization attempts by workers.... yeah... great company.
All's true that is mistrusted
Wikipedia isn't supposed to be biased for (and here is the part many miss) or against. Hence the "NPOV stance" they try to enforce. If citing buisness stats and other corporate information is "bias" then they have a skewed definition of bias. After reading the article, it seems that any information about Wal-Mart that isn't a critism as automatically biased and suspect. That is just as bad a POV as being a "sunshine and rainbow fanboy".
In short, Wikipedia is not the place to have a diatribe on the goods or evils of any topic, even the much vaunted Wal-Mart. I simply don't see what the complaint is here. Are they disappointed they can't argue about Wal-Mart on Wikipedia? Well Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. That has nothing to do with bowing to presure from Wal-Mart. Chaning a link from "Wal-Mart Corporate Communication Page" to "Wal-Mart Propaganda Site" is not a legitamite edit nor is it NPOV.
Unless I've been living under a rock, Wal-Mart is, without a shred of bias, bad by many objective definitions of the word. No positive argument can be made in its defense without resorting to logical fallacies. Are there people out there who think that the article on slavery is biased against it, and that it needs to take a neutral view highlighting the benefits? What is the difference I am missing?
Aside from the fact that Walmart is known to enforce it's white-trash traditionalist christian views on it's employees, customers and suppliers, Walmart isn't about fair competition. It is about monopolistic bullying. They can and do anything they want.
> A corporation that underpays its workers,
If those workers believe that they are not being paid enough they are free to leave and get a job elsewhere, possibly for what they think they are worth. Don't gripe because they pay what they have found the market will bare.
> illegally locks its cleaning crews in the store at night,
Some stores did that yes... but was it a corporate policy or corporate wide occurrence? So a couple of poorly run stores means that the entire corporation is evil?
> illegally prevents unionization attempts by workers
Preventing the formation of control of a union is not always illegal. Let's not forget that Wal-Mart owns the jobs and gets to set the terms by which the employees get them... if the owner decides that they are being taken advantage of or abused it is their right to take action to prevent it... like preventing unionization... just as it is the right of the employees to leave if they don't like the way the company does business.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
On topics that are simply "black and white", true and false, matter of fact, it's easy. Water is made up of 2 atoms of Hydrogene, one atom of Oxygene, and you'll hardly find anyone to challenge that. The Great War was 1914 to 18. Again, no dispute (except maybe with Russia that decided to end it in 1917 'cause they had a revolution to take care of, ages before Nintendo had the idea).
But as soon as you touch religion, politics, business or other areas where your opinion starts to play a role, you'll have people tugging at both sides of the page, trying to pull it towards their point of view. Wikipedia IS a big platform, after all. People turn to it for information! Imagine: A page, where you can write "what you want" (to some degree, you have to keep it within certain borders), and people will read whatever you write as facts.
Now, don't tell me it ain't tempting.
Maybe the insight we get out of this is not only that companies use pages like wikipedia as a place for their marketing department to develop on. Maybe the insight should also be that we should NEVER EVER rely on only one source for information. No matter how "unbiased" or how "neutral" this source claims to be. Even if the source is indeed genuinely neutral (unlike, say, a certain TV network in the US that claims to be broadcasting news while actually spewing propaganda), their information, or their editors, could be biased.
To be able to really create your own opinion, you need more than one source. Actually, often it's quite informative to listen to propaganda instead of a "neutral" source. As long as you listen to BOTH sides of the propaganda machine.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You accuse a poster of nativity and yet you make a statement like:
> Walmart isn't about fair competition. It is about monopolistic bullying. They can and do anything they want.
We've all heard the phrase "Jack of all trades, master of none"... Did you know that it pretty well describes Wal-Mart?
Sure they've often got many lower prices than competing stores and because of their bulk buying power can command even lower prices from manufacturers... that doesn't mean that they can do it all though.
I cannot speak for you... but when I end up going into Wal-Mart looking for something I usually end up being quite disappointed because I am looking for something very specific and they do not have it. Where do I find it? A specialty store.
Believe it or not that isn't very uncommon. While a grocery store stocks plenty of general food if you are looking for a specific cut of steak for instance, likely you'll have to go to a specialty butcher to get it instead.
Why is such a thing so surprising or so bad? Wal-Mart's inability to compete fully across the board leave huge opportunities for skilled people and companies to fill in those niches.
BTW... care to define 'fair competition' for the class?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
There is no mention of Wal-Mart being accused of sexual discrimination by primarily promoting men. That is the controversy about Wal-mart that I have heard most about. If even the 'debates' article is missing that then I think there must be something wrong...
