COMPANIES AND WIKIPEDIA: FRIEND OR FOE? - Lundquist

Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016, 7th year

COMPANIES AND WIKIPEDIA: FRIEND OR FOE? European, Swiss and new Italian edition Wikipedia is the seventh most visited website in the world, with articles about companies perennially well positioned on the first page of search results. Yet despite this visibility, the articles about the 100 largest companies in Europe, 100 largest in Italy and 48 largest in Switzerland, often lack information, according to Lundquist Wikipedia Research. With the already small number of active Wikipedia editors decreasing, this situation is likely to worsen. Some companies think that by editing articles about themselves they have an easy workaround. Any company that edits articles about itself, either openly or clandestinely, does so at its own risk, creating a hostile environment. The reputational risk if a company is unmasked is enormous. Since the first edition of our research in 2008 revealed the low quality of the vast majority of company Wikipedia pages, Lundquist has refined a set of guidelines to help companies engage with the encyclopedia’s vast online community in a constructive manner. This proposed alliance entails abiding by Wikipedia’s rules so as to ensure information is accurate. When done correctly, a rich Wikipedia article is a win for both the encyclopedia and companies.

Updated in April 2016

1 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015

CONTENTS

LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH As part of its research into online corporate information, the Lundquist Wikipedia Research covers the article content of major corporations. The 2015-2016 research looks at Wikipedia’s English language coverage of Europe’s top largest 100 companies (based on the FT500 index) as well as the 48 listed Swiss companies and Italian language coverage of Italy’s top largest 100 companies.

European edition: THE STATE OF PLAY BETWEEN WIKIPEDIA AND COMPANIES 1. Calling all editors 2. What we found out 3. Beware of the quick fix 4. Getting it right

p. 3 p. 4 p. 5 p. 6 p. 9

FAST FACTS

7th Year

2nd Edition of the

100 European

research

48 Swiss

the Italian research

4th Edition of

companies assessed

100 Italian

companies assessed

p. 10

European research

4th Edition of the Swiss companies assessed

INSIGHT FROM WIKIMEDIA COUNTRY FOCUS Switzerland Italy

p. 11 p. 15

29

Criteria

4

Parts of the protocol: Infobox, Features, Sections, Conversation & Acknowledgements

25

Maximum score

65% European average score

43% Swiss

LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH 2015-2016 RANKINGS European edition

p. 19

Swiss edition Italian edition

p. 22

HOW WE CONDUCTED THE RESEARCH

p. 27

HOW WE CAN HELP CONTACTS

p. 28

p. 24

average score

47% Italian

average score

For more information and to order a report, please contact:

DANIELE RIGHI Head of the Lundquist Wikipedia Research [email protected]

2 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016

THE STATE OF PLAY BETWEEN WIKIPEDIA AND COMPANIES Wikipedia has been losing active editors for close to a decade while the majority of articles about companies on the encyclopedia remain weak. Here are the pitfalls to reaching for the quick fix and some tips for standing tall.

1/5

VIOLATE WIKIPEDIA RULES

1. CALLING ALL EDITORS

3. BEWARE OF THE QUICK FIX

The number of active Wikipedia editors is dwindling, which means fewer eyes and hands to update and improve the encyclopedia’s pages. Therefore, information such as key financial data, historical notes and information on top management, can be incomplete or prone to inaccuracy.

Often companies, armed with the knowledge that the Wikipedia pages about them are inadequate and that the encyclopedia appears high in internet search results, succumb to the temptation to intervene directly to edit their dedicated articles. We easily uncovered by a simple check a selection of 21 companies violating Wikipedia rules (whether by choosing a promotional name or directly intervening), which can expose them to reputational consequences including negative media coverage.

2. POOR QUALITY OF PAGES (RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH) Based on our screening of 29 criteria for a comprehensive company article, which take into account what Wikipedia recommends, the Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015 revealed that companies averaged 65% of the total EUROPEAN COMPANIES score, compared with ASSESSED 66% in the last edition of the research.

100

The body of the Wikipedia article is usually the least complete section, with half of the largest 100 European companies (based on the FT500 index) dedicated articles scoring below 50% of the total score. One in five pages shows an alert signaling an issue with the page (such as non-neutrality or a lack of references meaning the content is not verifiable as required by Wikipedia). Furthermore, the number of company articles with updated financial figures has decreased by 27% since 2014. UBS obtained the top score followed by BP, BT Group and Enel.

-27%

DECREASE IN FINANCIAL FIGURES

Since the research first launched in 2008, Lundquist’s guidelines are helping companies understand and implement the correct procedures of engagement with the Wikipedia community. This allows companies which meet Wikipedia’s eligibility criteria to contribute transparently to improving their dedicated articles.

Wikipedia is an important player when it comes to a company’s reputation, yet its internal mechanism has been weakening over the last years with the decline of active editors. Furthermore, company articles are missing information. It is important for companies to engage constructively with the online encyclopedia, in order to ensure information is accurate. Joakim Lundquist, Founder of Lundquist

UBS BT GROUP ENEL

BP

2

4. GETTING IT RIGHT

1

3

7th MOST VISITED SITE ON THE WEB

7+ billion

60%

PAGEVIEWS EACH MONTH (English Wikipedia)

OF THE TIME WIKIPEDIA RESULTS RANK IN THE FIRST PAGE OF GOOGLE


1. Calling all editors WIKIPEDIA PAGESVIEWS ARE MASSIVE Wikipedia pageviews grew on average by about 10% since 2010, totaling more than 9 billion in April 2015 (the metric used to assess pageviews has changed since then with the aim to filter bot traffic, resulting in 20% less pageviews: almost 8 billion in January 2016). Despite the visibility afforded to company articles on Wikipedia, corporate related contents on the encyclopedia areSOMETHING’S suffering. In fact, our research show that, for instance, BUT WRONG the number of company entries with updated financial Despite the visibility afforded to company articles decreased by 27% since 2014. onfigures Wikipedia, corporate related contents on the encyclopedia are suffering. In fact, the number of company articles in which financial data are missing or are outdated is on the rise (13% in 2014, 31% in 2015).

The major challenge for Wikipedia is the editing. It is in danger of imploding and the complexity of the issues it deals with is not going to get any easier. Charlie Beckett, Director of POLIS, London School of Economics and Political Science’s journalism think tank, in an interview with Lundquist for this research

Wikipedia relies on voluntary editors, who ensure content is regularly updated and reliable from a quality standpoint, and their numbers are dwindling. Very active editors (who edit content on Wikipedia a minimum of 100 times per month) have been decreasing over the last seven years with data showing their were only 3,220 in February 2016. Very active editors make up 0.01% of Wikipedia’s almost 28 million registered users (some people could have created multiple usernames over time, however the percentage is still staggeringly low). They are followed by 29,705 active editors (those who edit content on Wikipedia at least 5 times per month), representing only 0.1% of registered users. There is roughly 1 active editor for every 170 Wikipedia articles in English. This dearth of active editors starts from the lowest rung: only 3.7% of the almost 28 million registered users became “contributors” as of February 2016 (meaning they have reached the threshold of at least 10 edits on the encyclopedia since they arrived). This trend is also having an impact on articles about companies.

