Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Organizations: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Does this article apply to Government Employees?
make archival slower; drop off-topic;
 
(122 intermediate revisions by 69 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{Talkheader}}{{Metatalk}}
{{Talkheader}}
{{Metatalk}}
{{warning|1=<div align=left>
<big>'''This is not a place to post new articles about companies and organizations.'''</big>
* For guidance about creating an encyclopedic article, see '''[[Wikipedia:Your first article]]'''.
* If you are writing on behalf of your company or organization, see '''[[WP:COI]]''' and '''[[WP:PAID]]'''.
</div>}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{Wikipedia Help Project|class=NA|importance=mid}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Organizations/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archives|search=yes}}


== No AfD participation ==
== Merge proposal ==


I think this page should be merged into [[Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects]]. Both have Qs about "me and my company" or similar, there's a lot of duplication, and its easier to refer to a single target in other FAQs and notification templates, etc. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 15:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
We should tell people not to participate in AfD's of articles where they are the subject. That's part of the COI guideline. People also shouldn't edit their own articles. Yeah, some non-controversial edits are OK, like fixing spelling and reverting obvious vandalism, but with AfD, nothing good comes from having the subject argue their own notability. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Hablar]]</sup> 06:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
:I've started by copying over a couple of Q&As that were equally applicale but mussing on the AS page. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 15:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
*I wouldn't go that far. Yes, it's going to be a problem if they bicker with every participant, but they are allowed to produce an argument against deletion, especially if they can make it based on Wikipedia policy. --[[User talk:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 12:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


: '''Merged.''' <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 12:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
*No, it's not banned. From [[WP:COI]]:
<blockquote>
Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest '''avoid''', or '''exercise great caution''' when:
#'''Editing''' articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
#'''Participating''' in [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion_processes|deletion discussions]] about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
# '''Linking''' to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see [[Wikipedia:Spam]]);
#:and you must always:
# '''Avoid breaching''' relevant policies and guidelines, especially [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]], and [[Wikipedia:Autobiography|autobiography]].
</blockquote>


:I would avoid taking an overly negative or aggressive tone. I would rather us try to work with these people and show them how they can help us, rather than scaring them off and making them use more underhand tactics. '''<font color="#330033">[[User:KamrynMatika|Kamryn Matika]]</font>''' 13:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:: Indeed, I wrote some of the above text. I'll try to strike a better balance. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Hablar]]</sup> 15:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

==Great job==
I've changed this from an essay to an FAQ page and linked it into the other FAQ pages. There is a real need for this page. The essay tag made it look like something that can be ignored. I don't think there is anything controversial on this page, it just restates policies and guidelines found elsewhere. It should be linked wherever appropriate. -- [[WP:CI|&#x2611; ]]<b>[[User:Sam|Sam]]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 07:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
:Wow - looking good :) I love Wikipedia! Being able to knock something up in twenty minutes and then have a bunch of other people come along and improve my work of their own accord is the best. I'm hoping more people who deal with this kind of user frequently will come along and add other stuff that commonly comes up. I think the next stop now is making this page as visible as possible to the right people. '''<font color="#330033">[[User:KamrynMatika|Kamryn Matika]]</font>''' 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

==Business, Business', Businesses or Businesses'?==
I've renamed this as "Business'" in line with the other plural possessive FAQs. Business can be used as a plural, and "Business'" would be pronounced "biznesses". If we used the possessive of the alternate plural "businesses" that would lead to "biznesseses". I've never come up against this usage question before. Anyone know what the acceptable plural possessive is for "Business"? -- [[WP:CI|&#x2611; ]]<b>[[User:Sam|Sam]]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 09:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

==Visibility==
Based on the AN/I thread, this FAQ will hopefully actually answer FAQs without the need of e-mailing OTRS. So, I think we should make sure those people have a reasonable chance of seeing this page when heading towards OTRS. When ready, this page should be linked to prominently from [[Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from enterprise)]], which seems to be where you'd end up if you were a COI and clicked on "Contact us". --[[User talk:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 12:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
:We can also make a "corporation template" and put it in talk pages of articles about corporations (similar to BLP articles). That template would redirect user to this instruction.[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] 13:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

==Contradictions between company web site and independent sources==
We should tell in FAC that in the case of such contradictions, we are going to use independent secondary sources about the company (which satisfy [[WP:SOURCE]]) rather than information that company provides itself.[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] 13:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

==Repetitions==
The sections "Why doesn't Wikipedia have an article on my company?" and "I think my company deserves an article on Wikipedia but none exists. What can I do?" cover very similar ground (even their titles are similar). Anyone mind if I try merging them?

