Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2017. Since 2008 COMPANIES ......COMPANIES AND WIKIPEDIA: FRIEND OR FOE? ... DANIELE RIGHI Head of the Lundquist Wikipedia Research [email protected]

1 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015

Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2017. Since 2008

COMPANIES AND WIKIPEDIA:FRIEND OR FOE?

Wikipedia is the fifth 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, the 100 largest in Italy, the 30 German companies included in the DAX 30 index and the 48 largest in Switzerland often lack information and present critical issues. 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. However, any company that does so runs the risk of violating Wikipedia’s rules, therefore creating a hostile environment.The potential resulting reputational backlash would be enormous.

Since the first edition in 2008 our research revealed the low quality of the vast majority of company Wikipedia pages. For this reason, Lundquist has refined a set of tested guidelines, in order to help companies to safely approach the free encyclopedia as well as engage with its 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 Wikipedia article is a win for both the encyclopedia and companies.

In this report: European, Italian, German and Swiss editions (Updated in May 2017)

2 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016

2008 - 2017Years running

65% Europeanaverage score

58% Germanaverage score

29Criteria

4Parts of the protocol:Infobox, Features,Sections, Conversation& Acknowledgements

25Maximum score

43% Swissaverage score

47% Italianaverage score

LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCHAs part of its research into online corporate information, the Lundquist Wikipedia Research covers the article content of major corporations.

The latest research programmes look at:• Wikipedia’s English language coverage of Europe’s top

largest 100 companies (based on the FT500 index)• The Italian language coverage of Italy’s top 100

companies• The English language coverage of the German DAX 30• The English language coverage of 48 Swiss listed

companies

CONTENTS

THE STATE OF PLAY BETWEEN WIKIPEDIA AND COMPANIES European Edition

1. Calling all editors 2. What we found out 3. Beware of the quick fix 4. Getting it right INSIGHT FROM WIKIMEDIA

COUNTRY FOCUSItaly

Germany

Switzerland

HOW WE CONDUCTEDTHE RESEARCH

HOW WE CAN HELP & CONTACTS

RESEARCH FAST FACTS

p. 4

p. 5

p. 6

p. 9

p. 32

p. 33

p. 14

p. 21

p. 10

p. 3

For more information and to order a report please contact:

p. 26

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


MOST VISITED SITE ON THE WEB

5thPAGEVIEWS EACH MONTH(English Wikipedia)

8+ billionOF THE TIMEWIKIPEDIA RESULTS RANKIN THE FIRST PAGE OF GOOGLE

60%

1/5 VIOLATEWIKIPEDIA RULES

DECREASE INFINANCIAL FIGURES

EUROPEAN COMPANIESASSESSED

-27%

100

12 3

1. CALLING ALL EDITORSThe 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.

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 revealed that companies averaged 65% of the total score, compared with 66% in the last edition of the research.

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.

THE STATE OF PLAY BETWEENWIKIPEDIA 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.

3. BEWARE OF THE QUICK FIXOften 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.

4. GETTING IT RIGHT 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 LundquistUBS

BP BT GROUPENEL


50.000

45.000

40.000

35.000

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

0

Despite the visibility afforded to company articles on Wikipedia, corporate related contents on the encyclopedia are suffering. In fact, our research show that, for instance, the number of company entries with updated financial figures decreased by 27% since 2014.

Active editors (5+ edits)Very active editors (100+ edits)

2016

1. Calling all editors

DECREASING NUMBER OF ACTIVE AND VERY ACTIVE EDITORSON THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA

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 there were only 3,367 in February 2017. Very active editors make up 0.01% of Wikipedia’s almost 31 million registered users (some people could have created multiple usernames over time, however the percentage is still staggeringly low). They are followed by 30,610 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 31 million registered users became “contributors” as of February 2017 (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.

BUT SOMETHING’S WRONGDespite the visibility afforded to company articles on 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).

WIKIPEDIA PAGEVIEWS ARE MASSIVEWikipedia pageviews grew on average by about 10% since 2010, totalling 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: 8+ billion in March 2017).

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

Source:Wikimedia


1/5

Article Talk Read Edit View history

COMPANY NAME

Search

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

�

INFOBOX

On Wikipedia, basic informationis provided in this small box called: 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.

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

ALERT

History section

PICTURES

Here is where companies’ related contents are.

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

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

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.

Corporate Governance

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

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

81%

38%

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

Only 26% of articles obtained the complete infobox score including financial figures and key people.

