the vast majority of company Wikipedia pages, Lundquist has refined a set ..... Facebook page, was seen as an approach â
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
3 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
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
4 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
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.
5 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
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.”
6 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
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.
7 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
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
8 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
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.
10 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
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
11 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
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
COMPANY NAME From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
PAGE SECTION Here is where companies’ related contents are.
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.
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.
PICTURES
Providing pictures is an opportunity for companies to bring value to Wikipedia, starting on their path to becoming good Wikipedia contributors.
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.
12 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
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.
13 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
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.
14 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
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
COMPANY NAME From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
PAGE SECTION Here is where companies’ related contents are.
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.
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.
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.
16 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
PICTURES
Providing pictures is an opportunity for companies to bring value to Wikipedia, starting on their path to becoming good Wikipedia contributors.
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.
17 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
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.
18 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
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%
19 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
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%
20 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
Score difference compared to 2014
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
21 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
Score difference compared to 2014
NEW NEW
LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH 2015 - 2016 LISTED SWISS COMPANIES
LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH 2015 – EUROPE 100 Position 2015
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%
22 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
Score difference compared to 2014
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
23 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
Score difference compared to 2014
NEW
LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH 2015 - 2016 ITALY 100
LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH 2015 – EUROPE 100 Position 2015
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%
24 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
Score difference compared to 2014
NEW
NEW
NEW
NEW
NEW
Position 2015
Company name
Score 2015 (max 25)
Score difference compared to 2014
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%
25 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
NEW
NEW NEW NEW
NEW NEW NEW
NEW
Position 2015
Company name
Score 2015 (max 25)
Score difference compared to 2014
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%
26 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
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
27 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016
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.
28 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016