DECREASING NUMBER OF ACTIVE AND VERY ACTIVE EDITORS ON ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA 50.000

Active editors (5+ edits)

45.000

Very active editors (100+ edits)

40.000 35.000 30.000 25.000 20.000 15.000 10.000 5.000 0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source:Wikimedia


2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

European Edition

2.What we found out Our research shows that Wikipedia articles about companies have issues and, compared to last year, less information. This page illustrates the main elements of a Wikipedia article about a company, along with some of the key research findings. Generally, every substantial piece of content is discussed here. This is where issues emerge and debates take place. 19% of articles present negative discussion.

1/5

In 2015, of articles have at least an alert which indicates an issue with the page.

Article Talk

This icon identifies a good article: complete, neutral, elegant, verifiable and illustrated. UBS’s article, which tops our ranking, is a prime example. Read

Edit

View history



Search

COMPANY NAME From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ALERT INFOBOX

Editors can put an alert banner if an issue is spotted (such as promotional contents or lack of references). As you can see in the screenshot (“August 2009”), alerts can remain on the page for a very long time.

81%

In 2015, of articles have at least an overview (10−15 sentences). However, of entries do not have this section updated.

38%

55% of articles present information on criticism and litigation.

26%

Only of articles obtained full score for all the sections analysed - such as financial figures and key people.

PAGE SECTION Here is where companies’ related contents are.

History section The history section is among the most prevalent in articles about companies. Historical information contributes to justify the Wikipedia eligibility of an article.

28%

43%

The number of articles in which financial figures are missing or are outdated is on the rise.

Criticism & litigation Criticism & litigation is a key section as it contributes to the neutrality of the entire page. Here the best role for the company is to double check information.

Corporate Governance In 2015, of articles presented the name of their Directors or Executives, down from in 2014.

On Wikipedia, basic information is provided in this small box called: infobox.

Information about Directors and Executives, which Wikipedia’s guidelines recommend, is less and less present on company articles.

(13% in 2014,

31% in 2015)

Dedicated articles on key people linked from the articles are on the rise:

58 articles about Chairmen in 2015 Vs 54 in 2014;

REFERENCES All material on Wikipedia, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

about CEOs in 2015 63 articles Vs in 2014

55

PICTURES

20% have up to 20 sources

(the more the better).

80% of articles have more than 20.

Providing pictures is an opportunity for companies to bring value to Wikipedia, starting on their path to becoming good Wikipedia contributors.

63%

of articles present more than 2.


3. Beware of the quick fix

Often companies intervene without understanding the rules of engagement by which Wikipedia operates. We uncovered many accounts (in fact, 1/3 of the companies assessed) involved in the editing process.

> One fifth of companies assessed are on Wikipedia with an account (sometimes even two) containing only the name of the company, therefore they have violated the username policy of Wikipedia (which bans both usernames implying shared use and promotional ones).

> 15 company accounts have been admonished or blocked for having published promotional information.

WHAT EUROPEAN COMPANIES DO WRONG What a blocked account looks like on Wikipedia Maersk Line USA is an example of an account which was blocked from editing and modifying content on Wikipedia due to a conflict of interest. It has been identified by Wikipedia as an account set up for promotional purposes, which goes against Wikipedia’s neutrality rule.

Editing from a neutral point means “representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” See page “Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_ point_of_view).

The Maersk Line USA account was blocked because the name of the profile, coupled with the fact that it added a link to its Facebook page, was seen as an approach “mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purpose.”


Risk of having your edit annulled The image below shows editing logs related to the article about Syngenta. The global agricultural company deleted controversial information. Due to its clear conflict of interest and the fact that this edit was not justified, it was reverted to the previous version by a Wikipedia editor who notified the user, SyngentaUK.

WHAT EUROPEAN COMPANIES DO RIGHT How to introduce yourself correctly on Wikipedia User Arturo, working for BP, and user Cornelia Te, working for Nestlé, are two good examples of how individuals working for companies can introduce themselves on Wikipedia. The first step to being transparent is admitting a conflict of interest.


How to propose an edit to an article on Wikipedia This example explains how to correctly propose an edit for an article by asking for the community’s opinion.

COLLABORATION IS KEY. EXAMPLE OF HOW A COMPANY CAN SEEK AN ALLIANCE WITH WIKIPEDIA In order to enrich the entries for the company and its sector, Telecom Italia began interacting with the community of Wikipedia in collaboration with Wikimedia Italy through graduates from a leading university in Milan, with which it has a close partnership.

By collaborating with the Wikipedia community in a continuous and transparent manner, Telecom Italia has managed to achieve significant results. This is demonstrated by the creation of 3 new company articles, the inclusion of more than 250 sources and more than 700 editing steps taken to modify content. Federico Ascari, Brand Development Projects, Brand Strategy & Media, Telecom Italia


4. Getting it right Four things companies should be doing when approaching Wikipedia Understanding Wikipedia’s rules, and working alongside the Wikipedia community, is vital as it allows companies to contribute correctly and avoid negative backlashes.

It is important for companies to understand that Wikipedia is not a social network, nor is it an extension of their corporate website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia run by volunteers, who are understandably proud of their work.

Lundquist, since it first launched in 2008, has come up with a set of guidelines to help companies understand the right procedures of engagement with the Wikipedia community, allowing those which meet Wikipedia’s eligibility criteria to contribute with transparency to the accuracy of corporate content in their company articles.

