3 ms·

Is there any current standard for when a company is worthy of having a Wikipedia page?

by drpgq 13y ago

mjn 13y ago
This is the official policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizat... The short version that will cover 95% of cases, though, is that it's less about "worthiness" and more about existence of decent third-party sources you can cite. If a company is discussed in books, articles, etc. that aren't written by the company itself, then an article on the company that cites those sources for its information will rarely cause issues. Actually that applies to just about any topic: a well-sourced article more or less trumps other concerns. The bigger issue here is that Wiki-PR's articles are exceptionally likely to be biased. Even in cases where the company should have a Wikipedia article, it should be a neutral one, and cover both positive and negative aspects of the company.
davidgerard 13y ago
Basically, if a third party hasn't created an article about you then you're probably not famous enough yet ;-) The typical self-written company page gets people like me putting an {{advert}} tag on it.
- tokenadult 13y ago
  The typical self-written company page gets people like me putting an {{advert}} tag on it. You may want to take a look at the actions of an editor who, undeniably, writes mostly about people and places in the part of the world where he lives. Some of the articles, and especially some of the wikilinks to those articles from other articles, for example the link from "Pork pie" to "Michael Kirk (butcher)"[1] look a lot more promotional than anything I would write about people and places in my part of the world, where there are also a lot of active Wikipedians who write mostly about local topics. Maybe it's just volunteer expression of personal opinion, which perhaps is backed up by opinion in reliable sources, but it's an odd-looking editing pattern. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kirk_(butcher) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kirk_(butcher)

Is there any current standard for when a company is worthy of having a Wikipedia page?

by drpgq 13y ago

Is there any current standard for when a company is worthy of having a Wikipedia page?

mjn 13y ago

This is the official policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizat... The short version that will cover 95% of cases, though, is that it's less about "worthiness" and more about existence of decent third-party sources you can cite. If a company is discussed in books, articles, etc. that aren't written by the company itself, then an article on the company that cites those sources for its information will rarely cause issues. Actually that applies to just about any topic: a well-sourced article more or less trumps other concerns. The bigger issue here is that Wiki-PR's articles are exceptionally likely to be biased. Even in cases where the company should have a Wikipedia article, it should be a neutral one, and cover both positive and negative aspects of the company.

davidgerard 13y ago

Basically, if a third party hasn't created an article about you then you're probably not famous enough yet ;-) The typical self-written company page gets people like me putting an {{advert}} tag on it.

tokenadult 13y ago
The typical self-written company page gets people like me putting an {{advert}} tag on it. You may want to take a look at the actions of an editor who, undeniably, writes mostly about people and places in the part of the world where he lives. Some of the articles, and especially some of the wikilinks to those articles from other articles, for example the link from "Pork pie" to "Michael Kirk (butcher)"[1] look a lot more promotional than anything I would write about people and places in my part of the world, where there are also a lot of active Wikipedians who write mostly about local topics. Maybe it's just volunteer expression of personal opinion, which perhaps is backed up by opinion in reliable sources, but it's an odd-looking editing pattern. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kirk_(butcher) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kirk_(butcher)