Talk:Socially responsible investing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
Socially responsible investing was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}} |
[edit] Permissions
 |
The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system; it is available for users with an OTRS account. To confirm the permission, please contact someone with an OTRS account.
Ticket link: https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=693308 |
|
|
|
Contents |
[edit] notes
12/1/05: For a far less detailed view of SRI, check out the Nov. 13, 2005 and earlier versions of the wikipedia entry on Socially Responsible Investing. With great kudos to whoever made the effort to start the article, moving it from that point to the Nov. 15th stage of development required an input of several hours. I think the 11/19/05 additions are sound and entirely worthwhile, and I will still push back some on the 11/19/05 comment below. I see 'old school' as screening, whereas community investing and shareholder activism represent the more highly engaged levels of SRI. While it's superb that more institutional investors are awakening to the financial value of social (and in particular environmental) screens/analysis for their usefulness in helping avoid potential liability, I think it is safe to assert that rarely can one look to large pools of money for the most innovative and cutting-edge ideas. As SRI concepts become more mainstream, there will still be leading-edge thinkers and practitioners, and in my view they will likely not be the largest investors who do things when they are deemed to make financial sense, but rather will be those who lead with concepts of environmental integrity, social cohesion, and spiritual balance (in the least-religious sense of that word) and see economics as a means of supporting or advancing these fundamental values, rather than the other way around. BTH www.newground.net
11/19/05: I have made a few edits to reflect developments in SRI practice in Europe and elsewhere, particularly relating to 'investment integration' and efforts to mainstream SRI in the financial community. Previously the site was fairly old-school-US-SRI heavy.--86.133.100.254 13:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Merging ethical and investment into SRI probably makes sense - ethical investment (In the UK at least tends to be used to refer to screening-based SRI, so may be considered a subset of SRI).--Drcrm 13:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Permission granted via Marc J. Lane President of Marc J. Lane Investment Management, Inc. Please refer to: Dwoods1113 18:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Failed GA
Please add refernces and remove the link farm per WP:NOT a linkfarm. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 01:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] India Request
Is there any organisation practising SRI in India?
[edit] New article, new copyright violation?
I've copied across the links sections from the old page, however someone appears to have cut and pasted other material there already. simonthebold 08:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New article version
There is a new article version at the temp page (Talk:Socially responsible investing/Temp). It's not wikified and it does not cite its sources. I removed a ton of external links from it; as per WP:NOT and WP:EL, articles should not consist of links to other sites. The links did not provide unique information and were not suitable for use as sources, as they are links for investment businesses and therefore not independent of the subject. I've kept the names of the companies as examples, but most of them will most likely need to be removed as well. A few of the most notable examples should suffice. The article still has what I consider to be an advertising tone, as if trying to convince the reader that social investment firms are trustworthy, highly successful, and deserve more business. I've edited it only to the point where it will most likely not be nominated for AfD as spam; it has a long way to go before it would be considered a good article. Kafziel 19:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Needs some links
I read around the web to find the sites offering the most objective information about socially responsible investing. I think we need a few links. I included ones that I thought had solid information and score highly for relevance on google and yahoo.
- No article "needs" links. Wikipedia articles should be as self-contained as possible. If an article mentions a company that doesn't rate an article on Wikipedia (see:this guideline for the standards) the company name should remain unlinked; providing external links to non-notable companies can be construed as spam. In fact, if a company is not significant enough for its own article, it probably shouldn't be mentioned at all. I've left a few in this article as examples, but the article isn't meant to serve a jumping off point for finding these websites. Kafziel Talk 18:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. I hope you don't mind the update to the History section. I found this information on Invested Interests and thought it tied the old religious SRI to the current SRI well. Let me know what you think. Also, I cited the information/site at the bottom and created a reference section. Do you want to include references to SIF?
[edit] Why the Article?
I removed the article to the Seattle Weekly a couple times and can't figure out why it is there. Who keeps putting the article in there? Please let me know why you think this is objective and adding to the content of the page.
- I don't see what you mean. The source is objective (an independent news source) as opposed to the SRI websites everyone keeps trying to sneak in. Kafziel Talk 11:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the first comment. There are dozens of other, more comprehensive, more objective articles on SRI.
Cirm 17:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The article cited is one of the weakest on SRI I have ever seen, and I've looked at over 650 articles on the subject. It is weak. Kafziel must know the author or be trying to pump him up. Remove, or get other, more comprehensive links. Look at the Christian Science Monitor.
[edit] I feel...
that the topic of pension fund and its relevant law need to be included
[edit] would any wiki guru please...
help to format ref section. Otherwise, shed me light on HOWTO
[edit] More copyvio
I just listed this article as a copyvio problem, but since the links that were used to create this page are blacklisted by wikipedia, I can't list them on the copyvio tag, but you can find many of them in the previous couple of edit summaries. (Blacklisting, while a good thing, seems to make it difficult for this tag to work properly in this circumstance, eh?).
--Rkitko 00:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Not sure why you flagged this as a copyright violation. I put this information on there and had permission from the site administrator. Let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.223.202 (talk • contribs)
- Permission for use on Wikipedia must be logged. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information on that end. The copyright holder must agree to release their text into one of the acceptable licenses, such as GFDL or public domain, meaning that their text can be used "downstream" of Wikipedia, for other commercial uses, even. Most copyright holders don't agree to that, so therefore it is important for them to acknowledge all of that information. Please see the link above for helpful guides to obtaining consent to use copyrighted material and how to send it to Wikipedia for verification. By the way, which website was it? The creativeinvest one? If so, they're on the spam blacklist - so even if permission is verified, it couldn't be linked to for attribution. Hope this helps. --Rkitko 07:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I had received permission from Invested Interests to use their History of Socially Responsible Investing article. I sent the forms to m:OTRS system this evening. Please check it and re-allow this content. I actually had heard it myself at a conference at Stanford University a year ago - Invested Interests was presenting on this subject and they are considered very experienced with this subject. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsmall99 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 7 February 2007
- All right, let's wait for the OTRS guys to come here and confirm the permission. Conscious 08:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
