Talk:Coca-Cola: Difference between revisions
(Don't tell us to do something, then delete our work) |
(agreed, it's bad form to ask for help doing something then delete, Lowest Troll please take note) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
The article contained information about a company. Information about company behaviour is required as part of research if Consumerium is to decide what the [[buying signal]] should be. How exactly do you propose to provide a good service if you stifle debate about company behaviour? What is the point of the Consumerium if it is not to promote ethical consumption? The article did not say that "Coca-Cola was evil"; it said that they had links with assassinations. This is a case in which [[moral purchasing power]] can help the oppressed workers in Coca-Cola factories. | The article contained information about a company. Information about company behaviour is required as part of research if Consumerium is to decide what the [[buying signal]] should be. How exactly do you propose to provide a good service if you stifle debate about company behaviour? What is the point of the Consumerium if it is not to promote ethical consumption? The article did not say that "Coca-Cola was evil"; it said that they had links with assassinations. This is a case in which [[moral purchasing power]] can help the oppressed workers in Coca-Cola factories. | ||
:Yes, clearly it is time for a proper [[Main Page Researcher]] with guidelines and a proper template for a [[Consumerium:intermediate company page]]. However such pages are not yet defined although there's talk about it at [[Consumerium:intermediate page]]. Also claims of links to assassinations should be clearly attributed with major news source references, or at least [[Recyclopedia]], [[Disinfopedia]] or [[Wikipedia]] references which typically have that already. | |||
Revision as of 23:32, 24 March 2004
We have people coming here looking basically for Main Page Researcher and real Consumerium:intermediate pages including a Consumerium:intermediate company page. Rather than delete valid research commentary, it's time to encourage these people not drive them off, and get them creating such pages.
Else this project never gets off the ground.
Just mark such pages: "DRAFT SAMPLE NOT-BINDING NOT-FOR-PUBLICATION-OR-QUOTING" for now.
"A Consumerium intermediate page is a Research Wiki page of opinions, including everything researchers have compiled on a company, regulator, commodity, product, production method, extraction method, transport method, region, waste disposal method, channel."
The article contained information about a company. Information about company behaviour is required as part of research if Consumerium is to decide what the buying signal should be. How exactly do you propose to provide a good service if you stifle debate about company behaviour? What is the point of the Consumerium if it is not to promote ethical consumption? The article did not say that "Coca-Cola was evil"; it said that they had links with assassinations. This is a case in which moral purchasing power can help the oppressed workers in Coca-Cola factories.
- Yes, clearly it is time for a proper Main Page Researcher with guidelines and a proper template for a Consumerium:intermediate company page. However such pages are not yet defined although there's talk about it at Consumerium:intermediate page. Also claims of links to assassinations should be clearly attributed with major news source references, or at least Recyclopedia, Disinfopedia or Wikipedia references which typically have that already.