Talk:Accenture
|
|
I suggest a standard penalty for spamming: for every attempt that is made to insert commercially motivated spam, we deviate one notch from NPOV and add more and more uncomplimentary information about the company and its directors, origins, behaviour, and what's more we add it to the Disinfopedia (http://disinfopedia.org) as well where expert dirt-diggers will no doubt add to what we can find. So repeated attempts to spam the Wikipedia with advertising will result in the article being a total trash job on the company, which presented in "neutral" context will carry even more weight. It should be easy to find volunteers to carry out this strategy. EofT 17:29, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Perhaps also, we should make it a standard that one new clearly *not* NPOV link is permitted to something on the list of ethics topics, like say "evil", as in my example here, for each spam attempt. So the present article is down one, since a new spam attempt was made. Anyone care to do the honours? I suggest fraud as an obvious link considering Accenture's role in Y2K scams, and how they were kneedeep in the projects that say Enron claimed were worth so much money. EofT
I've deleted "with a small portion of business (under 5% last reported) in management consulting with the Strategy and Business Architecture division." Someone can put it back if they provide a reference to the 5% figure - otherwise, I'm not sure it should be in the article. Alexd 18:51, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The source of this is an Accenture employee presentation during which people in the audience how much work is Business strategy. I am looking through an SEC report to verify this. If you insist on removing unattributed facts from this article, I suggest you also find the other 50,000 present on Wikipedia. :) User:Namlemez
ok thanks learned a lot...