Talk:Fortune 1000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] One List

It is better that there is only one list instead of ten separate ones so a person can sort all of them by a specific category, not just groups of one-hundred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cff12345 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Only 500

Not sure why there's a Fortune 1000 article, with only 500 companies shown. You can access the Fortune 1000 data (by state) on the Fortune website. However, the data is for 2006, and this Wikipedia list is still based on 2005 data, so there is going to be a disconnect (and perhaps some overlap) between the 1-500 and the 501-1000 portions of the list.

Is there some way somebody can "import" the complete 2006 list electronically? Updating this manually is going to be a pain! -- Thekohser 19:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I filled out the list. It doesn't really need anything special, a good editor like vim will do. Most (but probably not quite all) of the existing articles are linked to as well. --Interiot 00:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Question

{{copyrightexamination}}

This article had an outdated list of the Fortune 1000 companies that was pretty much directly taken from [1] (or some similar link at some past time). I removed the table since it was outdated and because I'm not sure if it's a copyvio or not. I don't think it would be too difficult for me to copy and parse the current 2006 information into a table, but I wanted to check about it before doing so. Is it a copyvio to copy their entire dataset to the article? The last revision with the table in it was [2] if you'd like to see how it was previously presented. Any feedback on this would be quite welcome! Thanks. -- Zawersh 02:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • See the unanimous Supreme Court decision of Feist v. Rural. I believe that Wikipedia may copy the Fortune lists. We just can't copy Fortune's commentary about said lists. -- Thekohser 04:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually that decision leads me to believe the opposite. The article says that no "expressive" content can be copied. In this case, the choice of which companies to include, possibly the ordering of those companies (alphabetical would have been okay per the article, but is sorting by revenues okay?), and their choice in assigned rank to each company strikes me as "expessive" per the discussion in Implications. Also, under Relation with treaties it states, "The standard for such originality is fairly low; for example, business listings have been found to meet this standard when deciding which companies should be listed and categorizing those companies required some kind of expert judgement." Wouldn't the Fortune 1000 list be considered such a business listing? -- Zawersh 01:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The revenues of these companies are already public, and these are raw facts. The arrangement in descending order is not particularly creative. I would think the revenue listings would be OK to re-create here, particularly if Wikipedia adds its own links and other annotations. But I am not a lawyer. The Wikimedia Foundation does have some; perhaps someone should send mail to the foundation mailing list. We could also see if anyone else does or is allowed to reproduce the list in full or in part, and ask for permission if necessary. -- Beland 05:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I am a lawyer, and lists like this are exactly what Feist makes public domain. "the choice of which companies to include" is perfectly analogous to the phone company's decision to include or not include certain names. The "expert judgment" they're talking about are lists that categorize the best something from the opinion of an expert, such as "best customer service" or "most prestigious universities." --M@rēino 15:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Since all Fortune 1000 does is list by revenues - publicly available information which only needs collection - my call is to list the companies, including and sorting by public-domain figures (e.g. revenues), and excluding data which was reported by the companies to Time magazine specifically for this report. This is a service by Fortune magazine to its subscribers, but it still cannot be copyrighted (just like a telephone directory). There is no expert judgement (aka creativity) in this sorting. Any figures which require such creativity (e.g. ratios) are more borderline. Any choice of weblinks, other than the corporate website, would also be inappropriate (see the recent CNNMoney case in Fortune (magazine)) as there is "expert judgement" in deciding which links to include. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 13:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VANDALS ALERT

There has been obviuous vandalism to the article. The scruplous entry on the top can be got rid of, but if there are any more scruplous entries should be checked out by someone with authority over the subject

Scrupulous? Are you sure you don't mean scurrilous? 68.39.174.238 04:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updates Needed

This page needs updating-- although it says it is using 2006 Data; nothing is correctly corresponding in terms of 2006 Revenue. For example, the top two companies (Exxon and Wal-Mart) have different 2006 Revenue posted vs. what is displayed here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.130.29.0 (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

The list now reflects 2006 revenue as per the 2007 Fortune 500 list. David Heisel 17:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outdated or Inaccurate List

I have found the F1000 list to be inaccurate recently (although it may have been before). The company General Dynamics was previously found in the 100 range and now is nowhere on the list. Is there anyone that can assist in having this list updated? Logic24 05:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The list is now updated. David Heisel 17:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I just updated the list to reflect the 2007 Fortune 500 list, but if anyone could help go through and verify company links / add secondary data (headquarters locations / industry information) that would be appreciated. David Heisel 17:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)