 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Wikipedia pages about organizations should comply with the What Wikipedia is not policy. Specifically they should not include promotion, attacks, original thought, or indiscriminate lists of information. Wikipedia articles about organizations are historical reference works, not a crowd-sourced review site, forum, or advertising medium. Distinguishing between promotion, coatrack, and legitimate neutral content is not always clear. Articles should be representative of the total body of literature on the subject and may - in some cases - be very negative or very positive and still be compliant with the neutral point of view policy.
Directory information and indiscriminate lists
Articles about organizations should not include an indiscriminate list of clients, awards, executives, products, product specifications, features, industries served, countries of operation, or lawsuits, even when reliably sourced and especially when listed without context or cited to low-quality sources. The company website, not Wikipedia, is often the best place for readers to find this information.
Awards and rankings
Many awards or rankings are granted by organizations that are normally acceptable sources to cite, such as the press, but are primary sources when reporting on awards or rankings that they themselves organize. According to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources are "close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved," which is the case with using the organizer of an award program itself as a source.
Primary sources may verify the fact that the award was given, but do not validate that the award or ranking is a significant milestone in the company's history that warrants inclusion. The significance of an award or ranking can be justified if the award is notable enough for its own Wikipedia page or if secondary sources (independent from both the organization and the award-organizers) cover that the organization was honored with it, with more than a brief mention or directory listing.
Inclusion of an award or ranking is less likely to be justified if the company was merely nominated, a finalist, or one of dozens/hundreds to be included in the ranking or award. At least one revenue or market-share ranking, such as the Fortune 500, should be included when available. While primary sources from the media do not justify inclusion of an award, they can often be used as a secondary source for other information not related to the award itself.
Dedicated "Awards" sections should be avoided in most cases. Awards that do warrant inclusion can be included in a section that corresponds to the subject of the award.
Products
Wikipedia articles about organizations should not indiscriminately list products, features, specifications, or prices. In most cases, the page should summarize the types of products and services the organization offers generally, rather than create a long list. An organization's products and services should be identified individually if they are few in number, if each product is notable enough for its own Wikipedia page, or if there is one flagship product the organization is known for.
Generally, the price of products and services should not be included. The exception is if there is substantial analysis of pricing in proper sources. Individual features should be discussed on pages about a product. However, a company page should describe what the product and service is generally, what it's for, and what it does, without creating detailed lists of individual features.
Executives
Wikipedia articles about organizations should avoid general profiles on executives or a complete list of the C-suite, even in the infobox. When credible, independent sources discuss the impact an executive had on the organization, this should be included under "Corporate history" or in a similar section. This content should remain focused on their impact on the organization, rather than the executive's general background. In most cases, listing only CEOs, Presidents and a Chairman of the board is appropriate for the infobox, or just the CEO for smaller companies. Founders should also be listed in the corresponding parameter.
Multiple Pages
Wikipedia is not a vanity site for every person, organization, or product that wants to have their own page. Articles about an organization's subsidiaries, executives, products, or divisions should be consolidated, if it can be done while following the guidance of WP:LENGTH, even if each subject meets the bare minimum notability threshold. The article should be named after whichever topic is most notable (the person, company, or product). For example, a product page may have a "Background" section that covers its developers and a company page may have a "Products and services" section summarizing its products. If the founder is the most notable, their "Career" section may cover what the company they founded does. As outlined by WP:LENGTH, separate articles should be created when consolidating them would make the Wikipedia page too long, include off-topic information that belongs on a separate page, or creates too much focus on one subject.
Speculation and gossip
Wikipedia is not a gossip site or a crystal ball. Gossip, rumors, speculations, forward-looking statements and plans for the future should be avoided even when sourced, unless they are the subject of multiple, in-depth reliable sources, when they are the result of expert analysis or when they are a central premise of the subject. For example, space exploration is a subject where forward looking plans may warrant more weight than in other articles.
In some cases events appear significant at their onset, but become less so when it is discovered that the event was a hoax, accusations were baseless, or that claims were overly boastful and un-fulfilled. In many cases it is better to wait for the events to be resolved and facts confirmed before covering it on Wikipedia. When evaluating the proper weight and NPOV description, these types of events should be weighed based on the significance sources gave to it after the facts were confirmed, in a retrospective manner, rather than at their onset.
Sources
Most of the content on a Wikipedia page about an organization should be cited to credible, independent sources that directly support the information on the page. The most common acceptable citations are to journalists, scholars, and book authors. Some claims require stronger sources than others. For example, mergers or acquisitions are almost always included, even with weaker sources. However, awards, philanthropy, claims of being the first at something, or extraordinary accusations would require especially strong sources.
Some things to avoid include opinion content, press release reposts, short blurbs, and brief mentions. In many cases, the cited source should be something an editor would anticipate involved independent editorial judgment and fact-checking. The source should verify not just that the fact is true, but that a reputable independent source felt that fact was important enough to write about.
Primary sources come from someone involved in the events being reported on. This includes judicial opinions, press releases, competitors, customers, and advocacy groups, among others. Anything that comes from the article-subject is a primary source. This includes interviews or quotes that are published by a journalist, but are merely repeating comments from the article-subject. In most cases, primary sources should not be used, except for in the infobox.
Books by the organization
Many organizations have commissioned a book on their history. The appropriateness of these books as a source varies from one book to the next. Some are written by historians, while others are PR puff-pieces. More independent sources are always preferred, but a self-written book can be cited to add information of unquestionable historical significance not found in other sources. Additionally, in some cases a self-written book may be the only accessible, remaining record of an organization's history. Editors should exercise caution when using a self-written book and show good judgement.
