Talk:Great Wolf Lodge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm working with Great Wolf Resorts, and they: (a) did not write the copy on this page (b) do not know who did (c) would like to make sure that history is tracked for their entry (logs, edit history, etc)
Per Alison's comments, this page does need more content and editing. Great Wolf Resorts will address that request, ensuring the page respects wikipedia's guidelines, in the near future.
Thanks!
Tcascenda (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't for Great Wolf Resorts to do any such thing! Companies do NOT write their own pages here. Mayalld (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Beats me if it really is official wikipedia policy not to allow people/companies to edit their own pages, but if it is, it's just another really stupid wikipedia policy. I think it's probably more like companies editing their own pages need to be very careful to keep the information relevant to a good encyclopedia article remembering that it needs citations and shouldn't be promotional. "Policies" like these are what will eventually cause a fork of wikipedia and they do not promote quality articles.
Either way, there is no need to be so difficult on someone who appears to simply want to improve wikipedia.
Shepd (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there is. Please read WP:COI, WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:RS and other similar pages.Skookum1 (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- After scanning the article, it is clear taht this is not a resort article and so should not have those categories; only individaul resort articles should. This should have only company cast; I've added WP:US as well as WPCanON so that editors from those wikiprojcts can work/unscramble the content here, as should be. And it's not a stupid wikipedia policy that asks for conflict-of-interest editors to either butt out or play by the rules; the stupidity that would result if WP:COI and WP:AUTO wern't in existence is far greater tahn the stupidity of telling someone not to promote their own company (on salary no less, vs the rrest of us being on volunteer/hobby time). AS for a "fork" of Wikipedia resulting from such policies, suffice to say taht a Wiki-spinoff that was corporate-p.r. friendly wouldn't have much credibiliity because of that. It would have a slicker press package no doubt; but all its contents would be subject to doubt as "conflict of interest"Skookum1 (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)