The number of articlesin which financial figuresare missing or are outdatedis on the rise.

(13% in 2014, 31% in 2015)

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

55% of articles present information on criticismand litigation.

Talk page: the article's content is discussed here. This is where issues emerge and debates take place. 19% of articles have discussions about content that is considered problematic by the editors' community.

63% of articles present more than 2.

80%20% have up to 20 sources (the more the better).

of articles have more than 20.

PAGE SECTION

REFERENCES

58

6354

55

articles about Chairmen in 2015Vs in 2014;

articles about CEOs in 2015Vs in 2014

43%

In 2015, 28% of articles presented the name of their Directors or Executives,down from in 2014.

European Edition2.What we found outOur 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.


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 a blocked account looks like on WikipediaMaersk 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.”

WHAT EUROPEAN COMPANIES DO WRONG

3. Beware of the quick fix


Risk of having your edit annulled The image below shows editing logs related to the article about Syngenta. The account SyngentaUK, likely connected to the global agricultural company, deleted controversial information. Due to its 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.

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.

WHAT EUROPEAN COMPANIES DO RIGHT


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.


DO NOT CONSIDER WIKIPEDIA A SUBSECTION OF THECORPORATE WEBSITE

WIKIPEDIA IS A WEBSITE, NOT YOURS, NOT ANYONE ELSE’S. THERE IS NO PRESS OFFICE NOR AN ARTICLE OWNER,SO ENGAGE FIRST

DISCLOSE YOUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST

BRING VALUE TO WIKIPEDIA

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.

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.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia sustained bya 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)

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”

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

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

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.

Companies that are willing to correctly engage with the encyclopedia can transparently contribute in a beneficial way, starting from non-controversial and objective information. They can then evolve into trustworthy and respectful members of the community.

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

Daniele Righi, Head of the Wikipedia Research

1

>

>>

>

>>

>

2

43

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

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

>

>

Lundquist Framework


LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH 2015 – EUROPE 100

Position2015

Company name

Country Score 2015(max 25)

Score differencecompared to 2014

1

2

3

3

5

6

6

6

9

9

9

12

13

14

15

16

16

16

16

20

21

21

21

24

24

26

27

28

28

30

31

32

32

32

35

35

37

37

UBS

BP

BT Group

Enel

Airbus

Daimler

Deutsche Bank

Vodafone Group

Danone

Gazprom

Luxottica

Volkswagen

Statoil

Siemens

Rio Tinto

Barclays

Heineken

Intesa Sanpaolo

Royal Dutch Shell

Telefónica

Eni

L'Oréal

Orange

Société Générale

Total

BASF

Syngenta

Nestlé

Royal Bank Of Scotland

BNP Paribas

Credit Suisse Group

Ericsson

Lloyds Banking Group

Unilever

Maersk Group

Reckitt Benckiser

GlaxoSmithKline

SABMiller

Switzerland

UK

UK

Italy

France

Germany

Germany

UK

France

Russia

Italy

Germany

Norway

Germany

UK

UK

Netherlands

Italy

UK

Germany

Italy

France

France

France

France

Germany

Switzerland

Switzerland

UK

France

Switzerland

Sweden

UK

Netherlands

Denmark

UK

UK

UK

90.0%

88.0%

86.0%

86.0%

85.0%

84.0%

84.0%

84.0%

83.0%

83.0%

83.0%

80.0%

79.2%

78.8%

78.4%

78.0%

78.0%

78.0%

78.0%

77.2%

76.2%

76.2%

76.2%

76.0%

76.0%

75.0%

74.4%

74.0%

74.0%

73.8%

73.2%

72.0%

72.0%

72.0%

71.4%

71.4%

71.0%

71.0%

NEW

NEW

INSIGHT FROM WIKIMEDIA

To understand how the Wikipedia community views companies acting as contributors, we contacted Wikimedia,the non-profit organisation 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?

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.

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 thata 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.