Andrea Zanni, President of Wikimedia Italia (the non-profit organization that operates and manages Wikipedia)

Lundquist Framework

1 > > >

DO NOT CONSIDER WIKIPEDIA A SUBSECTION OF THE CORPORATE WEBSITE

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia sustained by a community of volunteer editors whose goal is to bring educational content to the world Content is free for anyone to edit, use, modify and distribute (please note point 2 on conflict of interest)

2 > >

It is important to abide by the rules and learn how to interact with the community. Every article on Wikipedia has to be written from a neutral point of view. Do not look at it as a form of “promotion”

DISCLOSE YOUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Identify a representative who has to be clear about who she is and what she is aiming to do Register her conflict of interest via the community to ensure you are not violating the rules (“COI editing is strongly discouraged. It undermines the public’s confidence” source Wikipedia). All editing activity remains visible on the site, meaning violations are recorded permanently

Companies that are willing to correctly engage with the encyclopedia can transparently contribute in a beneficial way, starting from noncontroversial and objective information. They can then evolve into trustworthy and respectful members of the community. Daniele Righi, Head of the Wikipedia Research

3 >

>

WIKIPEDIA IS A WEBSITE, NOT YOURS, NOT ANYONE ELSE’S. THERE IS NO PRESS OFFICE NOR AN ARTICLE OWNER, SO ENGAGE FIRST Engage with Wikipedia editors in the “talk” pages first, to let them have their say about your proposals. Wikipedia is built upon the work of a community of editors who interact with each other as peers and strive for the perfect article. There are no undisputable experts on Wikipedia nor article owners nor managing editors, there are only conversations

4 > >

BRING VALUE TO WIKIPEDIA

Propose valuable, updated and sourced content Support the encyclopedia by helping to expand and improve articles, making sure to abide by the rules. This will help ensure it becomes a better, more reliable source of information, a win-win situation for both companies and Wikipedia

One in five company-related entries contains an alert, a message which signals an issue with the content on the page: this is a good starting point for a company to understand what the main issues are 9 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016

INSIGHT FROM WIKIMEDIA To understand how the Wikipedia community views companies acting as contributors, we contacted Wikimedia, the non-profit organization that operates and manages Wikipedia. Andrea Zanni, President of Wikimedia Italy, answered our questions

a. Dedicated company pages are often riddled with mistakes, yet they are well positioned on search engines: We noticed that some of the companies we analysed end up violating the rules when trying to intervene through their own accounts. What is your opinion on this? The Italian Wikipedia community [in line with the English one] has a specific policy formed of rules determined by the community that are pretty common sense and easy to follow. For the sake of convenience on both sides, it is worth a company following these rules, so as to ensure that data and information is reliable.

b. What are the most common errors that companies make? What should they avoid doing when approaching Wikipedia, even if it is just to signal an error? Can you provide some advice?

Another way of bringing value to the encyclopedia would be for companies to provide more information from the fountain of knowledge they possess. This would entail, for example, providing information on the market they operate in, other operators/products within this market, information on the supply chain and the history behind this market. The Wikipedia community also retains it important that a company share their knowledge with the encyclopedia, and do not use it as another marketing tool. One final truism: it is not a “right” to have a Wikipedia company page. It must be “encyclopedic”; however this does not apply to every company.

It is important for companies to understand that Wikipedia is not a social network, nor is it an extension of their corporate website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia run by volunteers, who are understandably proud of their work. It would be interesting to see companies also using the encyclopedia to go beyond proposing edits for articles about them, opening their archives and publishing digital materials that could have a historical significance, not just for the company itself, but also with regards to the historical period in which they were realized.


Country focus: SWITZERLAND

THE STATE OF PLAY BETWEEN THESTATE STATEOF OFPLAY PLAYBETWEEN BETWEEN THE WIKIPEDIA AND SWISS COMPANIES WIKIPEDIAAND ANDCOMPANIES COMPANIES WIKIPEDIA

Wikipedia articles on listed Swiss companies are far from exhaustive but the response of many businesses is wrong and risky, Lundquist’s Wikipedia Research 2015-2016 Wikipedia importantplayer playerwhen whenititcomes comestotoaacompany’s company’scorp cor Wikipedia isisananreveals. important Our analysis brings to light that four out of five of the companies that we found are engaging Wikipedia hasbeen beenweakening weakening over thelast laston years withthe thedecline declineofofediting editingf has over the years with have violated rules. This is counter-productive and should prompt a call for a renewed missing information. importantfor forcompanies companiestotoengage engageconstr cons missing information. ItItisiscommitment important in understanding how the free encyclopaedia works with thetoaim of contributing appropriately. toensure ensure information accurate. information isisaccurate. ACTIVE EDITORS MISSING “EVERYWHERE” Wikipedia relies on voluntary editors to update and improve content. The number of active Wikipedia editors, however, is decreasing. This means fewer eyes and hands to update and improve information, which for this reason, is prone to inaccuracy. As the European edition of the research reveals, active editors are decreasing within the English Wikipedia. This is also true, however, for both the French and the German Wikipedia, which are key for Swiss companies. It turns out their numbers are only a tiny percentage of registered users. As of February 2016 active editors in the Germanlanguage Wikipedia were 6,207 while in the Frenchlanguage Wikipedia these were 4,606, compared with more than 2 million registered users in both cases. There is roughly only 1 active editor for every 300 Wikipedia articles in German and more than 370 Wikipedia articles in French, meaning it’s a challenge to have reliable, updated articles on Swiss companies.

ARTICLES ABOUT COMPANIES: RESULTS REVEAL THE POOR QUALITY OF ARTICLES Based on our screening of 29 criteria for a comprehensive article, we found that articles about Swiss companies in English are poor, averaging less than half of the total score. This critical situation shows no improvement from last year. The body of the Wikipedia article is usually the least complete part, AMONG LISTED with almost 80% of the SWISS COMPANIES articles (dedicated to the ASSESSED, 3 DO NOT HAVE 48 listed Swiss companies ANY DEDICATED ARTICLE assessed), scoring below 50% of the available score. Three companies out of 48 do not even have a dedicated article. Thirty-six percent of articles about companies either do not present financial data or present outdated information, up from 24% in 2014. Furthermore, one in four articles shows an alert signaling an issue with the page (such as non-neutrality or lack of references meaning

