Talk:World Economic Forum
 | 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.
|
Undue reporting of fringe conspiracy theories
editWe 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)
- Agreed. The NYT explicitly debunks the theory in the headline and opening line of the article using the word "baseless". If for some reason it is not deleted, it should be corrected to include the keyword "baseless", otherwise we are not being true to the source. Slywriter (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Because it isn't just 'influencers' expressing these thoughts. I challenge you to find a positive opinion on the WEF from a member of the general public. Their missions (or rather how they achieve their goals for the world) are expressed to the public in a sinister and unclear tone. If the public has an opinion on the WEF, why would you silence those thoughts because they are 'baseless', or rather you do not agree with them. That's not how it works. Danz38 (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2024 (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 talk page of Wikipedia article is for discussing edits not a platform for personal views.
- I'm also going to paste the second section of their mission statement:
- "At the heart of our mission of improving the state of the world lies the belief in the power of human ingenuity, entrepreneurship, innovation and cooperation. We recognise the need for a forum fostering rigorous and respectful dialogue between and among leaders with different beliefs and viewpoints, where diversity of thought is respected and all voices can be heard." 108.29.152.75 (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Build Back Better
editNo 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)
- Not sure what that has to do with the WEF. X-Editor (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- There should be mention of the WEF Build Back Better agenda. Please see here, both are on the WEF website, To build back better, we must reinvent capitalism. Here's how in July 2020, and reiterated DAVOS AGENDA: To build back better, we need to rethink global subsidies (January 2021). I will check to see if there is any mention in this article as well as the WP Build Back Better World article. If not, I will address accordingly.--FeralOink (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
FOXNEWSPOLITICS, RSEDITORIAL, UNDUE
edit@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)
No recent additions, entries appear stale and old
editThere 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)
Multiple issues
editAre 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)
- There does seem to be a few primary source's still and the formatting especially at the start of the history section could use a touch up. And I still believe that a large part of the pages contents are still from the paid contributor on behalf of the WEF. Zwphyr (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)