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
My favorite aspect of Wal-mart is how all my friends complain about their evil work practices, but when I mention that nobody is forcing you to work at Wal-mart and you do have a choice to leave, I'm cut off and hit with some example of their evil. It's annoying when people argue emotion instead of facts. If you don't like Wal-mart don't shop or work there. But I know it's cool and hip, especially on Slashdot, to hate popular things like Wal-mart. I guess it makes you enlightened or something.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I personally think Wal-Mart is one of the best corporations out there. A company that provides value and offers cheap products to everybody? The horror!
Troll? Dunno. Don't ever underestimate a person's ability to be uninformed. My stepfather is a lifetime Democrat and retired union blue collar worker. He'll drive 70 miles one-way in a rural area to a WalMart for the selection and prices. As far as I can tell, he doesn't spend a lot of time connecting the stuff on the shelves with teenage Asians working in factory conditions he wouldn't have tolerated.
So? A lot of the available evidence points to a possible conspiracy within the government. Wikipedia is supposed to have a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). That includes highlighting theories and evidence that you don't agree with. Since when did you have a right to scrub the entry "clean" for the rest of us. Where do you get off deleting opposing points of view?
9/11 is messy business. Give us the facts, give us the evidence, give us theories (both mainstream and alternative) and let us -- the reader -- decide. That fact that your deletions/modifications were overturned indicates to me that the system was working.
Electric Monkey Pants
I agree. The whole issue is a rift between the free market advocates and socialists. I'm SHOCKED that people can't remain neutral when politics are involved.
now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
Also, by that logic, should Wal-Mart be allowed to enforce a strict anti-miscegenation policy? After all, the jobs are Wal-Mart's; they should get to set the terms of employment, and their employees are free to up and leave if they don't like it, right? How about a no-atheists policy? Or a no-Democrats policy?
What right does Wal-Mart have to dictate employees' off-duty behavior? Should you be able lose your job based on the where, who and why of your own private fraternization--regardless of how well you do your job? Should your employer be allowed to dictate the terms of your own private life?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
NPR is right leaning... Fox is a propaganda machine.
After all, it can't possibly be that the case against Wal*Mart is weak and easily debunked.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Bullshit. You Fox News-types have been insisting for a decade now that anybody who doesn't deep throat huge corporations on demand is a "socialist".
Socialists advocate workers' ownership of farms, factories, and mines.
Regulating businesses is not socialism. Unionizing is not socialism (who brought down European communism? Oh, that's right, the Polish Labor Union). Pointing out corporate misdeeds is not socialism. Taxing corporate profits is not socialism.
Socialism is only workers' ownership of farms, factories, and mines. I know you like to paint everyone to the left of Ayn Rand as a socialist, but saying it doesn't make it so.
All's true that is mistrusted
I think the big key to participating in "mass minds" is to realize that the "mass mind" is not going to be your mind, writ large, neither in theory nor in practice.
Your vote matters, but it matters as much as everybody else's. It's not supremely important.
Your comment matters, but it matters as much as everybody else's. It's not supremely important.
And this is what the mass mind will look like; a whole lot of people arguing and coming to very rough consensus. It's never going to converge on a set of opinions that exactly match your own.
This may sound obvious when I say it that way, but I'm quite certain a lot of people's disenchantment with participating in these sorts of mass minds (as prototyped by the "body politic" and now popping up everywhere thanks to the Internet) is because they go into it with the idea that they only "win" if the mass mind thinks exactly like them, which rather misses the point entirely. If everybody's not losing a little bit, the system isn't working right. "A good compromise is when all parties are equally unhappy."
One of the things that made me laugh about blogging is that there were a lot of people that were firmly convinced that it was finally going to sweep the world and basically make it hold the "smart" opinions, which by an incredible coincidence just happened to be the opinions these people already held. Here's one of the most egregious examples of that. (My personal opinion is that it tends to drag the system away from the parochial opinions of the relatively few gatekeepers in the existing communications media, and drag it back towards the true ideological average of the participants. I leave as an exercise for the reader exactly what that translates to in ideological terms.)
This is exactly why citing sources is so important!
Wal-mart is bad! - Maybe.
Wal-mart treats its employees badly! - Maybe.
Wal-mart has been said to treat its employees badly because the New York Times has written an elaborate article about it with interviews of ex-employees. (link) - Yes. It may or may not be true that Wal-mart treats its employees badly, but there's no discussion about whether the New York Times has stated its opinion on the matter. That's truth, and that's how you can make articles NPOV.