48

4 5 out of

COMPANIES THAT WE FOUND ARE ENGAGING ON 1. DECREASING EDITORS WIKIPEDIA HAVE VIOLATED RULES 1.The DECREASING EDITORS article about One of the major trends to come out of the research this One the major comefollowed out of the this UBSof obtained thetrends overalltoscore by research the year is that Wikipedia seems to be weakening from year is that Wikipedia seems to best be weakening Roche and Nestlé articles. The improver from anediting editingstandpoint. standpoint.InInfact, fact,the thenumber numberofofactive active an article is the one dedicated to Kuehne + Nagel editors, who frequently edit and update information editors, frequentlyand editSwiss and update followedwho by Swisscom Life. information onthe theencyclopedia, encyclopedia,isisstarting startingtotodwindle. dwindle.Andrea Andrea on Zanni, president of Wikimedia Italia (the non-profit Zanni, president Wikimedia Italia (the non-profit SPOTTING THE “BADofGUYS”: organizationthat thatoperates operates organization DO SWISS COMPANIES BEHAVE ON WIKIPEDIA? andmanages managesWikipedia) Wikipedia) and Armed with the knowledge that the Wikipedia pages about explained to us thatthis this explained us that them are to inadequate and that Lorem the encyclopedia appears Lorem ipsumdolor dolor sit ipsum sit is because the community ishigh because the community in internet search results,amet, companies often succumb amet,consectetur consectetur isshifting shiftingtowards towards a more isto the temptation atomore edit articles about themselves. adipiscing elit,sed seddo do adipiscing elit, qualitative, opposed qualitative, asasopposed We easily uncovered by a simple check 19 company eiusmod tempor eiusmod tempor toquantitative quantitativeapproach. approach. to accounts,15 of which (79%) violate Wikipedia rules. et incididunt utlabore labore et incididunt ut Nevertheless,this thisaffects affects Nevertheless, This might involve choosing a promotional name or making dolore magna aliqua. dolore magna aliqua. many companyarticles articles many edits company directly, which can expose them to reputational whichare areeither eithermissing missing which Andrea Zanni consequences including negative media coverage. Andrea Zanni or presenting outdated or presenting outdated President WikimediaItalia Italia President ofofWikimedia corporateinformation information corporate Percentages are higher than in our European ranking: (suchasaskey keyfinancial financialdata, data, (such 33% of European companies have at least an account historical information historical oror rules (see page 6). and 64% information of these violate topmanagement). management). top the content is not verifiable as required by Wikipedia).

GETTING IT RIGHT Since research first launched WHATthe COMPANIES ARE DOING WRONG in 2008, 3.3.WHAT COMPANIES ARE DOING WRONG

Lundquist’s guidelines arethe helping companies Thistrend, trend,coupled coupled with factthat that companyarticles articleson on This with the fact company understand and implement the correct procedures Wikipediaare arehighly highlyexposed exposedon onsearch searchengines, engines,results resultsinin Wikipedia of engagement the Wikipedia This articles some companieswith intervening editcommunity. theircompany company some companies intervening totoedit their articles allows companies to contribute transparently in directly,without withoutunderstanding understandingthe therules rulesofofengagement engagement directly, improving their articles (see more page they 9). end up bywhich whichWikipedia Wikipedia operates. Oftenon times, by operates. Often times, they end up violatingthe therules, rules,which whichcan canexpose exposethem themtotoreputational reputational violating consequences,such suchasasnegative negative mediacoverage. coverage. consequences, UBSmedia

ROCHE

2

POORQUQ 2.2.POOR

Therese res The of the of the tot general generally 100FT50 FT5 100 20% e 20% ofofen the pag the page meaning meaning notver ve isisnot forth). F forth). Fu number number o relatede related decreas decrease bothobt ob both total sc total sco page sta page stat foll ItItisisfollo and BT and BT G

WHATCOC 4.4.WHAT

Lundqui Lundquis hascome com has underst understa Wikiped Wikipedi transpa transpare compan company

NESTLÉ

1

3

6th 6th

5

MOST VISITED SITEININ INITALY SWITZERLAND MOSTVISITED VISITEDSITE SITE ITALY MOST

PA (It


2/10 2/10

Swiss Edition

What we found out This page illustrates the main elements of a company Wikipedia article, along with some of the key research findings from the Swiss edition. This icon identifies a good article: complete, neutral, elegant, verifiable and illustrated.

Talk page: every substantial piece of content is discussed here. 13% of articles suffer from negative discussion. have outdated or no discussion at all (no one recently proposing or discussing improvements).

One in four articles

62%

has at least one alert which indicates an issue with the page

Article Talk

Read

Edit

An example is UBS’ article, which tops both the EU and Swiss ranking.

View history



Search


ALERT Editors can put an alert banner if an issue is spotted (such as promotional contents or lack of references).

INFOBOX On Wikipedia, basic information is provided in this small box called: infobox.

58% of articles

have at least an overview.

38% do not have this section updated.

69%

of articles do not present information on criticism and litigation.

22%

Only of articles present the name of Directors or Executives.


History section The history section is among the most prevalent in company articles. Historical information contributes to justify the Wikipedia eligibility of a company article.

Criticism & litigation Criticism & litigation is a key section as it contributes to the neutrality of the entire page. Here the best role for the company is to double check information.

Corporate Governance Information about Directors and Executives, which Wikipedia’s guidelines recommend, is less and less present on company articles.

Articles with missing or outdated financial figures are on the rise. (

27% in 2014, 36% in 2015)

4

Only companies analysed have updated content for all the sections analysed - such as financial figures and key people: ABB, Adecco, Nestlé and UBS.


PICTURES


fewer than 20 articles have 36% of 62% have sources more than 20 Only 1 article (the one about Straumann) has no references, meaning that content may be removed or considered not notable for the encyclopedia, therefore potentially removable. An alert dating back to 2007 at the top of the page asks for “additional citations for verification” (see the box “Alert” at the top of this page) In general, the more sources the better.


20%

Only of articles present more than 2 pictures.

Spotting “bad guys“: do Swiss companies behave on Wikipedia? Often companies intervene without understanding the rules of engagement by which Wikipedia operates. We uncovered many accounts attributable to more than 40% of the companies assessed, involved in the editing process.

> 11 companies assessed (24%) are on Wikipedia with an account (some have multiple accounts) containing only the name of the company, therefore they have violated the username policy of Wikipedia (which bans both usernames implying shared use and promotional ones).

> 14 company accounts (31%) have been admonished

These examples highlight how this can have a positive or negative impact with editors, and therefore on the article itself.

or blocked for having published promotional information.

WHAT SWISS COMPANIES DO WRONG Contravening neutrality rule Sgssm (editing exclusively the article about SGS) is an example of an account which was blocked from editing content on Wikipedia due to a conflict of interest. It has been identified by Wikipedia as an account set up for promotional purposes, which goes against Wikipedia’s neutrality rule.

Editing from a neutral point of view means “representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” See page “Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Neutral_ point_of_view).

As the Sgssm account was also notified about the inappropriateness of its name, the account owner tried to ask for a new one repeatedly, without proposing a feasible option. Each time, the name proposed related to the company or was misleading (see below). The username policy bans promotional names (e.g. the name of a company) or usernames implying shared use.


WHAT SWISS COMPANIES DO RIGHT How to introduce yourself correctly on Wikipedia User Fabienne Strobel working for Swiss Life is a good example of how individuals working for companies can introduce themselves on Wikipedia. The first step to being transparent is admitting a conflict of interest. See more on the importance of collaboration between companies and Wikipedia on page 10 and insights from Wikimedia on page 12.

WHAT COMPANIES IN GENERAL CAN DO BETTER Read and understand first The image below shows ABB introducing the corporate communication team appropriately. However, the account violates the Wikipedia username policy because it is a promotional name and implies shared use. If you are willing to contribute to Wikipedia, it is important to spend some time understanding rules and procedures first.

