5 ms·

For everybody who was saying "Wikipedia is complete, there's nothing left to write about" yesterday, as far as I can there is not a word about this on the whole

For everybody who was saying "Wikipedia is complete, there's nothing left to write about" yesterday, as far as I can there is not a word about this on the whole site, certainly not on the Pepsi page. Time to get to work! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Pepsi+349&ns0=1&ns9=1&ns11=1&ns12=1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Pepsi+349&ns0=1&... Edit: I stand corrected, there is a single paragraph in here. Nothing standalone/linkable though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_in_the_Philippines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_in_the_Philippines

duxup 6y ago
Is this something that should be on the Wikipedia Pepsi page? While it is an interesting story I don't really think it is the kind of thing I'd be looking for.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
  There's acres on eg. Crystal Pepsi and New Coke, neither of which (AFAIK) caused any people to die.
- Zenbit_UX 6y ago
  Really? You don't think a corporations blunder that took lives and led to riots is deserving of inclusion? I can say Pepsi certainly doesn't want it there, your motivations are interely baffling though.
  - duxup 6y ago
    I think it was a technical blunder and I don't buy into the idea that they're responsible for the actions of individuals in a riot. If someone upset that they (or more likely someone else) should have won a prize takes actions that lead to the death of another ... I don't believe Pepsi is responsible for that.
    - 14 6y ago
      It still seems like a very interesting part of history whether they were at fault or not. They have made dumb mistakes on multiple occasions if you remember the Harrier Jet give away they blundered and someone came up with the points. So I believe this is worthy of mention on the Pepsi Wikipedia page it’s part of the business success and hardships. Maybe there will be more. Maybe not.
      - sllabres 6y ago
        Yes another 'glitch' and even funnier, because no one was harmed... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.
    - gmanley 6y ago
      So then let people come to that conclusion on their own after they've read the facts. The Wikipedia content shouldn't imply fault. It just needs to document what actually happened.
- hundchenkatze 6y ago
  Interesting, a company's history is about the only reason I'd visit their Wikipedia page.
- pixelbath 6y ago
  There are many times I'm glad that individual people don't decide the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Inclusion_criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#...
vortico 6y ago
What about on the Filipino Wikipedia? It's better to translate rather than start from scratch. I think it would be an excellent new English article with a mention on the Pepsi article, if there are enough sources to claim that it's significant enough.
throwaway2048 6y ago
Controversial stuff, even well documented controversial stuff, gets scrubbed from Wikipedia all the time. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation You would suppose a think tank directly responsible for such policy gems as : • Mutually assured destruction • The Missile Gap • Planned Shrinkage • tax cuts for the rich and service cuts for the poor • Systematic Torture of enemy soldiers in the Vietnam war • Deployment of Agent Orange • Planned military coups of a number of third world nations • Their employee (Daniel Ellsburg) leaked the pentagon papers And all manner more of cold war controversies and excesses would be better covered, but any attempt to introduce them to the article are almost immediately cleaned from that page (check the edit history). The history of the RAND corporation is documented, but you aren't going to find that information on Wikipedia. There is very clearly a PR organization sitting on top of that article scrubbing and sterilizing all the dirty stuff RAND has been involved in.
- andrewflnr 6y ago
  You can link to edits. Why don't you show us some of the ones you're talking about?
  - gerdesj 6y ago
    I started hunting through the edit history which is pretty involved to see if I could find some examples. I notice that MAD is mentioned in the section "RAND Corp". I gave up then!
- why_only_15 6y ago
  I looked at the edit history and couldn't find such edits in the last three or so years. Do you have any particular edits you're thinking of?
lostgame 6y ago
>> For everybody who was saying "Wikipedia is complete, there's nothing left to write about" What?!? This is one of the stupider things I’ve heard from this community. Not only do I find it very suspect that ‘everything has an article’, but these people are aware of new things being discovered and invented, no?
arkades 6y ago
People think Wikipedia is complete??? I could add stuff in my field of specialty constantly. I just don't want to jump through all the hoops that come with being a wikipedia contributor, so I keep all my notes on a private wiki.
- baby 6y ago
  This selfish
  - rjbwork 6y ago
    Perhaps it is the wikipedia administration, moderation, and editing team that have put up such barriers who are selfish. It is selfish to expect others to jump through your hoops to contribute advanced technical knowledge out of the kindness of their hearts.
    - john-radio 6y ago
      Just a reminder that you're only assuming that the information that arkades would like to add is even accurate. (No offense to them, I'm sure it is, just pointing out that the process of editing that encyclopedia is burdensome for a reason).
      - arkades 6y ago
        No offense taken. Weeding out for accuracy is a fair and important concern, and there's no reason to assume a random person on the internet is the expert they believe themselves to be. Though I'd point out that unless wikipedia has a team of people whose expertise equals or at least vaguely approximates my own (or that of any expert that might contribute), I have to raise the question of whether that's really what they're filtering, or simply something that superficially looks like accuracy to someone unfamiliar with the material. It also assumes that the inaccuracy of the current articles is less than the inaccuracy of articles under a hypothetical alternative moderation policy. That might be true, or it might not - chase away enough contributors and you're left with one-sided, stale information. I imagine that's fine for an article on the simpsons, but maybe not great if you're looking up leukemias.
catalogia 6y ago
I've noticed that corporate history tends to be a blind spot for Wikipedia. I suspect part of the reason for this is corporate PR departments have more resources than volunteer encyclopedians.

duxup 6y ago

Is this something that should be on the Wikipedia Pepsi page? While it is an interesting story I don't really think it is the kind of thing I'd be looking for.

