This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland 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.
Hi 184.108.40.206 (talk·contribs), as explained on your talk page, it appears entirely unnecessary to add the French name of the organization in the first sentence. In my understanding, the French name isn't "the very original name" (as you claimed in an edit summary). See Art. 20(1)(a) of the Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization providing that four languages are considered authentic: English, French, Russian, Spanish. Of course, I may be wrong. If so, please explain! Otherwise, I'll just have to revert your edit again. --Edcolins (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit for now, in the absence of any reaction from you. --Edcolins (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@220.127.116.11 (talk·contribs): Considering your unwillingness to discuss the matter on the talk page, I've semi-protected the article for now. Please discuss this matter on the talk page! --Edcolins (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The article reads like promotional material and contains zero criticism for a world body that organizes countries over a controversial issue -- especially even in a space like Wikipedia's, a project which largely depends on fair use and public domain, aspects of copyright which WIPO et al erode continually over time. Particularly of damnability is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which (as the DMCA article itself notes) was passed in order to satisfy rules imposed through WIPO treaties. The lack of any and all critique on this page is striking, not only from a self-interest perspective, but also from an encyclopedic comprehensiveness perspective. - 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)