Their wages are too low? Oh, come on! Just pretend Wal-Mart doesn't exist, and work elsewhere, but don't complain about them. If you think, wages should be higher and general, and there should be more jobs, provide some yourself.
They force their plans on somebody? How can they do that? Either politicians force their plans on somebody (that's not really new, is it?), or Wal-Mart can't do anything, because it's Just A Company. They only have lots of money, but you don't have to sell them anything.
On the definition of organic food, I'd probably agree with you. Mislabeling or selling something as something it isn't should clearly be considered fraud, not more and not less.
What have we learned?
8 86274-2659010?v=glance&n=283155
Walmart is nothing but a free company in a capitalist society. Those complaining about Walmart are really complaining about capitalism itself.
Yes, walmart prices some American manufacturers out of business. But that is allowing a switch from manufacturing to service based economy. And, thanks to low prices at places like Walmart, more Americans than ever are able to own a house, and stock that house with Tvs, DVDs, Mp3 players and Cell Phones - even at the salary paid by Walmart!
Yes, Walmart buys Chinese. In fact, it is China's leading trading partner and is giving China a real capitalist change from within - a growing middle class in China is coming up. Millions have benefitted there, and I fail to see how this is a bad thing for anyone.
Yes, Walmart doesn't give the very best health benefits. But it beats having unemployment and medicaid. And if Walmart wasn't providing "low paying" jobs, we'd be paying for them in taxes, instead of collecting tax revenue from them.
I checked the Walmart page and Walmart was called "The great satan" in the first line. Why? Because they decided to sell inexpensive, yet usable goods to a mass market?
I rarely shop there, don't work there, don't own stock - but I'm glad they exist. Because they show, better than anything, the hypocracy of anti-capitalist whiners. You know the type - those who complain that they are entitled to everything the world has to offer, for free from the government.
Walmart has shown that the goverment need not provide every citizen with a DVD player. Instead, Walmart has shown the real way for every American who wants a DVD player to get one - is to make it cheaply and sell it cheap enough.
And that's really why people hate Walmart - it shows that capitalism does what utopian socialism never could.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451191145/103-4
-Ben
Walmart employees went around to the other businesses and, what? Shot the owners? Threatened their families? They walked you into the store at gunpoint?
No, I don't think so.
Your neighbors put the local businesses out of business. Even then, you aren't forced to shop at Walmart. It's just more convenient. You're still perfectly free to pretend that you live deep in the Alaska wilderness, drive hundreds of miles to the nearest farmer's market and buy your six month supply of rice and beans.
You just don't want to.
God, I'm sick of that rebuttal.
I was in the military for 7 years. In the military, "organic" means "support under the administrative control of the supported unit", like when a battalion commander is also in charge of his artillery or air support. That doesn't mean organic molecules are secondered to another battalion. It means that the word "organic" has different definitions in different domains. The definition of "organic" in the domain of nutrition and food preparation is (or at least was) very clear, and has nothing to do with the definitions in chemistry, the military, or (sadly) the definition corporate interests lobbied the FDA into changing.
All's true that is mistrusted
Providing a particular slant along with the news, if the slant is overwhelming enough to create the vast distortions perpetrated by the likes of Fox News, then said organization isn't really informing, rather, they are misleading.
Afterall, sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken :) You can say it does, pretend it does, demand that it does, get legislation passed that says it does, but it doesn't.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
"When Wal-Mart moves in, the people in the community undercut all the local businesses by buying from Wal-Mart when they sell at a loss, driving them out of business"
I added the parts that you intentionally left out, in order to demonize Wal-Mart.
As has happened in MANY MANY other places, small businesses can and do stay viable while competing with Wal-Mart. They simply have to offer some extra value to go along with the higher prices.
If people really agreed with you, they would support the mom and pop businesses with their money. They don't, and that should tell you how they feel about what you think.
You are blaming a company for providing a product that the people in the community want. It is not the fault of the company, it is the fault of the population of that town.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
It must be nice to be lucky enough (to say nothing of wealthy or well-educated) to be able to freely make both of those choices for yourself. I myself am similarly lucky, and I'm guessing your suggestion to your friends was kind of pointless, since they are probably also lucky and judging by their opinion already don't work there (if they do, then fair enough, your point has some merit). But it's a little disingenuous to suggest that everyone has that choice. When you are poor and desperate enough, you do whatever you have to to buy food and, hopefully, pay rent. If Wal-Mart is the biggest employer in your area, or perhaps more importantly, the only one that will hire someone relatively uneducated/unskilled, then you may have to work there whether you like it or not. These are the people who are the victims of Wal-Mart's strategy.
