How many small companies are mentioned by reputable news sources?

But if they [a notable company] are mentioned by a reliable third party, I think a page on Wikipedia is a great idea. Reliable citations are what makes Wikipedia great; fluff detracts from it.

I would really like to think that this isn’t impossible.

I can’t help but think it’s more than a little ironic that there is a lot of encouragement for companies to become more transparent and engaged in online communities, but any information they’re willing to share about their organization is automatically suspect.

It’s my understanding that bias is a human affliction, not one that comes about as a result of engaging in any specific professional activity.

If I promise to play by the rules in producing objective and informative content, why can’t I be part of the community, too?

The reason why Wikipedia ranks so high is it’s goal for neutrality – and by definition, someone who works for the PR company or group that represents that company is not perceived as neutral in any way, despite what you think your writing skills might be.

As a representative of a company, you (as decided clearly by the Wikipedia community in almost every occasion) as a rep cannot be a good arbiter or decision maker around what is noteworthy to the public, what is unwarranted criticism, etc. The goal of Wikipedia is that the public and the community makes those decisions, not the companies.

There is a strong process spelled out as to what your role is on Wikipedia and the path PR and company representatives should take.

If you don’t follow that path, you risk ending up with a very large PR problem on your hands, and in fact can do damage to your client’s brand (and your other clients by guilt through association) by creating a strong backlash since you disrespected the community.

Maybe I should rephrase my question(s):
If I create a Wikipedia entry that meets *all* the guidelines of notability, objectivity and chock full of factual information from secondary source citations, why does it matter what I happen to do for a living?

Why does my job supposedly make me unfit for participation in this “community” if the content I contribute fits the bill?

Isn’t quality content that conforms with the style guidelines that Wikipedia has established what matters most?

You linked to specific guidelines in your post that Wikipedia sets, and editing your own entry is a last step and only in cases of obvious libel or unsourced attacks. They specifically say to go to the talk page then the noticeboard FIRST. That’s their specific policy, and one violates it risking the shunning of the community.

One of the top tenets of social communities is that if you’re going to be part of it, you must respect the communities’ procedure.

Although your client may have expectations, it’s not their place to edit what are, in spirit, authoritative works. Coca-cola doesn’t write the encyclopedia article on themselves.

I know quite a few people in the Wikipedia community who edit entries who find PR people editing said entries offensive and summarily delete the changes or revert them.

Look at it this way – you create a wikipedia entry for a company, and then the editors delete it for “not being notable,” and sometimes will just delete immediately it if they can tell if it’s self-created. I’d say that would be a negative experience for a client.

Agreed with Chris – a Wikipedia entry is a result of good PR, and should not be part of a “strategy.”

Wiki guidlines: “information that is included [in an entry] must have been published by someone other than yourself (or your company).”

So filling your entry with “unbias” information can be tricky especially if it is a lesser known entity.

My opinion is that a wiki entry should be a result of good PR rather then a method.

If you respect the community, set up an account and say why you are doing what you are doing … you should be fine.

Unfortunately, most people in PR are as subtle as a freakin’ brick and have no clue how to write well to begin with, let alone how to write well and be transparent and not spin.