Position2015

Company name



1

2

3

3

5

6

6

6

9

9

9

12

13

14

15

16

16

16

16

20

21

21

21

24

24

26

27

28

28

30

31

32

32

32

35

35

37

37

UBS

BP

BT Group

Enel

Airbus

Daimler

Deutsche Bank

Vodafone Group

Danone

Gazprom

Luxottica

Volkswagen

Statoil

Siemens

Rio Tinto

Barclays

Heineken

Intesa Sanpaolo

Royal Dutch Shell

Telefónica

Eni

L'Oréal

Orange

Société Générale

Total

BASF

Syngenta

Nestlé

Royal Bank Of Scotland

BNP Paribas

Credit Suisse Group

Ericsson

Lloyds Banking Group

Unilever

Maersk Group

Reckitt Benckiser

GlaxoSmithKline

SABMiller

Switzerland

UK

UK

Italy

France

Germany

Germany

UK

France

Russia

Italy

Germany

Norway

Germany

UK

UK

Netherlands

Italy

UK

Germany

Italy

France

France

France

France

Germany

Switzerland

Switzerland

UK

France

Switzerland

Sweden

UK

Netherlands

Denmark

UK

UK

UK

90.0%

88.0%

86.0%

86.0%

85.0%

84.0%

84.0%

84.0%

83.0%

83.0%

83.0%

80.0%

79.2%

78.8%

78.4%

78.0%

78.0%

78.0%

78.0%

77.2%

76.2%

76.2%

76.2%

76.0%

76.0%

75.0%

74.4%

74.0%

74.0%

73.8%

73.2%

72.0%

72.0%

72.0%

71.4%

71.4%

71.0%

71.0%

NEW

NEW

LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCHEUROPE 100


39

40

40

40

40

40

45

46

46

48

49

49

51

52

52

54

55

55

57

58

58

58

61

62

63

64

64

66

66

68

69

70

70

72

72

74

75

76

77

78

79

79

H&M

Allianz

AstraZeneca

BHP Billiton

BMW

HSBC

EDF

Diageo

Roche

RELX Group

BG Group

British American Tobacco

ING

Prudential

SAP

AXA

Imperial Tobacco

Shire

ABB

Henkel

Standard Chartered

Telenor

Engie

Glencore

Associated British Foods

LVMH

Sano�

Bayer

Novartis

Santander

Anheuser-Busch InBev

Munich Re

National Grid

Nordea

Richemont

Christian Dior

Rosneft

Continental

Inditex

Zurich Insurance Group

Hermes International

Swiss Re

Sweden

Germany

UK

UK

Germany

UK

France

UK

Switzerland

UK

UK

UK

Netherlands

UK

Germany

France

UK

UK

Switzerland

Germany

UK

Norway

France

UK

UK

France

France

Germany

Switzerland

Spain

Belgium

Germany

UK

Sweden

Switzerland

France

Russia

Germany

Spain

Switzerland

France

Switzerland

70.8%

70.0%

70.0%

70.0%

70.0%

70.0%

69.8%

69.0%

69.0%

68.0%

67.0%

67.0%

66.2%

66.0%

66.0%

65.8%

65.0%

65.0%

64.2%

63.0%

63.0%

63.0%

62.8%

62.0%

60.0%

59.4%

59.4%

59.2%

59.2%

59.0%

58.0%

57.0%

57.0%

56.0%

56.0%

55.8%

55.4%

54.4%

54.2%

53.8%

53.2%

53.2%

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

Position2015

Company name




81

81

83

84

84

84

87

88

88

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

Atlas Copco

Swisscom

Vinci

Generali Group

Crédit Agricole

Deutsche Telekom

Lukoil

Novo Nordisk

Vivendi

Iberdrola

Linde

Pernod Ricard

UniCredit

ASML Holding

Deutsche Post

Air Liquide

BBVA

Schneider Electric

Investor

Fresenius

Sweden

Switzerland

France

Italy

France

Germany

Russia

Denmark

France

Spain

Germany

France

Italy

Netherlands

Germany

France

Spain

France

Sweden

Germany

53.0%

53.0%

52.8%

51.2%

51.2%

51.2%

50.8%

50.2%

50.2%

49.2%

49.0%

48.8%

47.8%

46.0%

45.0%

43.8%

42.2%

39.0%

37.8%

35.8%

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

Position2015

Company name



39

40

40

40

40

40

45

46

46

48

49

49

51

52

52

54

55

55

57

58

58

58

61

62

63

64

64

66

66

68

69

70

70

72

72

74

75

76

77

78

79

79

H&M

Allianz

AstraZeneca

BHP Billiton

BMW

HSBC

EDF

Diageo

Roche

RELX Group

BG Group

British American Tobacco

ING

Prudential

SAP

AXA

Imperial Tobacco

Shire

ABB

Henkel

Standard Chartered

Telenor

Engie

Glencore

Associated British Foods

LVMH

Sano�

Bayer

Novartis

Santander

Anheuser-Busch InBev

Munich Re

National Grid

Nordea

Richemont

Christian Dior

Rosneft

Continental

Inditex


Hermes International

Swiss Re

Sweden

Germany

UK

UK

Germany

UK

France

UK

Switzerland

UK

UK

UK

Netherlands

UK

Germany

France

UK

UK

Switzerland

Germany

UK

Norway

France

UK

UK

France

France

Germany

Switzerland

Spain

Belgium

Germany

UK

Sweden

Switzerland

France

Russia

Germany

Spain

Switzerland

France

Switzerland

70.8%

70.0%

70.0%

70.0%

70.0%

70.0%

69.8%

69.0%

69.0%

68.0%

67.0%

67.0%