Read more on page 9 (“Getting it right”) about how to engage properly with the Wikipedia community to improve the entry on your company.


Country focus: ITALY

THE STATE STATEOF OFPLAY PLAYBETWEEN BETWEEN THE WIKIPEDIA AND AND ITALIAN COMPANIES WIKIPEDIA COMPANIES It’s tough going Wikipedia’s Italy’stotop 100 companies. Thereputation, Italian edition of internal the Lundquist Wikipedia is an for important playercoverage when it of comes a company’s corporate yet its mechanism Wikipedia Research 2015-2016 shortage of active editorsfrequency. and poor quality articles,company many “tainted” has been weakening over the lastreveals years awith the decline of editing Furthermore, articles are with alerts. This shouldIt be a wake-upfor callcompanies for both editors and constructively companies willing missing information. is important to engage with totheengage onlineappropriately. encyclopedia, in order to ensure information is accurate. WHO’S WATCHING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES? Wikipedia relies on voluntary editors to update and improve content. The number of active Wikipedia 1. DECREASING EDITORS editors, however, is decreasing. This means fewer One of the major trends to come out ofinformation, the research this eyes and hands to update and improve year is that Wikipedia seems to be weakening from which for this reason, is prone to inaccuracy. an editing standpoint. In fact, the number of active editors, whooffrequently edit and update The number active editors in Italy haveinformation been decreasing on the encyclopedia, is starting to dwindle. Andrea over the last three years. There were only 2,473 active Zanni, president of Wikimedia Italia (the non-profit editors in February 2016, only that of operates aorganization tiny percentage more and manages Wikipedia) than a million registered explained us that this LARGEST ITALIAN COMPANIES users. Thatto means there Lorem ipsum dolor sit is because the community ASSESSED is roughly only 1 active amet, consectetur is shifting towards a more editor for every 500 adipiscing elit, sed do qualitative, as opposed Wikipedia articles in Italian, meaning its atempor challenge eiusmod tohave quantitative to relaible,approach. updated articles on Italian companies incididunt ut labore et Nevertheless, this affects (see the English Wikipedia-related data on page 4). dolore magna aliqua. many company articles which are either missingISSUES ARE FAR FROM BEING SOLVED ARTICLES ABOUT COMPANIES: Andrea Zanni or presenting outdated President of Wikimedia Italia corporate information Based on our screening of 29 criteria for a comprehensive (such aswe key financial data, about companies in Italian article, found that articles historical information are poor, averaging lessorthan half of the total score. This top management). critical situation shows no improvement from last year.

100

The body of the Wikipedia article is usually the least 3. WHAT COMPANIES ARE DOING WRONG complete part, with more than 70%that of the articles in This trend, coupled with the fact company articles on Italian (dedicated to the 100 largest Italian companies) Wikipedia are highly exposed on search engines, results in scoring below 50%intervening of the available score. some companies to edit their Thirty-nine company articles percent of articles show an alert signaling issue with directly, without understanding the rules of an engagement the page (such as non-neutrality or lack of references, by which Wikipedia operates. Often times, they end up meaning is notcan verifiable required by violatingthe thecontent rules, which exposeas them to reputational Wikipedia). Seventy-five percent of articles about consequences, such as negative media coverage. companies that had at least one alert last year, still have one, meaning that the issue has not been dealt with.

The article about Telecom Italia obtained the top score followed by Eni and Intesa Sanpaolo. The best improver article is the one dedicated to 2.Mediobanca POOR QUALITY followed OF COMPANY byPAGES Moncler and UBI Banca. The research results reveal that companies averaged 65% ofAVOID the total score (25 points). However, the content part is THE DO-IT-YOURSELF APPROACH generally the the lessknowledge complete section, half ofpages the top Armed with that thewith Wikipedia about 100 FT500 related articles scoring belowappears 50%. them are company inadequate and that the encyclopedia 20% ofinentries show an alert, which signals an issue with high internet search results, companies often succumb the (such as: lack of neutrality, lack themselves. of references to page the temptation to edit articles about meaning that the content We easily uncovered by a simple check 30 company LOREM IPSUMrules. DOLOR isaccounts, not verifiable so (67%) violate Wikipedia 20 ofand which SIT AMET, CONSECTETUR forth). Furthermore, the This might involve choosing a promotional name or making ELIT, SED DO number of company edits directly, which can expose them toADIPISCING reputational

20%

related entries has consequences including negative media coverage. LOREM IPSUM DOLOR decreased by 27%. UBS has SIT AMET, CONSECTETUR both obtained GETTING IT RIGHT90% of the ADIPISCING ELIT, SED DO total and the quality Sincescore the research first launched in 2008, Lundquist’s page status by guidelines areWikipedia. helping companies understand and DOLOR LOREM IPSUM Itimplement is followedthe by BP (88%)procedures of engagement SIT AMET, CONSECTETUR correct with the ADIPISCING ELIT, SED DO and BT Group (86%). Wikipedia community. This allows companies to contribute

65% 27%

transparently to improving their article (see more on page 9).

39%

OF ARTICLES HAVE ALERTS

4. WHAT COMPANIES CAN DO Lundquist, since the research first launched in 2008, has come up with a set of guidelines to help companies TELECOM understand the right procedures of engagement with the ITALIA Wikipedia community, allowing them to contribute with INTESA transparency to the content in their ENI accuracy of corporate company article. SANPAOLO

2

6th

1

550+ million

MOST VISITED SITE IN ITALY

PAGEVIEWS EACH MONTH (Italian Wikipedia)

15 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016 2/10

3

Italian Edition

What we found out This page illustrates the main elements of a company Wikipedia article, along with some of the key research findings from the Italian edition. This icon identifies a good article: complete, neutral, elegant, verifiable and illustrated.

Talk page: every substantial piece of content is discussed here. 13% of articles suffer from negative discussion. have no discussion at all (no one proposing or discussing improvements): these entries have a very low score, meaning they need attention.

25%

Almost half of the articles have at least an alert which indicates an issue with the page

Article Talk

Read

Edit

An example is UBS’ article, which tops the EU ranking. Our study reveals that there are no “good articles” among the 100 largest Italian companies.

View history

Search


ALERT Editors can put an alert banner if an issue is spotted (such as promotional contents or lack of references).

INFOBOX On Wikipedia, basic information is provided in this small box called: infobox.

72% of articles

have at least an overview.

55%

However, do not have this section updated.

85%

of articles do not present information on criticism and litigation.

4


History section The history section is among the most prevalent in company articles. Historical information contributes to justify the Wikipedia eligibility of a company article.

Criticism & litigation Criticism & litigation-related information contributes to the neutrality of the entire page. Here the best role for the company is to double check information.

