Crap or questionable articles

[Bbb23sucks]

Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) link

ESG (environmental, social, and corporate governance) is a framework designed to be embedded into an organization's strategy that considers the needs and ways in which to generate value for all of organizational stakeholders (such as employees, customers and suppliers and financiers).

Reads more like their their website than an "encyclopedia" article.

[Bbb23sucks]

Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) link

ESG (environmental, social, and corporate governance) is a framework designed to be embedded into an organization's strategy that considers the needs and ways in which to generate value for all of organizational stakeholders (such as employees, customers and suppliers and financiers).

(Totally no paid editing here)

[badmachine]

as near as i could tell it is the concept that there is value in "ethics", as defined by shit like climate change, diversity inclusion and equity, and other social justice stuff. my theory is that the wikipedia article is poorly written on purpose, so that the few people who can see the fine print within their portfolios, and then look up ESG, find only useless buzzwords and a bunch of newspeak. and hopefully the investor gets a migraine two sentences in, and just gives up. thats my theory anyway

(edited)

[Bbb23sucks]

as defined by shit like climate change, diversity inclusion and equity, and other social justice stuff.

Not climate change any more, it used be a part of it, but then they realized that they were actually supporting something actually meaningful.

[Vortex]

This is the article a friend of Tamzin's used as an excuse to get me banhammered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... e_executed

I had added a large number of persons to the list and ended up raising the hackles of several clearly highly opinionated and aggressive users.

The article is currently being closely monitored by a non-native English speaker known as "TheBanner" who thinks he speaks better English than he actually does. At present the article includes multiple grammatical errors and bizarre turns of phrase which I can only conclude were attempts at word-for-word translation from Dutch.

Heavy bias is also evident. "TheBanner" relished adding the full charges against people he dislikes (such as Gideon Scheepers and Breaker Morant), while downplaying the personal responsibility and human agency of people he likes.

The article has a category of "deposed leaders", but "TheBanner" and a friend of his, "Scolaire", didn't like the fact it included the Ceausescus and Saddam Hussein and slotted them into the "war criminals" category. "Scolaire" justified this on the grounds they were "not executed for being overthrown", this is strange logic since whenever a former leader is executed there is normally some form of justification given by the authorities responsible beyond "we want them dead" (however flimsy that justification might be) and his choice of categorisation is patently his moral judgement of them.

There are also strangely vague categories now: "TheBanner" created the category "political and/or terrorist", but all of the individuals in it could (and probably should) easily be slotted into other categories. Oddly he moved the perpetrators of the Istanbul Pogrom into this category from "crimes against humanity", because apparently he doesn't think ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. He also completely removed the category "sexual assault" and all of the individuals in it.

In the talk page "TheBanner" became very angry at the word "criminal" being used, because apparently describing the state of having broken a law and having been punished according to the law is outrageous POV and he revealed he thinks an execution for mass murder or attempting a military coup is morally on par with a fine for a traffic violation (I wish I was joking).

Other editors are obviously too scared to even attempt to edit the article, despite numerous notable executions having taken place in Iran since the article was last edited.

[ericbarbour]

The article is currently being closely monitored by a non-native English speaker known as "TheBanner" who thinks he speaks better English than he actually does. At present the article includes multiple grammatical errors and bizarre turns of phrase which I can only conclude were attempts at word-for-word translation from Dutch.
Heavy bias is also evident. "TheBanner" relished adding the full charges against people he dislikes (such as Gideon Scheepers and Breaker Morant), while downplaying the personal responsibility and human agency of people he likes.

Looked into this--the bulk of the article edits (BY FAR) were by this guy.
Banned as a sockpuppet. By Tamzin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheCurrencyGuy
Also was tagged as a sockpuppet---by Tamzin.

Will "TheBanner" get the same treatment? Doubtful. Don't fight over this article, it's not a very popular one anyway.

[Vortex]

Looked into this--the bulk of the article edits (BY FAR) were by this guy.
Banned as a sockpuppet. By Tamzin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheCurrencyGuy
Also was tagged as a sockpuppet---by Tamzin.

Will "TheBanner" get the same treatment? Doubtful. Don't fight over this article, it's not a very popular one anyway.

That was me, I wanted to improve the article because it was tiny before I started editing it. "TheBanner" and "Scolaire" started getting pissy after I tried to bring some consistency to some other relevant articles and "NotReallySoroka" filed a complaint claiming the article was subject to a "1 revert rule" (which it wasn't tagged as) resulting in my original account being blocked by Tamzin.

Much later I made another account and the second I edited the article (mainly removing the bad Dutchlish) "TheBanner" pounced, reverting everything to his bad pidgin English and taking out everything I had subsequently added. "NotReallySoroka" then filed an SPI and Tamzin gladly kicked me out again.

I suspect "NotReallySoroka" is the link between "TheBanner" and Tamzin. He appears to know both of them offsite.

[ericbarbour]

I suspect "NotReallySoroka" is the link between "TheBanner" and Tamzin. He appears to know both of them offsite.

This is classic Wikipedia. The insiders do "off wiki coordination" all the time. But if their opponents do it, it's a crime. And yes, they operate like a gang of classic feudal lords; you scratch my back and I'll ban your enemies.

Once again: give up that article. You will not "win".

[Vortex]

This is classic Wikipedia. The insiders do "off wiki coordination" all the time. But if their opponents do it, it's a crime. And yes, they operate like a gang of classic feudal lords; you scratch my back and I'll ban your enemies.

Once again: give up that article. You will not "win".

I've since conceded any edits at all are going to be instareverted by "TheBanner", just wanted to bring the article to wider attention.

"TheBanner" and, to a very slightly lesser extent "Scolaire", are rather odd individuals who seem to take it personally when their attempts to warp facts to fit their narrative are questioned. They appear to prefer sophistry and shouting down to actually doing legwork and finding and citing actual sources.

[ericbarbour]

"TheBanner" and, to a very slightly lesser extent "Scolaire", are rather odd individuals who seem to take it personally when their attempts to warp facts to fit their narrative are questioned. They appear to prefer sophistry and shouting down to actually doing legwork and finding and citing actual sources.

If you want to amuse yourself, try to "dox" them. We have a thread full of suggestions.
https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtop ... =19&t=2082