Neutrality in Wikipedia for Business Writers
Why Businesses Have No Control Over Content in Online Encyclopedia
Oct 7, 2009
The idea of neutrality is arguably the most important principle guiding Wikipedia. The policy itself states, “Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.” Especially when facts are in dispute, any assertions made in an article must cite where the information came from originally. To a sales or business writer, this significantly curtails what may be said about a particular company, product, or service. The need for neutrality is the reason why Wikipedia has a notability criterion for inclusion: if a business is not covered sufficiently in academia or the media, it is not possible to write an article from the neutral point of view.
Promotional Writing on Wikipedia
Writing supportive statements about a business, its products or services is not specifically forbidden on Wikipedia. However, the neutral point of view (frequently abbreviated “NPOV” by Wikipedians) policy places constraints upon the information that may be introduced.
- Facts, or information which is generally accepted, can be added to a company's entry. The standard for “generally accepted” amounts to “no one has asked for a source for this information.” Bill Gates' founding of Microsoft is considered a fact.
- Disputed information may also be included, but may be removed if a reliable source is not provided.
- Primary sources, including information on a company's web site,, are considered too close to the subject to be reliable.
- Self-published sources, including blogs, press releases, and marketing materials, are not easily verified, and so cannot be considered reliable either.
- Superlative language, such as “the best new product of 2009,” is only permitted if it is attributed to a reliable source. For example, “Products Revew Monthly called it the 'best new product of 2009” would be considered neutral.
Business entries face close scrutiny from the editing community, but so long as reliable sources are found for all of the information presented, it will not likely be removed.
Writing Criticism of a Company
In keeping with representing all significant viewpoints, any reliably-covered criticisms of a business should be included in its article. Negative information is not the same as false information, and editors close to the subject often fail to make this distinction. Baseless accusations and rumors are no more appropriate in a business entry on Wikipedia than unfounded praise, but information that is properly sourced will be permitted to remain. However, those differing views must be represented “in proportion to the prominence of each,” and neither positive nor negative information should be given undue weight because it is interesting or sensational. Well-cited negative information will likely lend credibility to the article, since it demonstrates the neutral point of view.
Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Policy
Employees and owners of a business and its competition all have an inherent conflict of interest (COI) and are not permitted to edit that article. Such editors may have the best of intentions, correcting factual errors and the like, but are too close to the subject to be neutral. Instead, they are invited to participate on the article's “talk page” (a related page used for discussing improvements to the entry) to provide their views, but let other editors make the actual changes. Many well-meaning editors find themselves blocked from editing Wikipedia because of such a conflict. Even if the COI is not discovered, the editor may be blocked if his or her changes are considered disruptive or vandalism – which can mean any repeated attempt to insert unsourced information in an article.
The most effective way to demonstrate neutral writing is to cite reliable third-party sources for any fact or opinion added to a Wikipedia entry, including those (if any) that cast the subject in a negative light. This prevents the need for using so-called “weasel words” to describe a view (“Some people say that chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream” is weaselly, while “A survey in Ice Cream Aficionado shows that Americans prefer chocolate over other flavors by a margin of three to one” is not). If a company's entry lacks those sources, the community will likely decide to delete it, since it is not notable enough to make it possible to monitor the subject's neutrality.
Related Articles
Business Notability in Wikipedia describes how one determines if a company has had enough significant coverage to warrant an entry in Wikipedia
When an Article is Deleted from Wikipedia discusses how articles get deleted, and what one's options are, from simply obtaining a copy to appealing the decision
Featured Articles in Wikipedia details the criteria by which the Wikipedian community determines which of the site's articles are its very best collaborative work.
