423:
381:
227:
502:
473:
192:
311:
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
326:
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
Knowledge, and this helps this by removing both a philosophical argument for their involvement and a practical reason for same, to some
95:
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
169:. (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.)
322:
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.
111:
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?
288:
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.
74:
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
Knowledge effectively (e.g. OTRS, edit within our rules, etc.) and so they need professionals to fix
86:
And some clients would like to have a
Knowledge 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
82:
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
96:
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
263:, 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
315:
This would be helpful to corporations, especially corporations whose Google profile is not so good, since the
Knowledge article would likely rise to the top or near and per
345:
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.
300:
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.
274:
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
115:
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:
66:
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,
60:
etc.) for essays and proposals in
Knowledge space. Later it could be made into an an essay or proposal or whatever in Knowledge space if this seems called for.
461:
275:
236:
91:
sufficiently notable then an article would enhance the
Knowledge, which should meet the desires both of our client and Wikipedians generally.
233:
If you are concerned about the accuracy or appropriateness of material about an extant corporation or similar organization on
Knowledge
107:
For my part, I'm against paid reputation-management agents being allowed to edit the
Knowledge. (There is the question of whether as
259:
442:
400:
209:
457:
213:
476:
Welcome to Knowledge. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add
467:
A step beyond this but arguably necessary would be the deployment of corresponding warning templates on the order of
278:. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see
264:
205:
489:
336:
485:
481:
316:
34:
279:
477:
70:
firms are offering the following types of cases where their intervention is needed or useful:
119:
As the main proposal, creation of an "Articles about Extant Corporations" policy similar to
67:
17:
133:
As a secondary proposal, the deployment of a template which is essentially the converse of
515:
366:
353:
271:
137:
308:
294:
127:
56:
Although this page is in userspace, feel free to edit it, subject to the usual terms (
510:
433:
391:
181:
173:
120:
57:
446:
404:
23:
172:
Various details to be worked out but the basic thrust would be similar to
239:. For articles about your (or your client's) organization, please see "
204:
Knowledge page must be written with the greatest care and attention to
126:
As a secondary proposal, perhaps looser notability requirements for
488:
are against Knowledge policy and not permitted. Take a look at the
240:
416:
374:
270:
from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
251:
221:
186:
50:
480:
derogatory material to articles or other Knowledge pages.
438:
396:
42:
414:
But we don't have the converse, something like this:
319:it would probably be reasonably positive, usually.
184:, but it could be expressed with a similar summary:
180:
like people so there'd have to be some changes from
249:With a corresponding tag for article talk pages:
176:. Corporations and similar organizations aren't
460:(or something) as the converse of the existing
276:articles about extant organizations noticeboard
237:articles about extant organizations noticeboard
241:Dealing with articles about your organization
8:
200:Material about extant corporations added to
257:This article must adhere to the policy on
511:unwarranted vilification of organizations
492:to learn more about Knowledge. Thank you.
462:Category:Articles with a promotional tone
458:Category:Articles with a derogatory tone
399:by rewriting promotional content from a
441:by rewriting derogatory content from a
151:Articles about Extant Organizations (])
509:. The next time you use Knowledge for
7:
260:articles about extant organizations
167:Articles about Extant Organizations
121:Biographies of living persons (BLP)
31:
304:Loosening notability requirements
500:
471:
421:
379:
225:
190:
445:and removing any inappropriate
403:and removing any inappropriate
1:
100:to edit the Knowledge and a
456:With the matching category
432:appears to be written like
390:appears to be written like
268:must be removed immediately
540:
214:avoiding original research
32:
235:, report problems at the
78:There may not exactly be
486:investigative journalism
434:investigative journalism
198:This page in a nutshell:
484:and using Knowledge as
518:without further notice
443:neutral point of view
401:neutral point of view
312:something like that.
516:blocked from editing
482:Scandal-mongering
454:
453:
412:
411:
286:
285:
247:
246:
220:
219:
64:
63:
22:(Redirected from
531:
504:
503:
475:
474:
425:
424:
417:
392:an advertisement
383:
382:
375:
371:
365:
358:
352:
341:
335:
252:
229:
228:
222:
194:
193:
187:
163:
162:
158:
142:
136:
51:
45:
27:
18:User:Herostratus
539:
538:
534:
533:
532:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
501:
472:
450:
426:
422:
408:
384:
380:
369:
363:
359:
356:
350:
343:
339:
333:
330:
329:
305:
298:
226:
191:
164:
160:
156:
154:
153:
147:Details below.
140:
134:
49:
48:
41:
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
537:
535:
522:
521:
494:
493:
452:
451:
447:external links
437:. Please help
429:
427:
420:
410:
409:
405:external links
395:. Please help
387:
385:
378:
360:
348:
347:
342:
331:
306:
303:
302:
297:
291:
284:
283:
265:poorly sourced
255:
245:
244:
230:
218:
217:
195:
152:
149:
145:
144:
131:
124:
102:practical need
93:
92:
84:
76:
62:
61:
54:
47:
46:
38:
33:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
536:
525:
519:
517:
513:, you may be
512:
508:
505:This is your
499:
498:
497:
491:
487:
483:
479:
470:
469:
468:
465:
463:
459:
448:
444:
440:
436:
435:
430:This article
428:
419:
418:
415:
406:
402:
398:
394:
393:
388:This article
386:
377:
376:
373:
372:, which says
368:
355:
346:
338:
332:
328:
324:
320:
318:
313:
310:
301:
296:
292:
290:
281:
277:
273:
269:
266:
262:
261:
256:
254:
253:
250:
242:
238:
234:
231:
224:
223:
215:
211:
207:
206:verifiability
203:
199:
196:
189:
188:
185:
183:
179:
175:
170:
168:
159:
150:
148:
139:
132:
129:
125:
122:
118:
117:
116:
113:
110:
105:
103:
99:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
71:
69:
59:
55:
53:
52:
44:
40:
39:
36:
25:
24:Knowledge:AEO
19:
524:and beyond.
523:
514:
507:last warning
506:
495:
490:welcome page
466:
455:
431:
413:
389:
370:}}
364:{{
361:
357:}}
351:{{
349:Converse of
344:
340:}}
334:{{
325:
321:
314:
307:
299:
287:
267:
258:
248:
232:
201:
197:
177:
171:
166:
165:
146:
141:}}
135:{{
114:
108:
106:
101:
97:
94:
88:
79:
65:
478:unwarranted
98:moral right
439:improve it
397:improve it
337:Hatchetjob
293:Reform of
210:neutrality
104:to do so.
496:on up to
280:some page
272:libellous
109:practical
362:We have
327:extent.
243:" below.
155:])": -->
35:Shortcut
309:WP:CORP
295:WP:CORP
178:exactly
128:WP:CORP
367:advert
354:advert
317:WP:AEC
212:, and
182:WP:BLP
174:WP:BLP
138:advert
58:WP:BRD
43:WP:AEO
83:this.
80:false
75:this.
16:<
157:edit
202:any
89:are
464:.
208:,
68:PR
520:.
449:.
407:.
282:.
216:.
161:]
143:.
130:.
123:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.