9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
There's acres on eg. Crystal Pepsi and New Coke, neither of which (AFAIK) caused any people to die.
Zenbit_UX 6y ago
Really? You don't think a corporations blunder that took lives and led to riots is deserving of inclusion? I can say Pepsi certainly doesn't want it there, your motivations are interely baffling though.
- duxup 6y ago
  I think it was a technical blunder and I don't buy into the idea that they're responsible for the actions of individuals in a riot. If someone upset that they (or more likely someone else) should have won a prize takes actions that lead to the death of another ... I don't believe Pepsi is responsible for that.
  - 14 6y ago
    It still seems like a very interesting part of history whether they were at fault or not. They have made dumb mistakes on multiple occasions if you remember the Harrier Jet give away they blundered and someone came up with the points. So I believe this is worthy of mention on the Pepsi Wikipedia page it’s part of the business success and hardships. Maybe there will be more. Maybe not.
    - sllabres 6y ago
      Yes another 'glitch' and even funnier, because no one was harmed... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.
  - gmanley 6y ago
    So then let people come to that conclusion on their own after they've read the facts. The Wikipedia content shouldn't imply fault. It just needs to document what actually happened.
hundchenkatze 6y ago
Interesting, a company's history is about the only reason I'd visit their Wikipedia page.
pixelbath 6y ago
There are many times I'm glad that individual people don't decide the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Inclusion_criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#...

vortico 6y ago

What about on the Filipino Wikipedia? It's better to translate rather than start from scratch. I think it would be an excellent new English article with a mention on the Pepsi article, if there are enough sources to claim that it's significant enough.

throwaway2048 6y ago

Controversial stuff, even well documented controversial stuff, gets scrubbed from Wikipedia all the time. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation You would suppose a think tank directly responsible for such policy gems as : • Mutually assured destruction • The Missile Gap • Planned Shrinkage • tax cuts for the rich and service cuts for the poor • Systematic Torture of enemy soldiers in the Vietnam war • Deployment of Agent Orange • Planned military coups of a number of third world nations • Their employee (Daniel Ellsburg) leaked the pentagon papers And all manner more of cold war controversies and excesses would be better covered, but any attempt to introduce them to the article are almost immediately cleaned from that page (check the edit history). The history of the RAND corporation is documented, but you aren't going to find that information on Wikipedia. There is very clearly a PR organization sitting on top of that article scrubbing and sterilizing all the dirty stuff RAND has been involved in.

andrewflnr 6y ago
You can link to edits. Why don't you show us some of the ones you're talking about?
- gerdesj 6y ago
  I started hunting through the edit history which is pretty involved to see if I could find some examples. I notice that MAD is mentioned in the section "RAND Corp". I gave up then!
why_only_15 6y ago
I looked at the edit history and couldn't find such edits in the last three or so years. Do you have any particular edits you're thinking of?

lostgame 6y ago

>> For everybody who was saying "Wikipedia is complete, there's nothing left to write about" What?!? This is one of the stupider things I’ve heard from this community. Not only do I find it very suspect that ‘everything has an article’, but these people are aware of new things being discovered and invented, no?

arkades 6y ago

People think Wikipedia is complete??? I could add stuff in my field of specialty constantly. I just don't want to jump through all the hoops that come with being a wikipedia contributor, so I keep all my notes on a private wiki.

baby 6y ago
This selfish
- rjbwork 6y ago
  Perhaps it is the wikipedia administration, moderation, and editing team that have put up such barriers who are selfish. It is selfish to expect others to jump through your hoops to contribute advanced technical knowledge out of the kindness of their hearts.
  - john-radio 6y ago
    Just a reminder that you're only assuming that the information that arkades would like to add is even accurate. (No offense to them, I'm sure it is, just pointing out that the process of editing that encyclopedia is burdensome for a reason).
    - arkades 6y ago
      No offense taken. Weeding out for accuracy is a fair and important concern, and there's no reason to assume a random person on the internet is the expert they believe themselves to be. Though I'd point out that unless wikipedia has a team of people whose expertise equals or at least vaguely approximates my own (or that of any expert that might contribute), I have to raise the question of whether that's really what they're filtering, or simply something that superficially looks like accuracy to someone unfamiliar with the material. It also assumes that the inaccuracy of the current articles is less than the inaccuracy of articles under a hypothetical alternative moderation policy. That might be true, or it might not - chase away enough contributors and you're left with one-sided, stale information. I imagine that's fine for an article on the simpsons, but maybe not great if you're looking up leukemias.

catalogia 6y ago

I've noticed that corporate history tends to be a blind spot for Wikipedia. I suspect part of the reason for this is corporate PR departments have more resources than volunteer encyclopedians.