34%

44%

Articles with missing or outdated financial figures are on the rise. (

Corporate Governance In 2015, of articles presented the name of their Directors or Executives, down from in 2014.

Only articles obtained full score for all the sections analysed - such as financial figures and key people: Enel, Eni, Mediobanca and Telecom Italia.

30% in 2014, 52% in 2015)

Information about Directors and Executives, which Wikipedia’s guidelines recommend, is less and less present on company articles.


sources 68% 20or less

articles have 27% of more than 20.

5% have no references meaning that content may

be removed or considered ineligible for the encyclopedia, therefore potentially removable. In general, the more sources the better.


PICTURES


25%

Only of articles present more than 2 pictures.

Avoid the do-it-yourself approach Often companies intervene without understanding the rules of engagement by which Wikipedia operates. We uncovered many accounts attributable to 30% of the companies assessed, involved in the editing process.

> 12 of the companies assessed are on Wikipedia with an account (some have multiple accounts) containing only the name of the company, therefore they have violated the username policy of Wikipedia (which bans both usernames implying shared use and promotional ones).

> 18 company accounts have been admonished

These examples highlight how this can have a positive or negative impact with editors, and therefore on the article itself.

or blocked for having published promotional information.

> 9 company accounts use the correct approach. WHAT COMPANIES DO WRONG Contravening neutrality rule The image below shows a warning addressed to ENAV’s company fans or employees who had been admonished for having tried to add promotional content to the article. Remember that content on Wikipedia should be written from a neutral point of view.

Editing from a neutral point means “representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” See page “Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_ point_of_view).

Below is an example of how a company should not engage on Wikipedia. The A2A press office stepped into the discussion without taking into account what other editors were discussing before and, more importantly, was willing to edit the article without asking for any advice from other editors. The company had a direct conflict of interest when dealing with self-related content. Wikipedia requires companies not to intervene directly in order to preserve the neutrality of the encyclopedia.


WHAT COMPANIES ARE DOING RIGHT How to introduce yourself correctly on Wikipedia User Aski72 working for Telecom Italia, Alessandra Bardo working for Terna and Antonio Ambrosio working for Pirelli are good examples of how individuals working for companies can introduce themselves on Wikipedia. The first step to being transparent is admitting a conflict of interest. See more on the importance of collaboration between companies and Wikipedia on page 8 and insights from Wikimedia on page 10

Read more on page 9 (“Getting it right”) about how to engage properly with the Wikipedia community to improve the entry on your company.


LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH 2015 - 2016 EUROPE 100

LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH 2015 – EUROPE 100 Position 2015

Company name

Country

Score 2015 (max 25)

1

UBS

Switzerland

90.0%

2

BP

UK

88.0%

3

BT Group

UK

86.0%

3

Enel

Italy

86.0%

5

Airbus

France

85.0%

6

Daimler

Germany

84.0%

6

Deutsche Bank

Germany

84.0%

6

Vodafone Group

UK

84.0%

9

Danone

France

83.0%

9

Gazprom

Russia

83.0%

NEW

9

Luxottica

Italy

83.0%

NEW

12

Volkswagen

Germany

80.0%

13

Statoil

Norway

79.2%

14

Siemens

Germany

78.8%

15

Rio Tinto

UK

78.4%

16

Barclays

UK

78.0%

16

Heineken

Netherlands

78.0%

16

Intesa Sanpaolo

Italy

78.0%

16

Royal Dutch Shell

UK

78.0%

20

Telefónica

Germany

77.2%

21

Eni

Italy

76.2%

21

L'Oréal

France

76.2%

21

Orange

France

76.2%

24

Société Générale

France

76.0%

24

Total

France

76.0%

26

BASF

Germany

75.0%

27

Syngenta

Switzerland

74.4%

28

Nestlé

Switzerland

74.0%

28

Royal Bank Of Scotland

UK

74.0%

30

BNP Paribas

France

73.8%

31

Credit Suisse Group

Switzerland

73.2%

32

Ericsson

Sweden

72.0%

32

Lloyds Banking Group

UK

72.0%

32

Unilever

Netherlands

72.0%

35

Maersk Group

Denmark

71.4%

35

Reckitt Benckiser

UK

71.4%

37

GlaxoSmithKline

UK

71.0%

37

SABMiller

UK

71.0%


Score difference compared to 2014

Position 2015

Company name

Country

Score 2015 (max 25)

39

H&M

Sweden

70.8%

40

Allianz

Germany

70.0%

40

AstraZeneca

UK

70.0%

40

BHP Billiton

UK

70.0%

40

BMW

Germany

70.0%

40

HSBC

UK

70.0%

45

EDF

France

69.8%

46

Diageo

UK

69.0%

46

Roche

Switzerland

69.0%

48

RELX Group

UK

68.0%

49

BG Group

UK

67.0%

49

British American Tobacco

UK

67.0%

51

ING

Netherlands

66.2%

52

Prudential

UK

66.0%

52

SAP

Germany

66.0%

54

AXA

France

65.8%

55

Imperial Tobacco

UK

65.0%

55

Shire

UK

65.0%

57

ABB

Switzerland

64.2%

58

Henkel

Germany

63.0%

58

Standard Chartered

UK

63.0%

58

Telenor

Norway

63.0%

61

Engie

France

62.8%

62

Glencore

UK

62.0%

63

Associated British Foods

UK

60.0%

64

LVMH

France

59.4%

64

Sanofi

France

59.4%

66

Bayer

Germany

59.2%

66

Novartis

Switzerland

59.2%

68

Santander

Spain

59.0%

69

Anheuser-Busch InBev

Belgium

58.0%

70

Munich Re

Germany

57.0%

70

National Grid

UK

57.0%

72

Nordea

Sweden

56.0%

72

Richemont

Switzerland

56.0%

74

Christian Dior

France

55.8%

75

Rosneft

Russia

55.4%

NEW

76

Continental

Germany

54.4%

NEW

77

Inditex

Spain

54.2%

78

Zurich Insurance Group

Switzerland

53.8%

79

Hermes International

France

53.2%

79

Swiss Re

Switzerland

53.2%



NEW

NEW

NEW

Position 2015

Company name

Country

Score 2015 (max 25)