This is a great article and (I hope) will save us a lot of repetitive explanation. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] 18:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
:I think they're different... but perhaps "How do I create an article?" should be trimmed for redundancy. From what I recall OTRS gets a lot of outright demands that Wikipedia write an article for some random company or business venture, as odd as that sounds... this seems like something the FAQ should clearly address. --[[User talk:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 00:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks. Now that you explained it, I see. I'll add just a few words to try to make the reasoning clearer. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] 01:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

== Examples of good articles and featured articles about corporations ==

[[{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}]] does not seem to direct the reader to examples of
[[WP:GA#Businesses|good articles]] or [[WP:FA|featured articles]] about businesses.
[[WP:GA#Businesses]] groups several good articles about businesses together;
[[WP:FA]], on the other hand, has articles about businesses appearing under
several different headings. I think it would be helpful to include a list of
links to articles about businesses which have attained good or featured
rank. That should give the reader concrete examples to help him or her
understand the sometimes abstract policies and guidelines. For all we know,
businesspeople who want to create articles about their businesses on Wikipedia
may have only viewed a few articles, perhaps of low quality (for example, articles
by and about their competitors, which for all we know might have escaped scrutiny
thus far). Since only a tiny fraction of articles on Wikipedia are good or featured,
articles that turn up under random browsing will usually have problems, and may
mislead someone who assumes those articles fully exemplify what Wikipedia is trying to
be. --[[User:Teratornis|Teratornis]] 22:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
:If we were to point someone to a good or featured article about a business, it should be with a caveat that the articles were written by many community members, working together. We should not give the impression that good or featured articles about businesses are often written by people who represent the company. Is there any business article that you are aware of where a representative of the company participated in the creation or editing of the article, and there contributions were accepted without controversy? That might be a useful example to highlight. -- [[WP:CI|&#x2611; ]]<b>[[User:Sam|Sam]]</b><font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman</font> 00:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

*I think that's a good idea... from recent experience trying to submit work in good faith to another site, and it kept getting rejected for vague reasons, I just felt like "Well if you'd show me something acceptable then I'd know what to do". A question could be like 'What would an acceptable article look like?' or something along those lines. I created a "good idea, bad idea" table like this in a minor essay I wrote at [[User:W.marsh/Blatant advertising]]. --[[User talk:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 00:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

== A missing FAQ ==

I believe there is a missing FAQ: "My boss told me to advertise our business on Wikipedia. How do I do that?" or "I'm (so and so) in the Marketing Dept. of (some company) and I want to advertise our business. What do I do?" In other words, I feel there should be a FAQ entry specifically for marketing people that tells them that Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for advertisements. The last FAQ listed ("What can I upload?") gets into the PR thing, but I don't think a PR person would look at the "What can I upload?" title and read what it says. Perhaps, it can be retitled "Can I advertise my company? What can I upload?" -- [[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]]<small><sup>[[User_talk:Kainaw|(what?)]]</sup></small> 02:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
:I added this at the beginning, as it is perhaps the most important thing we need to state. It's a bit short and to the point though - feel free to reword. '''<font color="#330033">[[User:KamrynMatika|Kamryn Matika]]</font>''' 03:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

== Excellent! ==

Wikipedia has really needed this. Kudos to the editors who created it. [[User:IPSOS|IPSOS]] ([[User talk:IPSOS|talk]]) 23:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

