 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Seems Non-NPOV edit
This article seems to be written from an anti-Kimberly-Clark point of view. Although the evidence may be accurate, the diction of the author speaks from an environmental viewpoint. The following phrases are not particularily neutral:
- "The Kleercut campaign is an international corporate campaign to pressure Kimberly-Clark to clean up its act."
- "The story and the networks behind this campaign are a great example of the alignment of the progressive technology and free software community and the environmental and grassroots communities." (Again, this phrase promotes environmental views.)
- "...destroys ancient forests around the world." (Not only is this non-NPOV, it is also not specific.)
Not only is it not neutral, this article only depicts the environmentalist point of view. Further discussion is welcome. Eduard Gherkin 01:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The entire article is not NPOV and also not encyclopedic. The two "schemes" the article says Kimberly-Clark gets its pulp from are described as "not supported by major environmental organization nor aboriginal group." There is no elaboration, however, as to why that would be important. The whole article reads like Kleercut's website. This article either needs a major overhaul, including sourcing for most of the statements (this will be difficult, as in my own digging I have discovered most of them to be false) or marking for deletion.Elmorell 17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
SFI - not relevant for this entry. edit
According to the article the Kleercut campaign demands that the companies in question; "Turn to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) eco-certified forestry operations for what virgin wood fibers it does use." Why is the forestry certification currently in use not relevant? It seem like is is the central point. KAM 18:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Relevance of Open Source section edit
This section doesn't really fit here. The logic doesn't really work. "Kleercut campaign uses Drupal, Drupal community points to the website as an example of Drupal technology -> Open Source Software is 'left-wing'", huh? I don't see how this follows at all. Drupal is used all over the world by many different types of organizations. If some website that happened to talks highly of Nazism or Communism and happened to use Drupal (or any other OSS), would one draw the conclusion that OSS supports Nazism/Communism? I'm going to just state that Drupal is being used by the Kleercut website.