81

Atlas Copco

Sweden

53.0%

81

Swisscom

Switzerland

53.0%

NEW

83

Vinci

France

52.8%

NEW

84

Generali Group

Italy

51.2%

84

Crédit Agricole

France

51.2%

84

Deutsche Telekom

Germany

51.2%

87

Lukoil

Russia

50.8%

88

Novo Nordisk

Denmark

50.2%

88

Vivendi

France

50.2%

90

Iberdrola

Spain

49.2%

91

Linde

Germany

49.0%

92

Pernod Ricard

France

48.8%

93

UniCredit

Italy

47.8%

94

ASML Holding

Netherlands

46.0%

95

Deutsche Post

Germany

45.0%

96

Air Liquide

France

43.8%

97

BBVA

Spain

42.2%

98

Schneider Electric

France

39.0%

99

Investor

Sweden

37.8%

NEW

100

Fresenius

Germany

35.8%

NEW

To be noted: Only articles about companies in English have been evaluated



NEW NEW

LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH 2015 - 2016 LISTED SWISS COMPANIES


Company name

Score 2015 (max 25)

1

UBS

92.0%

2

Roche

73.0%

3

Nestlé

72.0%

4

Credit Suisse Group

71.2%

5

Syngenta

68.4%

6

ams

68.0%

7

Kuehne + Nagel

67.2%

8

Logitech

66.4%

9

ABB

64.0%

10

Swiss Life

63.0%

11

Swisscom

61.0%

11

Novartis

61.0%

13

Richemont

60.0%

14

Zurich Insurance Group

58.8%

15

Swiss Re

56.8%

16

Lindt & Sprüngli

52.0%

16

Schindler Group

52.0%

18

Transocean

48.0%

18

Sika

48.0%

20

Oerlikon

46.0%

20

Swatch group

46.0%

22

Geberit

45.0%

23

LafargeHolcim

43.0%

23

Givaudan

43.0%

25

SGS

41.0%

26

Julius Baer

39.2%

27

Sulzer

38.4%

28

Helvetia

36.4%

29

Adecco

36.0%

30

Barry callebaut

35.4%

31

Clariant

35.0%

32

Partners Group

33.0%

33

Baloise

32.8%

34

ARYZTA

31.4%

35

Dufry

30.4%

36

GF (Georg Fischer)

29.6%

37

Straumann

29.4%



NEW

NEW

Position 2015

Company name

Score 2015 (max 25)

38

Lonza

29.2%

39

Actelion

27.8%

40

Sonova

27.0%

41

Temenos

26.4%

42

DKSH

26.0%

43

GAM

21.6%

44

Sunrise

20.4%

45

Ems-Chemie

10.0%

46

Galenica

0.0%

non existent

46

PSP Swiss Property

0.0%

non existent

46

Swiss Prime Site

0.0%

non existent

To be noted: Only articles about companies in English have been evaluated



NEW

LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH 2015 - 2016 ITALY 100


Company name

Score 2015 (max 25)

1

Telecom Italia

94.0%

2

Eni

84.0%

3

Intesa Sanpaolo

82.8%

4

Rai

80.2%

5

Edison

78.0%

6

Mediaset

77.0%

7

Enel

74.0%

8

ENAV

73.7%

9

Poste Italiane

73.2%

10

Banca Popolare di Milano

72.8%

11

Mondadori

72.0%

12

Ansaldo STS

70.0%

13

Ferrovie dello Stato

69.7%

14

Rcs MediaGroup

67.8%

15

Terna

67.0%

16

Salini Impregilo

65.0%

17

Banca Monte dei Paschi Siena

64.4%

18

Finmeccanica

64.0%

18

Mediobanca

64.0%

20

Alitalia

61.6%

21

Coop Italia

60.0%

22

Anas

59.6%

23

Pirelli

59.2%

24

UniCredit

58.0%

25

Saipem

57.4%

26

Ferrari

56.8%

27

Snam

56.0%

27

UBI Banca

56.0%

29

Esselunga

54.5%

30

Hera

53.0%

31

Davide Campari

52.8%

32

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA)

52.0%

33

Wind

51.5%

34

Autogrill

51.4%

34

Luxottica

51.4%

34

Parmalat

51.4%

37

Marcegaglia

50.5%



NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

Position 2015

Company name

Score 2015 (max 25)


41 38

OVS Sky Italia

49.4% 50.3%

NEW

42 39

Atlantia EXOR

49.2% 50.0%

NEW

43 39

ERG Moncler

49.0% 50.0%

44 41

Ferrero OVS

48.4% 49.4%

44 42

Reale Mutua Atlantia

48.4% 49.2%

51 43

STMicroelectronics ERG

46.0% 49.0%

46 44

Italcementi Ferrero

47.8% 48.9%

47 44

ILVA Reale Mutua

47.0% 48.9%

47 46

Prysmian Italcementi

47.0% 47.8%

47

SACE ILVA

47.0% 47.5%

50 47

Barilla SACE

46.4% 47.5%

52 49

Dolce & Gabbana Prysmian

45.0% 47.0%

53 50

Generali Barilla

43.4% 46.9%

54 51

CNH Industrial STMicroelectronics

43.0% 46.0%

NEW

54 52

Eataly Dolce e Gabbana

43.0% 45.5%

NEW

54 53

Illy Eataly

43.0% 43.43%

NEW

54 53

Unipol Gruppo Finanziario Illy

43.0% 43.43%

58 55

Versace Generali

42.4% 43.40%

NEW

59 56

Enel Power CNH Green Industrial

42.0% 43.0%

NEW

60 56

Armani Unipol Gruppo Finanziario

41.8% 43.0%

60 58

Yoox Net-A-Porter Group Versace

41.8% 42.8%

62 59

Brembo Armani

40.0% 42.2%

62 60

SIA Enel Green Power

40.0% 42.0%

64 61

Avio Yoox Net-A-Porter

39.4% 41.8%

65 62

Banca SIA IFIS

39.0% 40.4%

66 63

Piaggio BremboGroup

38.0% 40.0%

67 64

Menarini Group Avio

37.4% 39.8%

68 65

DiaSorin Banca IFIS

37.0% 39.0%

NEW

68 66

Moleskine Piaggio

37.0% 38.0%

NEW

70 67

Astaldi Menarini

36.8% 37.8%

71 68

Banca Popolare di Vicenza DiaSorin

36.0% 37.0%

NEW

72 68

Bracco Moleskine

35.4% 37.0%

NEW

73 70

Banca AstaldiGenerali

35.0% 36.8%

74 71

Perfetti Van Melle Banca Popolare di Vicenza

34.4% 36.4%

NEW

75 72

Safilo Bracco

33.8% 35.8%

NEW

76 73

Acea Banca Generali

33.4% 35.0%

77 74

A2A Perfetti Van Melle

32.8% 34.7%

77 75

Mapei Safilo

32.8% 33.8%

79 76

GSE Acea

32.4% 33.4%

80 77

Granarolo Mapei

32.2% 33.1%

NEW

81 78

Lavazza A2A

31.8% 32.8%

NEW

82 79

Salvatore Ferragamo GSE

30.8% 32.7%

83

BNL

30.0%


NEW

NEW NEW NEW

NEW NEW NEW

NEW

Position 2015

Company name

Score 2015 (max 25)