66.2%

66.0%

66.0%

65.8%

65.0%

65.0%

64.2%

63.0%

63.0%

63.0%

62.8%

62.0%

60.0%

59.4%

59.4%

59.2%

59.2%

59.0%

58.0%

57.0%

57.0%

56.0%

56.0%

55.8%

55.4%

54.4%

54.2%

53.8%

53.2%

53.2%

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

Position2015

Company name



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


MOST VISITED SITE IN ITALY

6th


Wikipedia is an important player when it comes to a company’s corporate reputation, yet its internal mechanism has been weakening over the last years with the decline of editing frequency. 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.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

Andrea ZanniPresident of Wikimedia Italia

3. WHAT COMPANIES ARE DOING WRONGThis trend, coupled with the fact that company articles on Wikipedia are highly exposed on search engines, results in some companies intervening to edit their company articles directly, without understanding the rules of engagement by which Wikipedia operates. Often times, they end up violating the rules, which can expose them to reputational consequences, such as negative media coverage.

4. WHAT COMPANIES CAN DOLundquist, since the research 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 them to contribute with transparency to the accuracy of corporate content in their company article.

2. POOR QUALITY OF COMPANY PAGESThe research results reveal that companies averaged 65% of the total score (25 points). However, the content part is generally the less complete section, with half of the top 100 FT500 company related articles scoring below 50%. 20% of entries show an alert, which signals an issue with the page (such as: lack of neutrality, lack of references meaning that the content is not verifiable and so forth). Furthermore, the number of company related entries has decreased by 27%. UBS has both obtained 90% of the total score and the quality page status by Wikipedia. It is followed by BP (88%) and BT Group (86%).

1. DECREASING EDITORSOne of the major trends to come out of the research this year is that Wikipedia seems to be weakening from an editing standpoint. In fact, the number of active editors, who frequently edit and update information on the encyclopedia, is starting to dwindle. Andrea Zanni, president of Wikimedia Italia (the non-profit organization that operates and manages Wikipedia) explained to us that this is because the community is shifting towards a more qualitative, as opposed to quantitative approach. Nevertheless, this affects many company articles which are either missing or presenting outdated corporate information (such as key financial data, historical information or top management).

LOREM IPSUM DOLOR SIT AMET, CONSECTETUR ADIPISCING ELIT, SED DO

LOREM IPSUM DOLOR SIT AMET, CONSECTETUR ADIPISCING ELIT, SED DO LOREM IPSUM DOLOR SIT AMET, CONSECTETUR ADIPISCING ELIT, SED DO

20%

27%

65%

PAGEVIEWS EACH MONTH(Italian Wikipedia)

550+ million

2/10

39% OF ARTICLESHAVE ALERTS

LARGEST ITALIAN COMPANIESASSESSED

100

12 3

WHO’S WATCHING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES? 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.

The number of active editors in Italy has been decreasing over the last three years. There were only 2,473 active editors in February 2016, only a tiny percentage of more than a million registered users. That means there is roughly only 1 active editor for every 500 Wikipedia articles in Italian, meaning it is a challenge to have reliable, updated articles on Italian companies (see the English-language Wikipedia-related data on page 4).

ARTICLES ABOUT COMPANIES: ISSUES ARE FAR FROM BEING SOLVED

Based on our screening of 29 criteria for a comprehensive article, we found that articles about companies in Italian 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, with more than 70% of the articles in Italian (dedicated to the 100 largest Italian companies) scoring below 50% of the available score. Thirty-nine percent of articles show an alert signaling an issue with the page (such as non-neutrality or lack of references, meaning the content is not verifiable as required by Wikipedia). Seventy-five percent of articles about companies that had at least one alert last year, still have one, meaning that the issue has not been dealt with.

