User talk:Cheerbro

Hello again, Cheerbro, Thank you for your attention to this matter concerning Avanade.

However, I don't agree with your solution for two reasons.

First, criticism is defined as "the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything". These articles are not opinions or judgements by anyone, they are uncontested facts reported in legitimate news sources. Calling it criticism devalues it and infers that it is opinion and not fact. Failing to deliver a system for which they were paid and contracted is as much a historical fact as the purchase of another company, and far more relevant to researchers.

Secondly, it could be argued, and probably will be, that "criticism" is editorial and subjective and does not belong in an encyclopedia. So, labelling any fact that is not positive as "criticism" is just one step away from removing it altogether.

If Wikipedia has no integrity and does not present all of the available relevent information on each subject it covers, it is worthless. I can just go to Avanade's web site to get a "puff piece", nobody needs Wikipedia for that.

Thanks again, but I'm quite disappointed to learn that Wikipedia is being used by corporations to increase their reputation and wealth at the expense of everyone who works so hard to make it something worthwhile.

FreshBaked —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshbaked (talk • contribs) 19:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Cheerbro, First you said you didn't delete the articles, then you did. What's with that?

If you look at Avanade, Accenture, EDS and virtually every corporate page, you will see that they are 100% positive because they delete anything else, regardless of its validity.

Is this what Wikipedia is to you? A shameless shill for corporations? I don't know what your definition of "history" is, but as far as I know, factual, referenced reporting in legitimate newspapers has always qualified as a historical record since they invented the printing press.

There are a lot of other items under history for these companies that look a lot more like press releases and they don't even meet Wikipedia's guidlines for validity or attribution, or even relevance, yet they are left alone.

I can't even keep true, valid history on Avanade's site, let alone the others, but anyone using Wikipedia as a source should be getting a balanced picture, rather an advertisement. It destroys the validity of Wikipedia to maintain these advertisements, so perhaps the entire entry should be deleted.

I realize you probably work for Avanade, so this is not going to sway you.

I'm just a taxpayer in Colorado where the companies you mentioned caused over 100 million dollars in lost funds, not to mention a great deal of inconvenience for thousands of citizens, and took jobs from legitimate businesses. When people go to those sites, they should see these companies are not perfect.

Sincerely,

FreshBaked