You will surely find that criticism of the internal workings of wikipedia are not very well accepted.
Freedom of thought has its limits...
We remember the presidential candidate François Asselineau who was deprived of a Wikipedia page as indicated in this article by numerama on the participative encyclopaedia.
You should know that many clients face the same problem: they are big players in their sector (turnover of several million euros) and yet, some wikipedia moderators believe that they do not deserve to have a wikipedia page.
Of course, meanwhile, their competitors have a page in due form... go and find an explanation for this.
With such a high profile on the part of Wikipedia, they reign supreme and decide what should and should not be published. One might think "well, that's good, it prevents this encyclopedia from becoming a bunch of crap".
Unfortunately, this leads to many abuses where administrators refuse to allow people working for a company to contribute to the company page without declaring themselves.
What does this mean? It means that a communication officer or a manager would not be allowed to communicate about his own company without declaring himself. By declaring themselves, they are subjecting all their changes to the "watchful" eye of the administrators who assume that there is a conflict of interest.
Unfortunately, they are less concerned about this question when it is a competitor who comes to spoil your page, a frustrated former employee who comes to settle his accounts on Wikipedia without taking into account a court decision (industrial tribunal or other) or simply someone who, ideologically, is against you.
But let's bet that, for the sake of transparency, administrators and users alike will soon fill out a declaration of transparency indicating their hobbies, interests, religious and political orientations so that all ambiguity is removed.
We know from social networks and scams of all kinds that the web has become a wild territory. Make no mistake, so has wikipedia.
Many "volunteers" are in fact accounts of people who have an interest in their own modifications, not to mention people who spend their time defacement pages (fortunately, their system allows for a fairly quick restoration but hey...), "volunteer" members even sell their services on marketplaces... and agencies even manage, through some rather ingenious tricks, to become administrators in their turn, which allows them to subtly influence certain decisions when necessary.
In fact, "hidden" behind a pseudonym, everything becomes possible...
A military historian pointed out some huge errors in wikipedia: stating that General Montgomery's nickname was "the desert fox" when it was General Rommel's (excuse me). An error that remained online until 11 May 2020!
You can find in an article in Lyon Capitale the portrait of a "passionate" contributor who, in order to write an article on the constituencies of Venezuela, has bought between 10 and 15 books that will allow him to become an expert in the field...
In short, anyone can declare themselves an expert. Is this the sum of the world's knowledge?
THE ONLINE REPUTATION
Wikipedia is one of the great behemoths of the Internet, always in the top 10 of the most consulted sites in the world. Its natural referencing is its great strength: the Wikipedia page of a personality or a company that one searches online will almost systematically appear on the first page of Google and, without a good referencing strategy, it will appear first in the results. However, Wikipedia is a collaborative site, which means that anyone can add their annotation, as long as they source it (and even then, there is usually a delay before verifications are made).
Thus, a problematic or poorly reported event can remain perpetually attached to your name on this site, while without monitoring your page will quickly fill up with negative and biased information. If this can frighten you, know that you don’t have to rely on the benevolence of Internet users, and you can influence things so that your image portrayed on the site is rectified. And for that, Net’Wash can help you!
ONLINE REPUTATION USING WIKIPEDIA ?
The first point to understand is that the information available on Wikipedia must always be sourced. This means that most of the information found on Wikipedia will come from your press releases or from articles or books about you or your company. Checking these articles and publications is already an important step that Net’Wash helps you to take.
Then, it is possible to debate with the Internet users about the relevance of certain information on Wikipedia, to point out a lack of objectivity or the relevance of sources. It is also possible to add new and more relevant information to counterbalance negative information. Wikipedia has its own rules, with a community-based approach: it is better to leave its management to professionals than to risk making a mistake and alienating a community.
Moreover, Wikipedia has set up eligibility criteria to decide which companies will have their article on the site, and Net’Wash helps you to match them if you don’t have a page. If you already have a page, it’s in terms of monitoring that we can assist you. Don’t be afraid: if all this takes time, you don’t have to do it yourself!
Wikipedia, like the internet, started with a great intention. Unfortunately, human nature has, as usual, turned everything upside down. By wanting to let everyone intervene on anything and by giving tools of power and decision to some, the orientation has, little by little, deviated from its initial goal to become a tool which is far from being fair, far from being objective but remains nevertheless an enormous digest of knowledge, coupled with assertions and sometimes censorship.
To conclude, we advise you to consult this article from the Tribune, which is a little dated, on the finances of wikipedia. At the end of 2018, wikipedia had a cash surplus (what they call their “safety net”) of 135 million euros!
Do they really need donations? Are some people within wikipedia paid? Are there any “big” donors? Do they have direct or indirect interests in the foundation? So many questions that it is normal to ask, as transparency is not yet total at the online knowledge giant…