== proposed addition ==

I think something people wonder is "How do I work with Wikipedia on an article about me or my company?" or something similar. As Wikipedia grows it's not realistic for us to expect people to just stand by and have no say in articles about them, so we should explain constructive, helpful ways people with a "conflict of interest" can participate in Wikipedia. It's a bit naive to say "don't edit the article, just propose changes on the talk page" - anecdotal evidence suggests this doesn't often result in the desired edits being made, even if they're good edits. I'm a bit stumped as to the best way overall to work on an article where you have a COI, other than just citing everything to published sources, which might be a bit tough for new users. Any thoughts? --[[User talk:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 01:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
*Or maybe this is already covered... sort of, over questions 2,3,4 and 5. --[[User talk:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 01:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
::Two possibilities: [[Wikipedia:Bounty board]] and [[Wikipedia:Reward board]]. --[[User:Teratornis|Teratornis]] ([[User talk:Teratornis|talk]]) 16:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

== Great idea, but needs more stuff on images ==

I had been thinking for a long time we needed a page like this and was going to propose it, until I stumbled across this. It's what we need for these situations, which we're having more and more of.

However ...

We need to explain our licensing policy much better re images. Many companies upload their logos, which cannot take the GFDL unless they change the licensing on the original logo. But as written, a PR person could easily be led to think they can just license it under the GFDL. Logos are on the fair-use whitelist, but as such they need ''two'' tags:{{tl|logo}} and {{tl|fair use rationale}}. The latter needs to be filled out as well.

Also, logos need to be low-res to comply with [[WP:FUC|the fair-use criteria]]. We also prefer they be in .PNG or .SVG format (although there are some who think we should refuse the latter because the scalability defeats the purpose of keeping them low-res).

And we should address photos taken of company facilities or products as to how they are impacted by the replaceability rule. Most of the former are going to be considered replaceable (unless, I imagine, they are areas not accessible to the general public, most visitors or even most employees). Most of the latter will be considered replaceable unless the product is either not yet on the market or long since off it.

And another thing: When PR people themselves take photos, it's likely they will legally be [[work for hire|works for hire]] and thus the ''company'', not the PR person, will own the copyright. They need to get some sort of release for this from their lawyers/legal departments.

And ''then'', if they've managed to effectively create a free image, those free images ought to be uploaded to Commons, not here.

I hate to seem to be proposing [[meta:instruction creep|instruction creep]], but since many Wikipedians themselves don't fully understand the new, tighter image policies, we can expect even less of non-Wikipedians. I've already had to explain this to a few corporate people. We have logos and other company-created images all the time that might well be kept but, because of this lack of understanding, are routinely deleted for lacking source, lacking licensing, lacking fair use rationale etc. The new image upload page helps generally but the copyright issues grow more complex with company employees uploading images created by their companies. We need to try to explain them here.

Shall I go ahead and try to draft a question or questions explaining this more perfectly? [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] 15:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
:I would say yes, but see [[WP:CFAQ]] to make sure you are not duplicating content. It's better to link to content rather than duplicate too much of it (because it's hard to maintain multiple copies when policies change). Also, I mildly disagree with several points in [[WP:CREEP]] and I would like to write a counterpoint essay, "Do not fear complexity." Wikipedia needs lots of instructions to cover the vast number of situations, problems, and tasks that come up in the course of building the world's largest do-it-yourself collaborative project. Anything that we have to explain more than once belongs in a formal instruction document. Otherwise, we have humans doing the repetition of re-writing and re-thinking instructions every time they use them instead of the easier method of reading or citing a document. We have efficient tools for organizing our instructions, such as these FAQ pages, and the [[WP:EIW|Editor's index]]. We have efficient tools for [[Help:Search|searching]] our instructions, such as {{Tl|Google custom}}. We provide near-real-time assistance from actual humans for finding and interpreting instructions, on the [[WP:HD|Help desk]] and other instruction pages. The author(s) of [[WP:CREEP]] might study the Help desk, to see how we use our instructions to fend off chaos. The fact that Wikipedia has such extensive detailed instructions is fundamental to making Wikipedia work. Of course for a ''given'' procedure, we want the instructions to be as efficient as possible, with no wasted steps - we should not "creep" a given procedure with extra steps that are likely to be extraneous. But we have ''many'' procedures, and we need written instructions for all of them. --[[User:Teratornis|Teratornis]] ([[User talk:Teratornis|talk]]) 17:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