80 41

Granarolo OVS

32.5% 49.4%

NEW

81 42

Lavazza Atlantia

32.1% 49.2%

NEW

82 43

Salvatore Ferragamo ERG

30.8% 49.0%

83 44

BNL Ferrero

30.3% 48.4%

83 44

Calzedonia Reale Mutua

30.3% 48.4%

NEW

85 51

Artsana STMicroelectronics

30.1% 46.0%

NEW

86 46

Amplifon Italcementi

29.4% 47.8%

86 47

Maire ILVA Tecnimont

29.4% 47.0%

88 47

Gruppo Prysmianapi

28.7% 47.0%

89 47

UnipolSai Assicurazioni SACE

28.0% 47.0%

90 50

Reply Barilla

27.4% 46.4%

NEW

91 52

Birra DolcePeroni & Gabbana

27.3% 45.0%

NEW

92 53

Banco Popolare Generali

27.0% 43.4%

93 54

Tenaris CNH Industrial

24.8% 43.0%

NEW

94 54

Banca Eataly Mediolanum

23.0% 43.0%

NEW

95 54

Azimut Holding Illy

22.8% 43.0%

96 54

Veneto Banca Finanziario Unipol Gruppo

22.2% 43.0%

NEW

97 58

Technogym Versace

21.6% 42.4%

NEW NEW

98 59

Sisal Enel Green Power

21.2% 42.0%

99 60

Datalogic Armani

20.8% 41.8%

100 60

Brunello Cucinelli Group Yoox Net-A-Porter

17.0% 41.8%

62 Brembo 40.0% To be noted: Only articles about companies in Italian have been evaluated 62 SIA 40.0%

NEW NEW

NEW

NEW

64

Avio

39.4%

65

Banca IFIS

39.0%

66

Piaggio Group

38.0%

67

Menarini Group

37.4%

68

DiaSorin

37.0%

68

Moleskine

37.0%

70

Astaldi

36.8%

71

Banca Popolare di Vicenza

36.0%

NEW

72

Bracco

35.4%

NEW

73

Banca Generali

35.0%

74

Perfetti Van Melle

34.4%

75

Safilo

33.8%

76

Acea

33.4%

77

A2A

32.8%

77

Mapei

32.8%

79

GSE

32.4%

80

Granarolo

32.2%

NEW

81

Lavazza

31.8%

NEW

82

Salvatore Ferragamo

30.8%

83

BNL

30.0%


NEW

NEW

NEW

HOW WE CONDUCTED THE RESEARCH Lundquist tracks how well Wikipedia presents major corporations as part of its research into online corporate information since 2008. In the 2015 - 2016 edition, the Wikipedia research evaluated the English-language articles of the 100 largest European companies (based on the FT500 index), the English-language articles of the 48 listed Swiss companies and the Italianlanguage articles of the largest 100 Italian companies. Evaluations were conducted respectively in September 2015, January 2016 and November 2015. A four-part protocol of 29 criteria is used to allocate a maximum of 25 points for each Wikipedia article assessed. The criteria covers both article content and presentation. Verifying the accuracy of information in the Wikipedia articles was beyond the scope of the research. This year the protocol has been revised and extended to evaluate the way editors interact “behind the scenes” of every article. In selecting criteria we took into consideration content guidelines suggested by Wikipedia.

THE PROTOCOL IS STRUCTURED AS FOLLOWS

Infobox

Page features

7th

The first part of the protocol examines the content of the infobox, located on the right-hand side of a MOST VISITED SITE ON THEsuch WEB as Wikipedia company article. It covers information the year of foundation, corporate logo, headquarters, financial figures, number of employees, and industry.

Page sections

7th

7th

7th 60%

The second section looks at a range of features such as categories that improve navigation through the MOST SITE ONallow THE WEB OF THEVISITED TIMEwhich PAGEVIEWS EACH MONTH encyclopedia, pictures and references WIKIPEDIA RESULTS RANK (English usersWikipedia) to verify information in the Wikipedia article. IN THE FIRST PAGE OF GOOGLE

Conversations & acknowledgements

The third part evaluates the information in the main body of the Wikipedia entry. The protocol takes into account MOST VISITED SITE ON to THEbusiness, WEB many different themes, from company history information on directors and executives, to criticism.

Penalty point

7+ billion 7+ billion

7th 60%

This year a new section was added that is dedicated to how Wikipedia actually takes shape and to how entries MOST THE WEB OF THEVISITED TIME SITE PAGEVIEWS EACH MONTH are judged by the Wikipedia community. TheONresearch WIKIPEDIA RESULTS RANKthe (English Wikipedia) looked at the conversations taking place around IN THE FIRST PAGE OF GOOGLE entries. Every Wikipedia page has a talk page where editors can ask questions or discuss content to add, issues and controversial contents. This is where a better understanding can be reached on how the entry is evolving and who is involved in the editing process. A further point was assigned to entries whose quality was acknowledged by the Wikipedia community.

7+ billion

60%

In the latest version of the protocol up to 1.6 points can be deducted from the final score: 0.1 in the first section for entries that do not present updated information; 0.5 in the third section for entries showing an alert banner that signals an issue; -1 MOST VISITED ONpages. THE WEB OF THE TIME PAGEVIEWS EACH MONTH when there is a negative discussion in theSITE talk WIKIPEDIA RESULTS RANK (English Wikipedia) IN THE FIRST PAGE OF GOOGLE


7+ b

PAGEVIEWS (English Wi

7+ b

PAGEVIEWS (English Wi

HOW WE CAN HELP

ASSESSMENT, REPORT & TRAINING We can support you:

• • • • •

Access to our knowledge base including our protocol (with criteria) and best practices A tailored analysis focused on the article about your company, including strengths and weaknesses (if the article already exists) A feasibility analysis for a brand new stand-alone article (if the article does not exist) Training on how to engage correctly and transparently with the Wikipedia community Suggestions on updates, integration, and materials

We are candid in the advice we provide, and will suggest, if needed, to abstain from Wikipedia if certain activities do not comply with its rules.

For more information and to order a report, please contact:

DANIELE RIGHI

JOAKIM LUNDQUIST

Head of the Lundquist Wikipedia Research [email protected]

Founder of Lundquist [email protected]

Lundquist is a strategic consultancy specialised in digital corporate communications. We help our clients plan and build successful corporate websites that respond to the most demanding corporate audiences. Our method: Measure. Manage. Change We measure the effectiveness of digital communications in order to guide our clients towards a change in their internal culture. With this approach we are able to help you at every stage of your digital journey.
