Talk:World Economic Forum

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Undue reporting of fringe conspiracy theories

We don't generally report original research by non-notable individuals, so why should we report baseless conspiracies created by nobody 'influencers'? The primary motivation of these people is the pay-per-view advertising that their 'channels' attract, so their business model is manufacture of nonsense to attract the gullible (first order- those who will really believe it; and second order- those who believe that anybody who matters will believe it.)

The latest addition describes a conspiracy theory that arises from the 'great reset' of traditional business models that the pandemic has caused. It is is trivial, ultra-fringe and IMO it is WP:undue to give it any airtime. Although it is cited from the New York Times (which should know better), Wikipedia does know better given that we have no deadlines and have time to reflect.

I propose to delete it unless someone can offer a convincing defence? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The NYT explicitly debunks the theory in the headline and opening line of the article using the word "baseless". If for some reason it is not deleted, it should be corrected to include the keyword "baseless", otherwise we are not being true to the source. Slywriter (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Has the section been deleted yet? I don't see any conspiracy theories under "The Great Reset" section, only claims cited on the WEF website. I do not see any mention of "The Great Reset" under the criticism section, either. Has the section you mention already been deleted? 2600:6C44:5500:30:B115:E50A:398A:8B54 (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it's funny how it's never discussed the absence of "people" in the STATED goals of WEF. "The foundation's stated mission is "improving the state of the world (for whom? for bacteria? for people? for elites?) by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas"." Funny and some more, rather, negative words. 98.128.228.38 (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The talk page of Wikipedia article is for discussing edits not a platform for personal views.

I'm also going to paste the second section of their mission statement:

"At the heart of our mission of improving the state of the world lies the belief in the power of human ingenuity, entrepreneurship, innovation and cooperation. We recognise the need for a forum fostering rigorous and respectful dialogue between and among leaders with different beliefs and viewpoints, where diversity of thought is respected and all voices can be heard." 108.29.152.75 (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

• World Economic Forum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mikeh101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article on the World Economic Forum includes more than 50 edits by User:Mikeh101, who served as Editorial Director at the World Economic Forum since October 2010, and Senior Director, Communications, from July 2013 to October 2018. It is hence a case of paid editing and should be highlighted as such.

Quote from the author's LinkedIn page: "Responsible for all content published by the World Economic Forum, I led a team of over 20 professionals to: Build the Forum's digital publishing (...) and drive content distribution through all social media channels". This has the touch that the team could see Wikipedia as an extension of their marketing channels, without ever labelling or highlighting the edits made as COI. I am highly concerned.

Is there any way to validate how many further edits have been made by members of the team, given that the team head has made 50+ edits himself alone?

Polynesia2024 (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

No, except to the extent that you (or somebody) can determine the names of all the members (ever) of that team and then match them (somehow) to user accounts at Wikipedia, then check the subset of their edits on WEF-related articles. Pretty rough sledding, that. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I am just witnessing how the "paid editor" box on Klaus Schwab as CEO of the WEF gets extended more and more. There seem to be some very muddy waters in terms of paid Wikipedia edits by the World Economic Forum. --Polynesia2024 (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Self-citing within article

It seems quite problematic that many of the citations for this article are from the WEF. Things should be either independently cited or stated as "According to the WEF ...". --Polynesia2024 (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely they should. See also WP:PRIMARY, so you could tag the whole article with {{Primary sources}}. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Dates

In the Activity section's table, there's no info from before 1988, when it was called the European Management Forum, even though the article implies they are the same Forum, since 1971, but renamed, and there is no separate article for it with the original name. Also, conferences before 2001 have no dates. Why is that? Was the conference less known or more private before that year? Who is like God? (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Build Back Better

No mention of the BBB agenda? I guess Wikipedia is just another website that doesn't want to 'offend' their masters, the WEF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what that has to do with the WEF. X-Editor (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

There should be mention of the WEF Build Back Better agenda. Please see here, both are on the WEF website, To build back better, we must reinvent capitalism. Here's how in July 2020, and reiterated DAVOS AGENDA: To build back better, we need to rethink global subsidies (January 2021). I will check to see if there is any mention in this article as well as the WP Build Back Better World article. If not, I will address accordingly.--FeralOink (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

FOXNEWSPOLITICS, RSEDITORIAL, UNDUE

@Osterluzei: I reverted your edit per FOXNEWSPOLITICS & RSEDITORIAL. Neither source is reliable. Besides, the content inserted was just gossip (UNDUE). This is an encyclopedia, not the magazine at the grocery store checkout. An encyclopedia need not report DeSantis' or Musk's opinion of Schwab or Davos ("woke", "boring", "expressed negative emotions"). This is the second time you have tried to insert these two sources, but this time you also managed to delete an entire other paragraph with three citations without any explanation.

The first source is Fox News gossip and RSP tells us "For politics and science, there is consensus that the reliability of Fox News is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use. As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in these topic areas."

The second source was written by Conrad Black, a man convicted of fraud. It is also clearly labelled an opinion piece. So it's not a reliable source. Grorp (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No recent additions, entries appear stale and old

There are no recent (2023) additions to the WEF forum text. Fox news was only posted to express criticism from the right. There is currently more material on the absence of Russia in Davos, and the presence of Ukraine asking for arms, which I like to post. I also prefer Politico over Fox, but sources from opinion pieces can be posted in the criticism section, if cited correctly.Osterluzei (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Multiple issues

Are the multiple issues listed still live? I haven't done a thorough check but on the surface, the article seems fine to me. 20WattSphere (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)