== On "I think my company deserves an article on Wikipedia but none exists. What can I do?" ==

I think this section is not very clear: Where should they ask the article creation? We tell them to go on "an appropriate related talk page" but honestly I have no idea, despite being here for long, where I should look ([[WP:AFC]] tells us it is not for registered users). -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]] <sup>[[User talk:Lucasbfr|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]]</sup> 18:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
:Create the article in your user space. Make sure that the article [[WP:CITE|cites]] at least two sources from [[WP:RS|mainstream or scholarly media]]. Then once it's ready, link to it in a related talk page. This could be the talk page of an article about the kinds of goods and services your company sells (e.g. [[cola]] for an article about PepsiCo) or the talk page of a [[WP:PROJ|WikiProject]] that maintains articles about the kinds of goods and services your company sells (e.g. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games|WikiProject RPGs]] for an article about a publisher of tabletop role-playing games). Are there any subject areas on Wikipedia that still aren't covered by a WikiProject? --[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]] ([[User talk:Damian Yerrick|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Damian Yerrick|stalk]]) 20:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
::It's much better, thanks! -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]] <sup>[[User talk:Lucasbfr|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]]</sup> 08:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

== Corporate wikis ==

I believe [[WP:BFAQ]] needs a page to address questions like this which come up occasionally on the [[WP:HD|Help desk]]:
*[[WP:HD#Need advice: Private wiki or Wikipedia?]] - ([[Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 May 1#Need advice: Private wiki or Wikipedia?|archive link]]) - ([http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=209715468#Need_advice:_Private_wiki_or_Wikipedia.3F permanent link])
Namely, some people look at Wikipedia and wonder if they can use Wikipedia itself to function like their own [[corporate wiki]]. Since [[WP:BFAQ]] does not yet address this question directly, I will add an entry that does. --[[User:Teratornis|Teratornis]] ([[User talk:Teratornis|talk]]) 18:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
:I added the section: [[WP:BFAQ#CORPWIKI]]. --[[User:Teratornis|Teratornis]] ([[User talk:Teratornis|talk]]) 21:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
== Thanks ==
Good to find this FAQ; I already knew about COI and WP:AUTO, this helps with various corporate-article duels out there. I don't suppose there's a Wikipedia:FAQ/Politicians or Wikipedia:FAQ/Politics is there? I'm thinking Enviropoliticians/activists as much as legislators/leaders/party hacks....[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] ([[User talk:Skookum1|talk]]) 04:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

== New section on page protection and official versions ==

I'm going to add a section saying something to the effect of "We will not prevent other people from editing your article". For whatever reason, I see a lot of businesses asking us if we can deny editing to everybody except their marketing people, and I'd love to head that question off as diplomatically as possible. - [[User:Jredmond|Jredmond]] ([[User talk:Jredmond|talk]]) 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

==Does this article apply to Government Employees?==
*On the [[WP:COI]] talk page someone opined this FAQ applies to government employees. If it does, the FAQ should explicitly mention them.
*Also, given that most govt employees have the arm of the law behind them, I would say that employees editing from work or home on issues related to their job or employeers need a higher standard of disclosure and should do so only by declaring themselves govt employees, either in signature or in edit summary. (I personally would like to go further and see their allowed edits ''only'' be to put a tag on information citing the problem with it, leaving any deletion to non-government employees, ''including alleged defamation in Biographies.''
*Of course, on the other hand, their outing themselves might intimidate others into following their edit suggestions and/or deleting material that shouldn't be deleted! So any government employee editing of material related to their jobs might be problematic. Any thoughts?
*I have not had a problem with people who appeared to be current govt employees, but lately have had quite a problem on a couple articles with people I suspect possibly might want jobs in, or currently work for, the incoming federal administration.Carol Moore 20:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]

Latest revision as of 20:47, 21 July 2024

Merge proposal

[edit]

I think this page should be merged into Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects. Both have Qs about "me and my company" or similar, there's a lot of duplication, and its easier to refer to a single target in other FAQs and notification templates, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've started by copying over a couple of Q&As that were equally applicale but mussing on the AS page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:FAQ/Organizations&oldid=1235905650"