Talk:Trade Standard

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Lucidish in topic Opening question

Opening question[edit]

For now I have one question: why should this be a Wikimedia project? —Ben Brockert < 00:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand (you need more examples). It would be a great wiki saying things like: Nike - bad. because... Microsoft - little bad because... greenpeace - mostly harmless and so on?

Well, interesting, a similar goal of disinfopedia but of products, not of information. It's not totally clear to me, but it seems this would need to with some minor diferences from a wiki, wouldn't it be? because it relies on so much objective information (numbers) that needs to be checked. I see a lot of flame wars going on... --Avsa 22:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think this project could be done in a NPOV way. The problem with the current proposal is that it compartmentalizes products into groups based on how good and bad they are. This could be done in a NPOV way if instead of this +/- malarky, corporations and their products were characterised in another way, instead of being viewed as an opportunity to battle the 'Sinister Corporate Machine'. Maybe this could be expanded into a general Wikitrade or Wikicommerce site focusing on all aspects of international commerce, including the humanitarian aspect. Maybe we could classify products in a number of ways, e.g.;

  1. Product Name: Whatevertheooeytheproductnameis
  1. Licenced by: Nike Corporation
  1. Manafactured by: SomeTaiwaneseorHongKongsweatshop
  1. Units sold: xxx,xxx,xxx
  1. Factory location(s): xxxxx lu, Guangdong, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China xxxx, blablabla
  1. Quality marks: blablabla standard
  1. Licence holder's Code of Conduct link
  1. Manafacturer's Code of Conduct link
  1. blablabla

This is totally simplified of course, but I'm just saying that it would be possible to do this thing in a way that would NOT just make it look like some Indymedia 'rage against the machine' kind of leftie site. We can provide honest information about corporations and their products, and leave the moralizing to Indymedia and Sweatshop Watch. I suggest a different name, maybe Wikitrade or Wikibusiness. We could have it as a source of information on all aspects of trade and business. We could give accurate information the same way that Wikipedia does. For example, if there is an entry about a drug manafacturer, we can note accusations about side-affects, deaths, pay and conditions issues etc. without passing judgement, as in: "xxxx watchdog accuses xxxx pill of causing xxxx side affect" or "The anti-sweatshop NGO xxxxx believes that factory workers in xxxxx are paid xx cents an hour" WITHOUT passing judgement. Just like on Wikipedia! In any case, surely a database for financial and trade issues would be a good idea. This would not be the same thing as Wikinews, because this would primarily be a corporate an financial info database. So mabe we could have a 'business news' tab, sort of like 'current events' on WIkipedia, and then have the rest of the site devoted to general info. So if there was a business story like "Acme Corporation (ACM) post quarterly profit of $XX billion" you could click on the "ACM" link snd get all kinds of information about the corporation, including information about their corporate practices. Done right, this could be a great new site! --Ce garcon 09:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good gumption! I would also recommend that the database be sorted (if possible) by UPC code numbers. One future extension of the project may be to detect specific items to see the conditions they've been created in. My vision is of going into a store carrying a Blackberry with a UPC scanner and just quickly passing it over a shirt to get the down-low. Lucidish
  • This proposal needs to show how ratings will be agreed on and disputes resolved. It seems to be pure POV. I cannot see how this can be done in an NPOV way. GeorgeStepanek 08:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The notion of a "rating" is the least important part of the project, and I don't see why it is that it has gathered attention. Granted, I'm not crazy about the proposed ratings system, either (I'd prefer short summaries along a field of categories). It's just that it's a trivial point to get stuck on.
What is most important is the database and how it is organized, along with how to maintain a high quality of information and keep out libel, vandals, etc. One obvious step is to have higher standards than those on Wikipedia: to ban anonymous postings, and demand that information be sourced. In some cases, it may be necessary for users to use themselves as sources (ie, a worker of the plant), and so they might have to create user pages that contain proof of their assertions. Above all, there should be an emphasis on the unreliability of the database, because -- short of hiring a competent staff to patrol the database (unlikely), or short of more gating mechanisms to keep rubbish out (undesirable) -- these are the natural limits of the system.
So let me just put in my two cents on the worth of this project: it is absolutely essential, and should have been started yesterday. There's a lot of work to be done. Let's do it. Lucidish 18:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
My own concern is that I don't know what a "register" is supposed to be -- it was never explained. So it would be nice if Erik were here to elaborate. Lucidish

Inappropriate project[edit]

Too specific, bordering on a Wikipedia content fork. Not at all good or appropriate for Wikimedia. --Oldak Quill 00:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you give it a try? The possible results - maybe even leading to global quality improment - are promising enough to start the project, even if it seems slightly "off topic" for you. If this happens to be the case, maybe it can be shifted afterwards. At the moment Wikipedia is a very good - maybe the best - platform for courageous international projects. Anyway, a "life" example would be great. --WoWo 19th of Feb, 2005
Yeah, I'm not really seeing how this project has anything to do with Wikipedia at all. Clarification of the point is required. Lucidish

End note of project proposal to Wikimedia Foundation by TL[edit]

Request for the establishment of a "Trade Standard Foundation" by the Wikimedia Foundation and Erik Koopman (creator of Trade Standard and Trade Label) for three reasons:

  1. To enable (future) institutionalization of Trade Standard (the intention of this project)
  2. To create a direct connection with Trade Label.
  3. To prevent the whole Wikimedia Foundation for the reaction of angry (powerful) companies who may see their name or products be degraded.