6 ms·

Their Wikipedia page doesn't mention anything about union-busting. If you are "notorious" for something in this day and age, it should at least show up in ten p

by lacker 5y ago

Their Wikipedia page doesn't mention anything about union-busting. If you are "notorious" for something in this day and age, it should at least show up in ten paragraphs of Wikipedia. The main controversy mentioned there is them representing people who are held in Guantanamo under suspicion of terrorism. It seems more like Wilmer Hale is a huge bunch of lawyers doing all sorts of things, than some union-busting hacks.

seoaeu 5y ago
> If you are "notorious" for something in this day and age, it should at least show up in ten paragraphs of Wikipedia. That is placing way too much trust in Wiki pages not being manipulated to portray their subjects in an unfairly positive light
- Terr_ 5y ago
  Especially when it's on a page which is super-niche and obscure to most people but vitally important to a single company's HR department.
  - sixstringtheory 5y ago
    Anybody can edit the page to add citations and info. I checked the last year of edits and nobody has done it except for someone, probably based on this news cycle, simply adding the word “anti-union” with no citations, which was of course rightfully reverted.
dogorman 5y ago
10 paragraphs? That's your standard? What a joke! The Exxon Valdez only gets three sentences on Exxon's wikipedia page. It costs peanuts to bribe a wikipedian editor to manage your corporation's reputation and suppress controversies on wikipedia. This is standard practice. How anybody thinks a corporation's wikipedia page is neutral territory is beyond me.
- Gracana 5y ago
  That paragraph calls it "one of the worst oil spills in American history," and links to an entire article about it. What underhanded editing do you think has happened here?
  - dogorman 5y ago
    The decision to only have three sentences about it. The decision to hide those three sentences under the "History" heading so there is no hint of it in the table of contents. The decision to not even have a "Controversies" section to the page. The decision to not have any photographs of the aftermath. Don't be so credulous. Wikipedians have been caught selling their PR services numerous times before, and doubtlessly get away with it even more often than that. Contrast this with what BP's page looks like and it's obvious Exxon payed top dollar while BP's PR team cheaped out (gave up?). BP's page has a paragraph dedicated to the Deepwater spill in the introduction section, has a "Violations and accidents" section in the table of contents, and has "Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill" in the table of contents as well. And that section? It has a dozen or so paragraphs, not just three lame sentences. The page has several photographs of the aftermath. BP's page looks like an authentic wikipedia page, while Exxon's page was obviously bought and paid for by Exxon's PR. Exxon's page should look like BP's, but doesn't. And since you mention the article dedicated to the spill, lets compare those too. The Deep Water Horizon page is 4 times as long. The Deep Water Horizon page gets prominent links from BP's main page, at the top of the section titled "Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill" > Main article: Deepwater Horizon oil spill > See also: Deepwater Horizon explosion, Deepwater Horizon litigation, and Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust BP's page also has an infobox all about the spill: "This article is part of a series about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill" Exxon's page? The link for the spill's dedicated page is hidden as the 4th link in one of the three sentences that page has about the spill: > On March 24, 1989, in what is regarded as one of the worst oil spills in American history,[9] a tanker owned by Exxon, the Exxon Valdez, crashed into Bligh Reef, [[Exxon Valdez oil spill|spilling]] its cargo of over ten million gallons of crude oil into the Prince William Sound in Alaska What an absolute fucking joke. I can't believe you defend this.

by lacker 5y ago

seoaeu 5y ago

> If you are "notorious" for something in this day and age, it should at least show up in ten paragraphs of Wikipedia. That is placing way too much trust in Wiki pages not being manipulated to portray their subjects in an unfairly positive light

Terr_ 5y ago
Especially when it's on a page which is super-niche and obscure to most people but vitally important to a single company's HR department.
- sixstringtheory 5y ago
  Anybody can edit the page to add citations and info. I checked the last year of edits and nobody has done it except for someone, probably based on this news cycle, simply adding the word “anti-union” with no citations, which was of course rightfully reverted.

dogorman 5y ago

10 paragraphs? That's your standard? What a joke! The Exxon Valdez only gets three sentences on Exxon's wikipedia page. It costs peanuts to bribe a wikipedian editor to manage your corporation's reputation and suppress controversies on wikipedia. This is standard practice. How anybody thinks a corporation's wikipedia page is neutral territory is beyond me.

Gracana 5y ago
That paragraph calls it "one of the worst oil spills in American history," and links to an entire article about it. What underhanded editing do you think has happened here?
- dogorman 5y ago
  The decision to only have three sentences about it. The decision to hide those three sentences under the "History" heading so there is no hint of it in the table of contents. The decision to not even have a "Controversies" section to the page. The decision to not have any photographs of the aftermath. Don't be so credulous. Wikipedians have been caught selling their PR services numerous times before, and doubtlessly get away with it even more often than that. Contrast this with what BP's page looks like and it's obvious Exxon payed top dollar while BP's PR team cheaped out (gave up?). BP's page has a paragraph dedicated to the Deepwater spill in the introduction section, has a "Violations and accidents" section in the table of contents, and has "Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill" in the table of contents as well. And that section? It has a dozen or so paragraphs, not just three lame sentences. The page has several photographs of the aftermath. BP's page looks like an authentic wikipedia page, while Exxon's page was obviously bought and paid for by Exxon's PR. Exxon's page should look like BP's, but doesn't. And since you mention the article dedicated to the spill, lets compare those too. The Deep Water Horizon page is 4 times as long. The Deep Water Horizon page gets prominent links from BP's main page, at the top of the section titled "Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill" > Main article: Deepwater Horizon oil spill > See also: Deepwater Horizon explosion, Deepwater Horizon litigation, and Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust BP's page also has an infobox all about the spill: "This article is part of a series about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill" Exxon's page? The link for the spill's dedicated page is hidden as the 4th link in one of the three sentences that page has about the spill: > On March 24, 1989, in what is regarded as one of the worst oil spills in American history,[9] a tanker owned by Exxon, the Exxon Valdez, crashed into Bligh Reef, [[Exxon Valdez oil spill|spilling]] its cargo of over ten million gallons of crude oil into the Prince William Sound in Alaska What an absolute fucking joke. I can't believe you defend this.