 | 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. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Organisations naturally wish Wikipedia articles concerning them to reflect the public image they wish to create, but the names and content of these articles should be decided according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines even when, or perhaps especially when, they conflict with these corporate aspirations. |
The corporate image or identity of an organisation is often one of its key assets. Large organisations spend large amounts on deciding on the name or names and logo or logos that they will use in dealing with the public.
A Wikipedia article on an organisation, if one exists, is a significant part of that public image. While our policy on living persons applies only to natural persons, some of the same issues arise.
Conflict may arise when, for example, an organisation changes its name as part of a corporate branding exercise. The organisation will, naturally, wish the Wikipedia article to be instantly moved to its new name. It is an effective way of promoting the new name. Such a move is not terribly damaging to Wikipedia, assuming that the redirect from the old name is created as is the normal procedure, but it is still contrary to Wikipedia policy to automatically rename the article following the name change, even if the change is official and even if the organisation specifically requests it.
Wikipedia policy is, consistently, that we report rather than create. For example, and in particular, our article title reflects the name by which the organisation is most commonly known, rather than a new name which they wish, quite naturally, to promote. If that promotion is successful (and it will normally be so, particularly if significant amounts of money are spent on it), then and only then should the article name be changed. While we may expect the promotion to succeed, we do not assume that it will succeed. We wait until it does.
This often places employees tasked with contacting Wikipedia in a most unenviable position. Their superiors are interested in effectiveness, not excuses, and the employee's promotion within the organisation may be quite unfairly jeopardised if Wikipedia does not comply with the organisation's request. The employee, if they have no previous editing experience with Wikipedia, will be unaware of and most probably surprised by Wikipedia's policy on official names. Their superiors are even less likely to understand it. Dismay and disbelief are not uncommon, and aggressive comments demanding that we " correct" the article title are quite understandable.
The best solution by far is for them to provide reliable sources that support the new corporate name or other branding. This should always be the first suggestion made in response to such requests. Once these sources are provided, moves and other changes are no longer such a problem. Requested moves can and should be relisted to allow time for this. Extra weight is placed on recent sources, so a well-managed corporate rebranding that is reported in the press can often succeed in meeting Wikipedia's requirements in a matter of days.
But failing that, a great deal of diplomacy is required. All editors, including IPs, newbies and single issue accounts are welcome, and welcome regardless of any conflict of interest. Conflict of interest should be disclosed but in no way prohibits an editor from contributing; They do after all have valuable and reliable information on the subject, from which Wikipedia can and should benefit.
All contributors, always, should be treated with civility and courtesy, even and perhaps especially when the other party is finding it difficult to remain civil and courteous themselves. Personal attacks if they occur should never be responded to in kind. If they are in a difficult position, this is not likely to be because they chose to be in one.
Probably, just the opposite! So try to imagine yourself in their shoes, and work with them to get an outcome that is fully acceptable to both of our organisations.
| 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. |
| This page in a nutshell: Organisations naturally wish Wikipedia articles concerning them to reflect the public image they wish to create, but the names and content of these articles should be decided according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines even when, or perhaps especially when, they conflict with these corporate aspirations. |
The corporate image or identity of an organisation is often one of its key assets. Large organisations spend large amounts on deciding on the name or names and logo or logos that they will use in dealing with the public.
A Wikipedia article on an organisation, if one exists, is a significant part of that public image. While our policy on living persons applies only to natural persons, some of the same issues arise.
Conflict may arise when, for example, an organisation changes its name as part of a corporate branding exercise. The organisation will, naturally, wish the Wikipedia article to be instantly moved to its new name. It is an effective way of promoting the new name. Such a move is not terribly damaging to Wikipedia, assuming that the redirect from the old name is created as is the normal procedure, but it is still contrary to Wikipedia policy to automatically rename the article following the name change, even if the change is official and even if the organisation specifically requests it.
Wikipedia policy is, consistently, that we report rather than create. For example, and in particular, our article title reflects the name by which the organisation is most commonly known, rather than a new name which they wish, quite naturally, to promote. If that promotion is successful (and it will normally be so, particularly if significant amounts of money are spent on it), then and only then should the article name be changed. While we may expect the promotion to succeed, we do not assume that it will succeed. We wait until it does.
This often places employees tasked with contacting Wikipedia in a most unenviable position. Their superiors are interested in effectiveness, not excuses, and the employee's promotion within the organisation may be quite unfairly jeopardised if Wikipedia does not comply with the organisation's request. The employee, if they have no previous editing experience with Wikipedia, will be unaware of and most probably surprised by Wikipedia's policy on official names. Their superiors are even less likely to understand it. Dismay and disbelief are not uncommon, and aggressive comments demanding that we " correct" the article title are quite understandable.
The best solution by far is for them to provide reliable sources that support the new corporate name or other branding. This should always be the first suggestion made in response to such requests. Once these sources are provided, moves and other changes are no longer such a problem. Requested moves can and should be relisted to allow time for this. Extra weight is placed on recent sources, so a well-managed corporate rebranding that is reported in the press can often succeed in meeting Wikipedia's requirements in a matter of days.
But failing that, a great deal of diplomacy is required. All editors, including IPs, newbies and single issue accounts are welcome, and welcome regardless of any conflict of interest. Conflict of interest should be disclosed but in no way prohibits an editor from contributing; They do after all have valuable and reliable information on the subject, from which Wikipedia can and should benefit.
All contributors, always, should be treated with civility and courtesy, even and perhaps especially when the other party is finding it difficult to remain civil and courteous themselves. Personal attacks if they occur should never be responded to in kind. If they are in a difficult position, this is not likely to be because they chose to be in one.
Probably, just the opposite! So try to imagine yourself in their shoes, and work with them to get an outcome that is fully acceptable to both of our organisations.