THE STATE OF PLAY BETWEENWIKIPEDIA AND ITALIAN COMPANIESIt’s tough going for Wikipedia’s coverage of Italy’s top 100 companies. The Italian edition of the Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016 reveals a shortage of active editors and poor quality articles, many “tainted” with alerts. This should be a wake-up call for both editors and companies willing to engage appropriately.

The article about Telecom Italia obtained the top score followed by Eni and Intesa Sanpaolo. The best improver article is the one dedicated to Mediobanca followed by Moncler and UBI Banca.

AVOID THE DO-IT-YOURSELF APPROACHArmed with the knowledge that the Wikipedia pages about them are inadequate and that the encyclopedia appears high in internet search results, companies often succumb to the temptation to edit articles about themselves.We easily uncovered by a simple check 30 company accounts, 20 of which (67%) violate Wikipedia rules. This might involve choosing a promotional name or making edits directly, which can expose them to reputational consequences including negative media coverage.

GETTING IT RIGHTSince the research first launched in 2008, Lundquist’sguidelines are helping companies understand and implement the correct procedures of engagement with the Wikipedia community. This allows companies to contributetransparently to improving their article (see more on page 9).

TELECOMITALIA

ENI INTESASANPAOLO

Country focus: ITALY



COMPANY NAME

Search


�

INFOBOX


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


ALERT

History section

PICTURES


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




This icon identifies a good article: complete, neutral, elegant, verifiable and illustrated.

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.

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

Only 4 articles obtained the complete infobox score including financial figures and key people:Enel, Eni, Mediobanca and Telecom Italia.

Articles with missing or outdated financial figuresare on the rise.

(30% in 2014, 52% in 2015)

72% of articleshave at least an overview.

However, do not have this section updated.

55%

85% of articlesdo not present informationon criticism and litigation.

Talk page: the article's content is discussed here. 13% of articles have discussions about content that is considered problematic by the editors' community. 25% have no discussion at all (no one proposing or discussing improvements): these entries have a very low score, meaning they need attention.

Only 25% of articles present more than 2 pictures.

27%68% 20 sourcesor less

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.

of articles have more than 20.

PAGE SECTION

REFERENCES44%

In 2015, 34% of articles present the name of their Directors or Executives, down from in 2014.

Italian EditionWhat we found outThis page illustrates the main elements of a company Wikipedia article, along with some of the key research findings from the Italian edition.



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 admonishedor blocked for having published promotional information.

> 9 company accounts use the correct approach.

Contravening neutrality rule The image below shows a warning addressed to ENAV’s company fans or employees who have 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 DO WRONG

Avoid the do-it-yourselfapproach


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 Wikimediaon page 10

WHAT ITALIAN COMPANIES ARE DOING RIGHT

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



Position2016

Company name

Score 2016(max 25)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

27

29

30

31

32

33

34

34

34

37

Telecom Italia

Eni

Intesa Sanpaolo

Rai

Edison

Mediaset

Enel

ENAV

Poste Italiane

Banca Popolare di Milano

Mondadori

Ansaldo STS

Ferrovie dello Stato

Rcs MediaGroup

Terna

Salini Impregilo

Banca Monte dei Paschi Siena

Finmeccanica

Mediobanca

Alitalia

Coop Italia

Anas

Pirelli

UniCredit

Saipem

Ferrari

Snam

UBI Banca

Esselunga

Hera

Davide Campari

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA)

Wind

Autogrill

Luxottica

Parmalat

Marcegaglia

94.0%

84.0%

82.8%

80.2%

78.0%

77.0%

74.0%

73.7%

73.2%

72.8%

72.0%

70.0%

69.7%

67.8%

67.0%

65.0%

64.4%

64.0%

64.0%

61.6%

60.0%

59.6%

59.2%

58.0%

57.4%

56.8%

56.0%

56.0%

54.5%

53.0%

52.8%

52.0%

51.5%

51.4%

51.4%

51.4%

50.5%

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

Position2015

Company name

Score 2015(max 25)


