Distribution Network
Content
An unlikely conflict has blown up over the phrase 'corporate social reponsibility' on the internet reference site Wikipedia.
Contributors to the online encyclopedia, which allows allcomers to work on entries, have reached such a state of disagreement that the reference to CSR has been 'nominated to be checked for its neutrality'. The material uploaded by users of Wikipedia will now be subject to a period of online debate over whether it presents 'a neutral point of view', as it is supposed to.
Most Wikipedia references, although they are often added to or refined, achieve consensus. But the acronym CSR has turned into a battleground between proponents and sceptics. This has led to suggestions being put forward that CSR is, among other things, 'an effort [by companies] to distract the public from the ethical questions posed by their core operations', and a way for corporations 'to provide support for socialist ... initiatives'. In a personal message on the site, one recent Wikipedia correspondent, Stephen Parnell - who says he is 'privately rather anti-CSR' - admits he has nevertheless been 'shocked by the politically motivated edits' that have tried to portray CSR as a sham.
If users are unable to agree that the reference is written from a neutral point of view, the matter may be settled by an Arbitration Committee, whose decision is binding, although Wikipedia stresses this is very much 'a last resort'.
Contributors to the online encyclopedia, which allows allcomers to work on entries, have reached such a state of disagreement that the reference to CSR has been 'nominated to be checked for its neutrality'. The material uploaded by users of Wikipedia will now be subject to a period of online debate over whether it presents 'a neutral point of view', as it is supposed to.
Most Wikipedia references, although they are often added to or refined, achieve consensus. But the acronym CSR has turned into a battleground between proponents and sceptics. This has led to suggestions being put forward that CSR is, among other things, 'an effort [by companies] to distract the public from the ethical questions posed by their core operations', and a way for corporations 'to provide support for socialist ... initiatives'. In a personal message on the site, one recent Wikipedia correspondent, Stephen Parnell - who says he is 'privately rather anti-CSR' - admits he has nevertheless been 'shocked by the politically motivated edits' that have tried to portray CSR as a sham.
If users are unable to agree that the reference is written from a neutral point of view, the matter may be settled by an Arbitration Committee, whose decision is binding, although Wikipedia stresses this is very much 'a last resort'.
Super Featured
No
Featured
No