Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics/Accountancy task force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Invitation to participate in the Accountancy Task Force

If you are interested in working in collaboration with Wikipedia members on improving the article Accountancy, you will be pleased to hear that the Accountancy task force has been set up and is seeking participants who can assist with the article's overhaul. Perhaps you would like to provide verifiable content on this subject matter, in which case your input could be invaluable. Alternatively we are also seeking participants who can help with the systematic sorting of related accountancy articles into meaningful categories, an activity that does not require undertaking research but will nonetheless help improve the quality of the article's links. Either way, the task force would like to hear from you!

[edit] Re: Invitation to participate in accountancy task force

I have added myself in the list of participants. Accountancy task force is a very good initiative and a lot needs to be done in this area. I am available to assist in any capacity, whether it involves my input through new articles or sorting or proof reading existing articles.

I am some what concerned about the lack of articles on IAS and IFRS and i believe we should give this area high priority. Sohail Gogal 09:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to have you join. I agree that IAS should receive high priority; this is an exciting time (if accountancy could be described as exciting!) in terms of the convergence of accounting standards. The standards themselves will form an important source for refence material used to verifying contributions. Do you have access to the actual texts themselves? If so, you will be in a good position to make comparison with some of the definitions used in Accountancy and the related articles. --Gavin Collins 12:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


Yes, I have access to original text of accounting standards. Since the articles relating to the IAS/IFRS are for an encyclopedia we have to agree on a standard format and structure of the articles that should highlight the features of the IAS/IFRS in the context of convergence efforts with other accounting standards ( plus we don't want to end up with something that is overstuffed with technicality and loose the wikipedia context). i would luv to hear your thoughts on this. Sohail Gogal 07:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added myself as an interested member. I don't feel like I have the time to work as full-time participant. I would love a small project. I can look into gaining access to the University of Illinois Library. The material there may become useful.H.al-shawaf 19:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am interest in assisting with this. --DWR 12:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to help - I've already had a look at some of the articles listed as needing attention as I was browsing, but I baulked at the scale of the challenge. Where do I sign up?! AnthonyUK 18:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed framework for article overhall

Somehow the article Accountancy needs to be structured on a rational basis, but I only have a vague idea of what this structure or framework should be based on. My current thinking as to what this framework might look like:

  • Accounting started as an occupation in ancient Mesopotamia or China, and has developed from relatively humble beginnings to become a profession in modern times;
  • During its development, accounting has come to encompass a wide range of activities (e.g recording of inventory, debts and taxation) whilst also increasing in sophistication in tandem with economic development;
  • The article Accountancy needs to be reflect the evolution from occupation to profession in order to cover all the diverse activities which now come within its domain.

This framework is based on reading an interesting accademic paper entitled "Recordkeeping and Human Evolution"[1]. Have a look at the paper and let me know if you think it is a suitable starting point for overhaulling the article Accountancy. Note that such a framework seems to have aready been developed in the book outline "A short history of accounting and business" by Dr Gary Giroux [2].

If you have comments or ideas, do let me know. --Gavin Collins 12:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I havent read the article completely, yet i like the approach. we have to beware of getting off-course with too much historical detail. I believe we should also have a section discussing the current developments and their implications on the accounting profession especially the impact of globalization and drive towards global convergence etc. This is the title article of the catagory and we have to ensure that it is very well referenced and cites useful external links. Sohail Gogal 06:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The article "Recordkeeping and Human Evolution" is heavy going, but it contains some useful insights as to how accounting has developed. I agree that using this article as a framework should not result in following a strictly historical narrative. In the meantime, do you have a access to a book or journal that has a comprehensive definition of accounting/accountancy which can be used to introduce the article? So far I have had no luck in finding one (see Profession below), but I am still looking.--Gavin Collins 17:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have split off the Professional Bodies section from the main Accountancy article and moved it to List of accountancy bodies. Please feel free to check it and correct/amend as necessary. AnthonyUK (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Accountancy

Does anyone know how to archive pages? The talk page is now quite long and is probably in need of archiving, so we can start afresh. --Gavin Collins 09:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Profession