41

42

43

44

44

51

46

47

47

47

50

52

53

54

54

54

54

58

59

60

60

62

62

64

65

66

67

68

68

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

77

79

80

81

82

83

OVS

Atlantia

ERG

Ferrero

Reale Mutua

STMicroelectronics

Italcementi

ILVA

Prysmian

SACE

Barilla

Dolce & Gabbana

Generali

CNH Industrial

Eataly

Illy

Unipol Gruppo Finanziario

Versace

Enel Green Power

Armani

Yoox Net-A-Porter Group

Brembo

SIA

Avio

Banca IFIS

Piaggio Group

Menarini Group

DiaSorin

Moleskine

Astaldi

Banca Popolare di Vicenza

Bracco

Banca Generali

Perfetti Van Melle

Sa�lo

Acea

A2A

Mapei

GSE

Granarolo

Lavazza

Salvatore Ferragamo

BNL

49.4%

49.2%

49.0%

48.4%

48.4%

46.0%

47.8%

47.0%

47.0%

47.0%

46.4%

45.0%

43.4%

43.0%

43.0%

43.0%

43.0%

42.4%

42.0%

41.8%

41.8%

40.0%

40.0%

39.4%

39.0%

38.0%

37.4%

37.0%

37.0%

36.8%

36.0%

35.4%

35.0%

34.4%

33.8%

33.4%

32.8%

32.8%

32.4%

32.2%

31.8%

30.8%

30.0%

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCHITALY 100



Position2016

Company name

Score 2016(max 25)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

27

29

30

31

32

33

34

34

34

37

Telecom Italia

Eni

Intesa Sanpaolo

Rai

Edison

Mediaset

Enel

ENAV

Poste Italiane

Banca Popolare di Milano

Mondadori

Ansaldo STS

Ferrovie dello Stato

Rcs MediaGroup

Terna

Salini Impregilo

Banca Monte dei Paschi Siena

Finmeccanica

Mediobanca

Alitalia

Coop Italia

Anas

Pirelli

UniCredit

Saipem

Ferrari

Snam

UBI Banca

Esselunga

Hera

Davide Campari

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA)

Wind

Autogrill

Luxottica

Parmalat

Marcegaglia

94.0%

84.0%

82.8%

80.2%

78.0%

77.0%

74.0%

73.7%

73.2%

72.8%

72.0%

70.0%

69.7%

67.8%

67.0%

65.0%

64.4%

64.0%

64.0%

61.6%

60.0%

59.6%

59.2%

58.0%

57.4%

56.8%

56.0%

56.0%

54.5%

53.0%

52.8%

52.0%

51.5%

51.4%

51.4%

51.4%

50.5%

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

Position2015

Company name

Score 2015(max 25)


41

42

43

44

44

51

46

47

47

47

50

52

53

54

54

54

54

58

59

60

60

62

62

64

65

66

67

68

68

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

77

79

80

81

82

83

OVS

Atlantia

ERG

Ferrero

Reale Mutua

STMicroelectronics

Italcementi

ILVA

Prysmian

SACE

Barilla

Dolce & Gabbana

Generali

CNH Industrial

Eataly

Illy


Versace

Enel Green Power

Armani


Brembo

SIA

Avio

Banca IFIS

Piaggio Group

Menarini Group

DiaSorin

Moleskine

Astaldi


Bracco

Banca Generali

Perfetti Van Melle

Sa�lo

Acea

A2A

Mapei

GSE

Granarolo

Lavazza

Salvatore Ferragamo

BNL

49.4%

49.2%

49.0%

48.4%

48.4%

46.0%

47.8%

47.0%

47.0%

47.0%

46.4%

45.0%

43.4%

43.0%

43.0%

43.0%

43.0%

42.4%

42.0%

41.8%

41.8%

40.0%

40.0%

39.4%

39.0%

38.0%

37.4%

37.0%

37.0%

36.8%

36.0%

35.4%

35.0%

34.4%

33.8%

33.4%

32.8%

32.8%

32.4%

32.2%

31.8%

30.8%

30.0%

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

Position2016

Company name

Score 2016(max 25)


38

39

39

41

42

43

44

44

46

47

47

49

50

51

52

53

53

55

56

56

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

68

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

Sky Italia

EXOR

Moncler

OVS

Atlantia

ERG

Ferrero

Reale Mutua

Italcementi

ILVA

SACE

Prysmian

Barilla

STMicroelectronics

Dolce e Gabbana

Eataly

Illy

Generali

CNH Industrial


Versace

Armani

Enel Green Power

Yoox Net-A-Porter

SIA

Brembo

Avio

Banca IFIS

Piaggio

Menarini

DiaSorin

Moleskine

Astaldi


Bracco

Banca Generali

Perfetti Van Melle

Sa�lo

Acea

Mapei

A2A

GSE

50.3%

50.0%

50.0%

49.4%

49.2%

49.0%

48.9%

48.9%

47.8%

47.5%

47.5%

47.0%

46.9%

46.0%

45.5%

43.43%

43.43%

43.40%

43.0%

43.0%

42.8%

42.2%

42.0%

41.8%

40.4%

40.0%

39.8%

39.0%

38.0%

37.8%

37.0%

37.0%

36.8%

36.4%

35.8%

35.0%

34.7%

33.8%

33.4%

33.1%

32.8%

32.7%

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW


Position2015

Company name

Score 2015(max 25)


