User:DESiegel/Organization Articles

If you are affiliated with an organization and have been unable to get a response on-Wiki, please email the volunteer response team.

Wikipedia articles about organizations should adhere to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability (V)
• No original research (NOR)

Unsourced or poorly-sourced promotion or contentious material should be removed immediately and without discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. However editors often have differing viewpoints on what is promotional or controversial and whether sources genuinely justify the material. When in doubt or getting into an edit-war, consider using the Talk page or advertising for broader input at the Noticeboard for Extant Organizations.

The burden rests with the editor adding or restoring the content to provide sources that justify inclusion. Wikipedia is not a tabloid or brochure. All articles should be reflective of a historical reference work.

Structure

Avoid sections that attract bias

Articles about organizations should avoid creating dedicated sections for promotional or contentious material. Common sections to be avoided in most cases include Awards, Achievements, Recognition, Corporate Social Responsibility, Leadership, Criticisms, Controversies, and Lawsuits. These sections tend to attract a laundry-list of trivial items that turn the article into a brochure or coatrack. If they do not contain a sufficient ratio of neutral, properly-sourced content, the section should be removed in its entirety.

Common acceptable sections include History, Products and services, Organization or Operations, Reception, Marketing & advertising, Culture, Corporate affairs and Subsidiaries or Business areas. There is no universally accepted structure. The best and most neutral structure must be determined for each article individually.

Significant controversies

When a series of controversial events are especially significant, they should be included under History in a manner that is weighted equally to other time periods, then expanded in a dedicated section near the bottom of the article. For example, many financial institutions may have a Financial crisis section that is briefly summarized under History. If an editor wants to cover a controversy in-depth without creating undue weight on it, a separate article should be considered, such as Wells Fargo in the Financial Crisis.

Lists

Long lists or tables of partners, executives, investors or products should be avoided. As a rule of thumb, ten or fewer divisions and five or fewer products can be listed individually. If there are more, they should be summarized. The level of detail that is appropriate should be assessed in the context of the size and significance of the organization. Editors should also avoid creating small sections on individual products and the History section should be written in paragraph-style prose, rather than bullets. Listing the executive team in the Key People parameter of the infobox or inside the article should also be avoided in most cases. The CEO, co-founders, and/or a President should be listed in the Key People infobox. Executives should not be listed in the body of the article arbitrarily, but can be included in other ways if reliable, independent sources discuss their impact on the organization in-depth.

Weight

Editors should take care to avoid including trivial lawsuits or awards.

Lawsuits

Lawsuits and other legal disputes are considered trivial when they are not covered in-depth by reliable, independent sources. Often lawsuits appear significant when accusations are made, but are less significant when they are dismissed by the courts as baseless legal harassment. Lawsuits of questionable notability should not be included until a court-ruling, settlement, or resolution is discussed in a reliable, indepedent source. Legal disputes that are included in reliable sources that profile the organization are unquestionably notable. Profile sources may provide a rough guide of the appropriate weight. Lawsuits and other legal disputes that are only sourced to primary sources like court records, press releases, or short blurbs repeating press releases, should be removed immediately. Editors should take care to represent all majority and minority viewpoints fairly. In most cases this means - at a bare minimum - including the viewpoints of the plaintiff and the defendant.

Awards

Awards are also considered trivial when the honor being bestowed to that particular organization is not the subject of reliable, independent sources. Lists like "Top 10 Companies to Watch" and "Top 100 Fast-Growth Companies" fall under the same category. Many awards and lists are published by trade magazines that are typically reliable sources, but in this case are primary sources as they are the award organizers themselves. However, when the magazine publishes a profile of the organization as part of the award, it may be used as a source in that context. If one or more profile articles on the organization include the award, it is unquestionably notable. Awards that are only cited to the publication issuing the award or other primary sources should be removed.

Sourcing

Wikipedia articles about organizations should be based on reliable, independent sources, such as books, academics and press articles. Independent organizations that re-print or only slightly edit a primary source like a press release are not reliable sources. Press releases may almost never be used, but self-published historical books may be used with caution. They are more usable if they are authored by a credible, independent historian and non-promotional, however more independent sources are preferred when available.

When primary sources can be used

Primary sources may be used to confirm infobox data such as revenue, number of offices and key people. An up-to-date primary source is preferred over an outdated secondary one, but a secondary source will take precedence when both are timely. Primary sources may also be used for content about corporate structure such as business divisions. Corporate structure content should typically only be included in articles about very large organizations. Sections about Products and Services should rely predominantly on reliable, independent sources. In some cases a small portion of it may be cited to a primary source that is more up-to-date and comprehensive than secondary sources. However, Product sections that use only primary sources should be stubbed.

When strong sources are needed

The strength of the source that is needed is based on the boldness of the claim. A weak source may be used for the organization's foundation date, funding rounds or for a basic summary of its products. Reception sections and content that assesses the efficacy of the product should use strong sources, such as professional reviews. Controversies should also use strong sources. Quoting a source directly may be useful at resolving disputes on how to accurately represent the source or as a placeholder, however it should be avoided when the quoted statement is not in encyclopedic language. The media is one of the most prolific source for articles about organizations, but the press have a different writing style than Wikipedia.

When you are affiliated with the article-subject

If you are participating on behalf of an organization that is the subject of an article, you should not edit the article in almost all cases. This may create the appearance of trying to use Wikipedia for promotion or censorship. It routinely leads to negative media exposure and legal troubles. It may also lead to the article being tagged, stubbed or building contentious relationships with the Wikipedia community.

Disclose your affiliation on the Talk page of the article and provide a clear explanation of what is wrong with the article. Provide sources where your information can be verified and provide specific suggestions. Then advertise your request at the Noticeboard for Extant Organizations or on the Talk pages of editors that have shown an interest in the article. If no one responds, please email the volunteer response team.

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is run by volunteers. Make the problem as easy to understand and fix as possible.