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Wikipedia pages about organizations should comply with the What Wikipedia is not policy. Specifically they should not include promotion, attacks, original thought, or indiscriminate lists of information. Wikipedia articles about organizations are historical reference works, not a crowd-sourced review site, forum, or advertising medium. Distinguishing between promotion, coatrack, and legitimate neutral content is not always clear. Articles should be representative of the total body of literature on the subject and may - in some cases - be very negative or very positive and still be compliant with the neutral point of view policy.
Directory information and indiscriminate lists
Articles about organizations should not include an indiscriminate list of clients, awards, executives, products, product specifications, features, industries served, countries of operation, or lawsuits, even when reliably sourced and especially when listed without context or cited to low-quality sources. The company website, not Wikipedia, is often the best place for readers to find this information.
Awards and rankings
Many awards or rankings are granted by organizations that are normally acceptable sources to cite, such as the press, but are primary sources when reporting on awards or rankings that they themselves organize. According to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources are "close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved," which is the case with using the organizer of an award program itself as a source.
Primary sources may verify the fact that the award was given, but do not validate that the award or ranking is a significant milestone in the company's history that warrants inclusion. The significance of an award or ranking can be justified if the award is notable enough for its own Wikipedia page or if secondary sources (independent from both the organization and the award-organizers) cover that the organization was honored with it, with more than a brief mention or directory listing.
Inclusion of an award or ranking is less likely to be justified if the company was merely nominated, a finalist, or one of dozens/hundreds to be included in the ranking or award. At least one revenue or market-share ranking, such as the Fortune 500, should be included when available. While primary sources from the media do not justify inclusion of an award, they can often be used as a secondary source for other information not related to the award itself.
Dedicated "Awards" sections should be avoided in most cases. Awards that do warrant inclusion can be included in a section that corresponds to the subject of the award.
Products
Wikipedia articles about organizations should not indiscriminately list products, features, specifications, or prices. In most cases, the page should summarize the types of products and services the organization offers generally, rather than create a long list. An organization's products and services should be identified individually if they are few in number, if each product is notable enough for its own Wikipedia page, or if there is one flagship product the organization is known for.
Generally, the price of products and services should not be included. The exception is if there is substantial analysis of pricing in proper sources. Individual features should be discussed on pages about a product. However, a company page should describe what the product and service is generally, what it's for, and what it does, without creating detailed lists of individual features.
Executives
Wikipedia articles about organizations should avoid general profiles on executives or a complete list of the C-suite, even in the infobox. When credible, independent sources discuss the impact an executive had on the organization, this should be included under "Corporate history" or in a similar section. This content should remain focused on their impact on the organization, rather than the executive's general background. In most cases, listing only CEOs, Presidents and a Chairman of the board is appropriate for the infobox, or just the CEO for smaller companies. Founders should also be listed in the corresponding parameter.
Multiple Pages
Wikipedia is not a vanity site for every person, organization, or product that wants to have their own page. Articles about an organization's subsidiaries, executives, products, or divisions should be consolidated, if it can be done while following the guidance of WP:LENGTH, even if each subject meets the bare minimum notability threshold. The article should be named after whichever topic is most notable (the person, company, or product). For example, a product page may have a "Background" section that covers its developers and a company page may have a "Products and services" section summarizing its products. If the founder is the most notable, their "Career" section may cover what the company they founded does. As outlined by WP:LENGTH, separate articles should be created when consolidating them would make the Wikipedia page too long, include off-topic information that belongs on a separate page, or creates too much focus on one subject.
Speculation and gossip
Wikipedia is not a gossip site or a crystal ball. Gossip, rumors, speculations, forward-looking statements and plans for the future should be avoided even when sourced, unless they are the subject of multiple, in-depth reliable sources, when they are the result of expert analysis or when they are a central premise of the subject. For example, space exploration is a subject where forward looking plans may warrant more weight than in other articles.
In some cases events appear significant at their onset, but become less so when it is discovered that the event was a hoax, accusations were baseless, or that claims were overly boastful and un-fulfilled. In many cases it is better to wait for the events to be resolved and facts confirmed before covering it on Wikipedia. When evaluating the proper weight and NPOV description, these types of events should be weighed based on the significance sources gave to it after the facts were confirmed, in a retrospective manner, rather than at their onset.
Sources
Most of the content on a Wikipedia page about an organization should be cited to credible, independent sources that directly support the information on the page. The most common acceptable citations are to journalists, scholars, and book authors. Some claims require stronger sources than others. For example, mergers or acquisitions are almost always included, even with weaker sources. However, awards, philanthropy, claims of being the first at something, or extraordinary accusations would require especially strong sources.
Some things to avoid include opinion content, press release reposts, short blurbs, and brief mentions. In many cases, the cited source should be something an editor would anticipate involved independent editorial judgment and fact-checking. The source should verify not just that the fact is true, but that a reputable independent source felt that fact was important enough to write about.
Primary sources come from someone involved in the events being reported on. This includes judicial opinions, press releases, competitors, customers, and advocacy groups, among others. Anything that comes from the article-subject is a primary source. This includes interviews or quotes that are published by a journalist, but are merely repeating comments from the article-subject. In most cases, primary sources should not be used, except for in the infobox.
Books by the organization
Many organizations have commissioned a book on their history. The appropriateness of these books as a source varies from one book to the next. Some are written by historians, while others are PR puff-pieces. More independent sources are always preferred, but a self-written book can be cited to add information of unquestionable historical significance not found in other sources. Additionally, in some cases a self-written book may be the only accessible, remaining record of an organization's history. Editors should exercise caution when using a self-written book and show good judgement.