41

42

43

44

44

51

46

47

47

47

50

52

53

54

54

54

54

58

59

60

60

62

62

64

65

66

67

68

68

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

77

79

80

81

82

83

OVS

Atlantia

ERG

Ferrero

Reale Mutua

STMicroelectronics

Italcementi

ILVA

Prysmian

SACE

Barilla

Dolce & Gabbana

Generali

CNH Industrial

Eataly

Illy


Versace

Enel Green Power

Armani


Brembo

SIA

Avio

Banca IFIS

Piaggio Group

Menarini Group

DiaSorin

Moleskine

Astaldi


Bracco

Banca Generali

Perfetti Van Melle

Sa�lo

Acea

A2A

Mapei

GSE

Granarolo

Lavazza

Salvatore Ferragamo

BNL

49.4%

49.2%

49.0%

48.4%

48.4%

46.0%

47.8%

47.0%

47.0%

47.0%

46.4%

45.0%

43.4%

43.0%

43.0%

43.0%

43.0%

42.4%

42.0%

41.8%

41.8%

40.0%

40.0%

39.4%

39.0%

38.0%

37.4%

37.0%

37.0%

36.8%

36.0%

35.4%

35.0%

34.4%

33.8%

33.4%

32.8%

32.8%

32.4%

32.2%

31.8%

30.8%

30.0%

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

Position2016

Company name

Score 2016 (max 25)


80

81

82

83

83

85

86

86

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

Granarolo

Lavazza

Salvatore Ferragamo

BNL

Calzedonia

Artsana

Amplifon

Maire Tecnimont

Gruppo api

UnipolSai Assicurazioni

Reply

Birra Peroni

Banco Popolare

Tenaris

Banca Mediolanum

Azimut Holding

Veneto Banca

Technogym

Sisal

Datalogic

Brunello Cucinelli

32.5%

32.1%

30.8%

30.3%

30.3%

30.1%

29.4%

29.4%

28.7%

28.0%

27.4%

27.3%

27.0%

24.8%

23.0%

22.8%

22.2%

21.6%

21.2%

20.8%

17.0%

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

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


Position2015

Company name

Score 2015(max 25)


41

42

43

44

44

51

46

47

47

47

50

52

53

54

54

54

54

58

59

60

60

62

62

64

65

66

67

68

68

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

77

79

80

81

82

83

OVS

Atlantia

ERG

Ferrero

Reale Mutua

STMicroelectronics

Italcementi

ILVA

Prysmian

SACE

Barilla

Dolce & Gabbana

Generali

CNH Industrial

Eataly

Illy


Versace

Enel Green Power

Armani


Brembo

SIA

Avio

Banca IFIS

Piaggio Group

Menarini Group

DiaSorin

Moleskine

Astaldi


Bracco

Banca Generali

Perfetti Van Melle

Sa�lo

Acea

A2A

Mapei

GSE

Granarolo

Lavazza

Salvatore Ferragamo

BNL

49.4%

49.2%

49.0%

48.4%

48.4%

46.0%

47.8%

47.0%

47.0%

47.0%

46.4%

45.0%

43.4%

43.0%

43.0%

43.0%

43.0%

42.4%

42.0%

41.8%

41.8%

40.0%

40.0%

39.4%

39.0%

38.0%

37.4%

37.0%

37.0%

36.8%

36.0%

35.4%

35.0%

34.4%

33.8%

33.4%

32.8%

32.8%

32.4%

32.2%

31.8%

30.8%

30.0%

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

Position2016

Company name

Score 2016 (max 25)


