This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
I'm planning on adding a section to this article, Market Power and Antitrust Responses focusing growth in IBMs market power leading into the 1956 Consent Decree and the many antitrust matters from 1968 thru 1984 and the impacts of those actions on the market and IBM. Any thoughts or comments? In particular, anyone strongly opposed to a new section on this subject? Tom94022 (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the History of IBM include mention of their female CEO and Chairperson from 2012 to 2020? She changed the course of the company to be more focused on intellectual property as a key resource of the corporation's revenue and profit streams, as well as downsizing the business of the firm. The same goes for the parent article, IBM, where she's effectively absent. Isn't it worth mentioning both her and Sam Palmisano, her predecessor? Between the two CEO's, they cover 20 years of IBM's activities in the 21st century. Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom94022 Unfortunately, that is not how Wikipedia works, or at least in my 20 year experience with Wikipedia. The Wikipedia editors that control the article, control whether open edits can be made by other Wikipedians. It is not worth fighting over the addition of 1 or 2 sentences and references with the Wikipedians that control this article. That is why I put it out there on the Talk Page. Being Bold is only a theory, and has little to do with the actual realities of human behavior on Wikipedia. Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve, that is precisely how Wikipedia works in practice, see WP:OWN: No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Wikipedia)." and that has been my experience in my 17+ years editing Wikipedia. Yes, there has been the occasional disagreement over an edit and most of those have been worked out either thru sequential edits and/or talk. I've never encountered a dispute over a factual addition such as you are proposing, so why not just do it instead of giving out an assignment for others to do? Tom94022 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom94022 Thank you for your input on the theory of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, in my 20 years here, I have found that with certain articles, they are owned by people or cohorts who consider the articles to be their "babies." Just as an example, the Word Processing article on Wikipedia, refused to add a word processor that I had added, along with a reference from Microsoft's own website, that was popular in the NYC metro area (where probably a quarter of the US companies are based), simply because the 4/5 editors that control the article, had never heard of it. As it turned out, the editors were all from other parts of the underpopulated US, hence their lack of familiarity, and refused to permit its inclusion. So, hence to this day, the article remains incomplete. You may have noticed in your life experience that people in the real world, form cliques. That is equally a problem here on Wikipedia and regularly affects the quality of articles, and the information that is permitted to be added, particularly on long established articles. It's also the reason why Wikipedia should never be an academically acceptable reference material. When writing on a topic, it is a good first place to look for sources that may cover a topic, but can never reach the point of being authentically researched at a professional caliber, because of the personality issues endemic to a random, arbitrary, mob-managed encyclopedia. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't even have the institutional mechanisms in an accessible fashion to address these concerns. So, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two templates were added to this article nearly a year ago saying the it contains excessive detail, but with no explanation either here or in the edit summary that I could find. I can see no such excessive detail, so will remove the templates unless an explanation is provided here in the next couple of weeks. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