Having borrowed the book "Accountancy & Society" from my local library, I have used it as the basis for updating the definition in the article Profession. I borrowed the book with the intention of replacing the definition in the introduction to the Accountancy article, but was disappointed to find that the book does not contain a definition of accountancy or accounting, despite this being the focus of the book. I appreciate that updating Profession is a bit off-topic, but because the book has got a lot of useful content about this topic, I thought I may as well apply this. --Gavin Collins 14:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Gavin.collins, thanks for your note on my talk page, and I hope this project makes progress -- the accounting articles certainly need the attention! I'm working on a mixed bag of articles right now, so I won't sign up for the project, but I'll try to be helpful with my edits. If my edits aren't helpful, please just revert them, no offense taken. For what it's worth, I suggest this project consider using the more common term "accounting". I don't know why the topic "accounting" was redirected to "accountancy" in the article and in various categories, but the term accounting is more widely used than the term accountancy. Possibly some specialist editors wished to subtly advertise their erudition. If you borrow a book with the term "accountancy" in its title, and the book doesn't define the term succinctly, that's usually a sign that the book's author and publisher are more concerned with book sales than sharing insight. Also for what it's worth, I suggest you look into the difference between "license" and "certification". A license is granted by a government entity. Certification is granted by non-governmental organisations. From a legal and practical standpoint, this is a distinction (with a difference) that Wikipedia articles should make as clear as possible. Hope this is helpful. -- • • • Blue Pixel 01:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
With regard to your point about the controversy surrounding the use of 'accounting' and 'accountancy', you may wish to read the (extensive) discussion on the article's talk page. I think the consensus was that the article would use both words more or less interchangeably, depending on which one you are more familiar with. With regard to the distinction between "license" and "certification", I do not have any source material that I could cite that would clarify this point, but again I think these words are more or less used interchangeably, depending on context as you suggest.--Gavin Collins 08:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Financial audit

I am continuing to read Perks, R.W.(1993): Accounting and Society, Chapman & Hall (London); ISBN 0412473305 with a view to updating the article Financial Audit. Let me know if you are reading an academic book or journal about this topic too by posting a message here or at the talk page of the article. --Gavin Collins 11:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IAS, ISAs etc

I am a bit intrigued as to what the intended focus is in relation to descriptions of specific standards. I spent some time writing the IAS 37: Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets page, but I see that this has now been removed (albeit with no discussion as far as I can tell).

I can understand if somebody removed this with the view that pages on specific standards are too specific. However, the task force lists pages on auditing standards (ISAs) as requiring specific work. I think a general approach needs to be agreed here. --DWR 12:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure why the IAS37 article would have been deleted.

At the moment the article International Financial Reporting Standards has a section, "features of IFRS", which includes a brief description of some key requirements. This includes three sentences on Provisions! That certainly is not a summary of IAS37.

One IFRS standard has an article of its own (IAS 19: Employee Benefits), although in my opinion it isn't particularly thorough.

I think it would make sense to have a page for each standard (or perhaps a page for a theme, like "Financial Instruments" which is addressed by three separate standards). However, note that the IASB home page includes summaries of each standard, for example on IAS37 [3]

Swinnow16 14:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted for copyright infringement. If you want a copy of the article so you can re-tool it, just hit me up and I'll email it to you. the_undertow talk 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The term "Accountancy" is in question

Is the lead article, is was presumed that thee term "Accountancy" the underlying methodology, but actually it is not all that clear. Maybe Foggy Morning has a point: accountancy is not a well defined term. Outside the dictionary reference, we don't have very much in the way of sources for this term. Accountancy may be a term that refers to a methodology, a body of learning, profession depending on how it is used. Books such as the History of Accountancy in the USA [4] suggest that it is used in both the US and the UK. However the question still arises: what is the difference between "Accountancy" and "Accounting"? --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have found a suitable definition:
"Accountancy is the art of communicating financial information about a business entity to users such as shareholders and managers. The communication is generally in the form of financial statements that show in money terms that show the economic reources under the control of management. The art lies in selecting the information that is relevant to the user and is reliable."
Taken from "Financial accounting and reporting" (Elliot, Barry & Elliot, Jamie, FT Prentice Hall, London 2004, p.3), quoted in Corporate Reporting and Company Law By Charlotte Villiers. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Double-entry bookkeeping system

The article Double-entry bookkeeping system badly needs your expertise. Please help cleanup and add inline citations as soon as possible. Many thanks for your help! --Foggy Morning (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accountant

The article accountant needs your input. --Foggy Morning (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)