Is this Wikigate?
We recently posted a company profile on Wikipedia that was removed yesterday after this article appeared in MarketingSherpa. How to use Wikipedia for Lead Gen - 6 Steps to 18% Higher Conversion Rates.
Prior to the appearance of the MarketingSherpa piece, our company profile was approved by Wikipedia editors because it was straightforward content including descriptions of our product line, technology and company. We adhered to the guidelines. No hyperbole. No false claims. No competitive superiority boasts.
The listing was no different from these company descriptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Apart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlassian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook
You can decide for yourselves. Here's a screengrab of our posting.
On our associated product category pages we even included our competitors.
Wikipedia is theoretically about respect for expertise, openness and integrity.Who knows more about the company, its technology, associated products and applications than the people who live and breathe it every day. The irony is that Attensa has its listings removed through the actions of one individual because we were transparent and telling the truth about the process.
We simply told the truth in a discussion with MarketingSherpa about how we worked with the Anvil Media team to list Attensa on Wikipedia and what happened as a result.
The reality is that Wikipedia has countless company product and other commercial listings. There are even listings describing upcoming movie releases. These are posted on Wikipedia for a simple reason - Discoverability. Believe it our not, people looking for information find these commercial content listings useful, as evidenced by the results of our case study.
I'm not sure I understand how a self-appointed truthiness hit squad make up of one self-described "notorious Wikipedia troll" has the power to determine what gets listed on Wikipedia and what doesn't. There's not much transparency there.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Comments (3)
The Attensa Wikipedia articles looked no different than any other Wikipedia article on a business; providing unbiased, relevant information to users. Furthermore, I also noticed that the "trolls" deleted the Web Feed Server article, that had 1,393 views last month. Apparently they don't believe Enterprise RSS to be a real industry or are simply acting as the gate keepers to information - which I might add, goes against their own guidelines. Wikipedia is no longer a wiki, but a blog with a few elite authors.
I’m sorry about the role I played in expediting the removal of your firm’s content from Wikipedia; but believe me, had I sat on my hands, mouth shut, the exact same fate was facing you within the next 24 hours. I am banned from Wikipedia -- how did *I* remove your content? No, the person you really need to be miffed about is User:JzG on Wikipedia. He's the wrecking ball, and he wrecked my side-venture, as well. Attensa on Wikipedia was done in by the very same person who did in my company, MyWikiBiz. JzG is also Jimmy Wales' proxy when an article like "Rachel Marsden" needs fixing before Jimmy goes to have sex with her in a hotel room.
Please, I don't need a lecture about transparency. I'm on YOUR side!
You and your readers should visit WikipediaReview.com, where we’ve been exposing for years the hypocrisy of Wikipedia rule sets and their de facto policy of “truth and openness gets you banned”. It really does need to stop, but I’m not exactly sure Wikipedia CAN be changed. It is truly a massive, multi-player defamation board, disguised as an encyclopedia.
Last month, I ran for the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees seat that was open. Over 120 Wikipedia editors ranked me #1 out of a roster of 15 candidates. About 450 ranked me as one of their top 3 choices. I still came in last place.
Wikipedia culture has a systemic violation of their own “neutral point of view” policy. That is, the one point of view they will not tolerate is the thoughtful, reasoned, commercial/paid point of view!
Another sub-policy underlying all Wikipedia rules: Jimmy Wales is the only person entitled to make money off of Wikipedia.
The sooner the world realizes this complete hypocrisy within Wikipedia, the sooner we’ll figure out new ways to subvert it.
I wish you and your company the best of luck in rebounding from this very predictable setback.
Attensa is the not the only one faced these kind of problems. Many people previously complained about the lack of transparency in Wikipedia's editorial filtering.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
