This topic always puzzles me. Assuming that a company follows the guidelines of wikipedia, why the tarring and feathering of companies who edit their own pages. They may be biased, but they are also very likely to know the truth. Why is this more biased then say a researcher who has spent years studying a topic and has an informed opinion? If only people who didn't have vested interests edited wikipedia, I think it would be a lot less useful.
Hmm.... Edits for grammar and spelling should be done by anyone. The company should edit for factual errors and provide references for why their facts are correct to insulate themselves from getting in the traditional back and forth about who's right. Anyone, a company rep or not, should feel free to edit out flames, bitches about the company etc. To me, Wikipedia is a place to look up the facts about a topic (in the case a company) NOT a consumer complaint site. I realize others might feel differently... if the predominant community feeling is that you leave that stuff, leave it.
The Wikipedia-sanctioned answer is to request corrections/additions through the article's Talk page, because direct editing is a violation of their Conflict of Interest guideline. Hopefully a neutral Wikipedian will then read your request and act on that request. If no one does, you can increase the visibility on your plight by posting to Wikipedia:COIN (The Conflict of Interest Noticeboard). Don't attempt your edit anonymously from home. That's fraught with danger. An edit done from a Wikipedia account with a long and virtuous contribution history stands a much better chance of not being reverted. More on marketing on Wikipedia without getting shot by Wikipedia anti-spam vigilantes/zealots in my Search Engine Land article: http://searchengineland.com/070503-065513.php
Companies should not remove negative information or links from the office or home. Stephan makes good points that ring especially true if a company wants to remove something perceived as negative. For smaller to mid-sized companies that want to add information or fill holes in the entry, do so from the office. Be straightforward. Add facts. Very large or well known companies should leave it alone.
Any wants an undergraduate chemical engineer that would be me.
10
10 to meti ara
IM FROM PHILIPPINES This topic always puzzles me. Assuming that a company follows the guidelines of wikipedia, why the tarring and feathering of companies who edit their own pages. They may be biased, but they are also very likely to know the truth. Why is this more biased then say a researcher who has spent years studying a topic and has an informed opinion? If only people who didn't have vested interests edited wikipedia, I think it would be a lot less useful.
uh- i dnt think i should be commenting on this cuz this link lead me from my piczo page editor 2 this freaky company poll but anywayz while i'm commenting i'd like to advertise my syt- www.princesscrystalgirls.piczo.com Peace, *rOxy* P.S- if u r freaky plz do not sign my shoutbox :P
I have been editing on Wiki since about 1863, and don't see a thing wrong with an employee editing his company material. When I worked for Microsoft I corrected things that were untrue about MS, in the same way that I did edits about any other subject. Christian wrote "companies should not remove negative information or links" which is only half true. If the information is true, it should stay. If the information is false or used in a manner to simply attack it should be pulled. I have had info pulled from a site because the main author didn't like it. The Subject was my hometown, a place where I had lived from 70 to 82 and all my family is still there. I have some knowledge on the city. The main author attended the local university (that I also attended) where my sister teaches and my father was on the board of directors for 11 years. He only saw the good of the city today and for him the "history" section stopped in 1900 and didn't pick back up until 2000. I tried to include the 100 missing years - the bad years. Going back to the MS subject, what if the person that is the main author loves or hates a subject too much. Someone who loves MS will say hardware makes windows crash. someone who hates MS will say that Windows crashes by its own fault. Normally the author of a subject, like MS, would not be technically competent to make the decision. - like the main author on my hometown is not competent to make the decision on what is "bad" having only seen the part he likes.
Mrs Clinton come home...
its okay i guest because its not hurting me or noone else so i think it should be lefted alone for now
Left alone for now!
Everybody lies, especially in business, so why not let the best liars lie for themselves?? :)
