User:Herostratus/Articles about extant organizations
Although this page is in userspace, feel free to edit it, subject to the usual terms (WP:BRD etc.) for essays and proposals in Wikipedia space. Later it could be made into an an essay or proposal or whatever in Wikipedia space if this seems called for. |
There's been some discussion over paid reputation-management editing. It's a complicated and contentious issue, and if I'm understanding the debate correctly, PR firms are offering the following types of cases where their intervention is needed or useful:
- There's derogatory and false (or at any rate unsourced) information about their client in their article. Their client doesn't know how to engage Wikipedia effectively (e.g. OTRS, edit within our rules, etc.) and so they need professionals to fix this.
- There may not exactly be false information, but the article is slanted and looks rather like a hatchet job. Our client simply wants a neutral and fair article (which is what Wikipedians should want also). Again, a professional is best suited to fixing this.
- And some clients would like to have a Wikipedia article, and believe that they are sufficiently notable, but there's no article; and they don't want to wait years (or forever) for some random person to create the article. And if they are sufficiently notable then an article would enhance the Wikipedia, which should meet the desires both of our client and Wikipedians generally.
It'd be silly to take this entirely at face value (because for one thing "neutral and fair" depends on your point of view, and it's only human for one's point of view may be influenced by who is cutting one's paycheck). BUT, these are valid concerns and, when they do occur, serious problems (the first two anyway). Because they are valid concerns and serious problems, these are good reasons (or excuses if you prefer) for PR firms and paid reputation-management agents to claim a moral right to edit the Wikipedia and a practical need to do so.
For my part, I'm against paid reputation-management agents being allowed to edit the Wikipedia. (There is the question of whether as practical matter it's better, tactically, to allow this as opposed to driving it all underground; that's a different issue and outside the scope of this page.) So, is there another way, rather than allowing or welcoming paid reputation-management agents, to address these concerns?
Yes, possibly, and I have some concrete suggestions. This is not going to happen right away but it's something worth talking about, maybe. What I'm proposing is:
- As the main proposal, creation of an "Articles about Extant Corporations" policy similar to Biographies of living persons (BLP).
- As a secondary proposal, perhaps looser notability requirements for WP:CORP.
- As a secondary proposal, the deployment of a template which is essentially the converse of {{advert}}.
Details below.
Articles about Extant Organizations ([[WP:AEO]])
Articles about Extant Organizations. (The general thrust here is to cover corporations -- this would include non-profit organizations and almost all businesses, even single stores and restaurants, since those are almost always incorporated. But not states or their arms, industries in general, and some other entities.)
Various details to be worked out but the basic thrust would be similar to WP:BLP. Corporations and similar organizations aren't exactly like people so there'd have to be some changes from WP:BLP, but it could be expressed with a similar summary:
![]() | This page in a nutshell: Material about extant corporations added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research. |
![]() | If you are concerned about the accuracy or appropriateness of material about an extant corporation or similar organization on Wikipedia, report problems at the articles about extant organizations noticeboard. For articles about your (or your client's) organization, please see "Dealing with articles about your organization" below. |
With a corresponding tag for article talk pages:
This article must adhere to the policy on articles about extant organizations, even if it is not about a specific organization, because it contains material about extant organizations. Contentious material about extant organizations that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous or deprecatory. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about edits related to an extant organization, please report the issue to the articles about extant organizations noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see some page. |
This implies the creation, manning, and efficient operation of a "biographies of extant organizations noticeboard", which seems doable. The Foundation would possibly (maybe) take a hand in promoting and perhaps even monitoring this effort if it gains any traction.
Reform of WP:CORP
While this remains on the table, it's secondary and peripheral, and is a distraction from the main point, so we've made it less visible. Discussion remains open though.
WP:CORP could be made less stringent. Perhaps something along the lines of requiring just one reliable independent ref, and the requirement only proving that the entity exists, and maybe that other material from the article could come from non-independent sources -- the company's web site, for instance. Or something like that.
This would be helpful to corporations, especially corporations whose Google profile is not so good, since the Wikipedia article would likely rise to the top or near and per WP:AEC it would probably be reasonably positive, usually.
Since proof of existence is a simple bright-line test, this would also obviate a lot of contentious discussions about whether a particular entity is or is not notable, which discussions probably sometimes draw in in covert or overt paid agents, which is what we're trying to avoid.
Granted "being helpful to corporations" isn't really part of our core mission, but remember the point here is to get the PR industry off our case and out of our Wikipedia, and this helps this by removing both a philosophical argument for their involvement and a practical reason for same, to some extent.
{{Hatchetjob}}
While this remains on the table, it's secondary and peripheral, and is a distraction from the main point, so we've made it less visible. Discussion remains open though.
We have {{advert}}, which says
![]() | This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. |
But we don't have the converse, something like this:
![]() | This article appears to be written like investigative journalism. Please help improve it by rewriting derogatory content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. |
With the matching category Category:Articles with a derogatory tone (or something) as the converse of the existing Category:Articles with a promotional tone.
A step beyond this but arguably necessary would be the deployment of corresponding warning templates on the order of
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add unwarranted derogatory material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Scandal-mongering and using Wikipedia as investigative journalism are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
on up to
This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for unwarranted vilification of organizations, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
and beyond.