I don't shop or work at Wal-Mart. It is not illegitimate for me to nonetheless be concerned about the human cost of Wal-Mart's business model on behalf of those who have no option.
I could care less about being cool or hip, but it does bother me when extremely rich, powerful people take advantage of the poorest people in the country (and/or the world). Screw enlightenment, how about compassion?
I am the man with no sig!
It's a fucking store. Nothing more, nothing less. Channel your passion into something more worthwhile.
That statement is flawed in that it jumps to the conclusion that correlation implies causation. (The actual study was pretty clear in stating it only found correlation, but of course all the left-wingers went nuts over it mistakenly jumping to the conclusion that it meant causation.)
If you were to ask the Fox and NPR audience if they believed it had been scientifically proven that man is causing global warming, you'd probably find that the Fox viewers are "better informed." It hasn't been scientifically proven that man is causing global warming, but a greater percentage of the NPR audience probably believes it because it's dear to them and their threshold for belief on it is lower. In other words, it's just a correlation due to the political leanings of the two audiences.
If you select a fact on a topic that's widely liked or disliked by the groups, you're going to come up with a bias independent of the quality of the news service. Therefore to test the quality of news services, you need to select facts that are neutral or equally liked to disliked by both audiences.
Yes, the usual lot of shrills, psychos, maniacs and naivietes, all dying to be Messiahs:
- union mobsters, cynical cartelists, and feeble-minded naiviete dogooders
- ecowhackos and econazies, running out of entities to smear (funny how they don't dare to criticize drivers collectively as evil)
- more union morons
- organic food weenies
To paraphrase Orwell, "the mere word 'Walmart' draw toward it with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England."
Those people are not trying to undo real wrongdoing.
They merely yearn for something larger than life. They need a monster to berate. Imaginary will do if real one is not available.
Praise Progressive Jesus!
Python is nice quick and flexible... but it provides so much rope a monkey would hang the whole ecosystem with it. -- in
However even the facts you choose to present, order presented in, and context can exhibit bias.
Two facts given in the article:
These are two verifiable facts. The facts make Wal-Mart look bad. Now assume we remove the second fact, or move it into a list of stores which have been closed, so that its no longer easily connectable. All the facts are still present, but Wal-Mart in that case comes out looking neutral or good.
There is always bias. Even when sticking to the facts. I think the idea here is that one sides point of view is being systematically repressed by eliminating even the mention of facts and controversy. This is not in the interest of a healthy public debate.
Where exactly did I say that it did? Go back and reread my original post and you won't find anything like the words you have in quotes. Seems to me that you are intentionally making up bogus arguments so it will be easier for you to rebut them. That's a classic straw-man argument.
Where do you get off insisting they be included? Again NPOV DOES NOT mean equal treatment for all view points.
Your straw-men notwithstanding, if you reread my orginal post, you'll note that I pointed to the available evidence that supports alternative theories. There's evidence that pokes huge, gaping holes in the official story (why did building 7 collapse, for instance?). There is also evidence that supports the official story. My point is that there should be no litmus test (i.e. does this evidence support the official story? if not, we shouldn't include it), except that of NPOV and truth. Both are impossible to achieve, but the important thing is to aim for objectivity. This has nothing to do with "equal treatment." It has everything to do with facts and reality. It may not be a comforting thought that our government would do something like this, but your personal feelings don't amount to squat in the context of NPOV. All that matters is facts and evidence, and there are plenty of both to suggest that the official story is bunk.
Electric Monkey Pants
Oh, goodness, you have a terrible misspelling there. Let me fix that for you:
Never forget to look at where the motivation comes from. Walmart (and any other non-employee-owned large corporation) couldn't give a rodent's posterior for its employees beyond what they bring to the bottom line. For easily replaced menial labor, there's not much contribution made by any single individual, so there's no incentive for Walmart to allow any employee organizing that could even potentially lead to demands from the rank and file for higher pay, more benefits, etc., all things that would only reduce that already meager added value.
Remember, Walmart is beholden to the interests of its shareholders, not those of its employees. José, Leroy, and Nancy on the checkout line don't have any leverage over company policy, whereas JP Morgan and Prudential wield considerable influence. When it comes to business, follow the money.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
They drive out small retail business who actually have knowledge and skill in their field and replace them with people with neither subject knowledge nor the inclination to gain it.
Only if customers allow them to. Your real problem seems to be with consumers who are making price/quality tradeoffs that you don't agree with.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.