The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Davos Man was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 August 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into World Economic Forum. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving World Economic Forum was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 January 2011. |
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
The contents of the Global Shapers page were merged into World Economic Forum on 19 March 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
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)
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 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)
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)