80

81

82

83

83

85

86

86

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

Granarolo

Lavazza

Salvatore Ferragamo

BNL

Calzedonia

Artsana

Amplifon

Maire Tecnimont

Gruppo api

UnipolSai Assicurazioni

Reply

Birra Peroni

Banco Popolare

Tenaris

Banca Mediolanum

Azimut Holding

Veneto Banca

Technogym

Sisal

Datalogic

Brunello Cucinelli

32.5%

32.1%

30.8%

30.3%

30.3%

30.1%

29.4%

29.4%

28.7%

28.0%

27.4%

27.3%

27.0%

24.8%

23.0%

22.8%

22.2%

21.6%

21.2%

20.8%

17.0%

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

MOST VISITED SITE IN GERMANY

7th











20%

27%

65%

PAGEVIEWS EACH MONTH(German-language Wikipedia)

1+ billion

2/10

33%OF ARTICLESHAVE ALERTS

GERMAN COMPANIES INCLUDED IN THE DAX 30 INDEX

30

12 3

THE BIG SHORT - WHO’S KEEPING AN EYE ON WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES?Wikipedia relies on voluntary editors to update and improve content. However, it faces a problem. Over the past four years, the decreasing number of active editors (those who actively develop and edit content within the encyclopedia) now results in fewer eyes and hands to update and improve information, thus prone to inaccuracy.

Over the last year, pageviews within the English language Wikipedia, have continued to grow from 7.7 to 8.2 billion. There are now over 270,000 more articles. The number of active editors, however, has been steadily decreasing since 2007, only stabilising recently at about 30,000 (0.1% of the 30+ million of registered users). This means there is roughly 1 active editor for every 180 Wikipedia articles in English. Monitoring that amount of pages is unthinkable, setting a challenging task in ensuring a mistake is promptly fixed (see the English Wikipedia-related data on page 4).

ARTICLES: ALERTS AND DEAD LINKS MAKE CONTENT LESS RELIABLEBased on our screening of 29 criteria for a comprehensive article, we found that articles about German companies in English are troubled by alerts and useless sources of content.

Despite a medium-high average obtained by the sample score (58% of the total score), one in three articles shows an alert signalling an issue with the page (such as non-neutrality or lack of references, meaning the content is not verifiable as required by Wikipedia and, as a consequence, could be deleted).

In addition to this, on average 10% (in some cases 25% or even 46%) of references are useless dead links, meaning content are not sourced anymore.

THE STATE OF PLAY BETWEENWIKIPEDIA AND GERMAN COMPANIES

German companies have a tough nut to crack on Wikipedia. The German edition of the Lundquist Wikipedia Research reveals that articles about them are often corrupted by alerts and dead links, making content less reliable. Furthermore, German companies find themselves in a somewhat peculiar position. Sometimes, in fact, they can be wrong even if they are right (see the “German case“ below).

THE GERMAN CASE - CAN COMPANIES HELP IMPROVE CONTENT? Companies generally try to improve content, often improperly. German companies are, however, in a unique position. The German language Wikipedia, in fact, allows the creation of verified corporate editor accounts (i.e using their company name) which is forbidden in the English language version (which allows personal names only). Therefore, German corporate editor accounts operating in the English language version run the risk of being blocked.

In fact, we easily uncovered by a simple check 16 company accounts, 11 of which (69%) violate Wikipedia rules. This might involve choosing a promotional name (even the simple corporate name is considered as such) or making edits directly, which can expose them to reputational consequences including negative media coverage.

GETTING IT RIGHTSince the research first launched in 2008, Lundquist helps companies understand and implement the correct procedures of engagement with the Wikipedia community. This allows companies to contributetransparently to improving their article (see more on page 9).

DEUTSCHE BANK

SIEMENSADIDAS

Country focus: GERMANY

TOP 3 highest scoring articles

The 3 lowest scoring articlesDeutsche Boerse - Fresenius Medical Care - Vonovia



COMPANY NAME

Search


�

INFOBOX




ALERT

History section

PICTURES









An example is UBS’ article, which tops the EU ranking.Our study reveals that there are no “good articles” among the 30 German companies in our sample.

1/3 of the articles have

at least an alert which indicates an issue with the page.

Only 4 articles obtained the complete infobox score including financial figures and key people: Deutsche Bank, Munich Re, SAP and Siemens.

In 23% of articles (7 articles) financial figures are missing or outdated.



50%

Half of the articlesdo not present informationon criticism and litigation.

Talk page: the article's content is discussed here.

10%of articles (3) have discussions about content that is considered problematic by the editors' community. 40% (12 articles) have no discussion at all over the last 2 years (meaning no one is proposing or discussing improvements).

63% of articles present 2 or more pictures.

Wikipedia welcomes companies willing to give their images to the encyclopedia (e.g historical images).

PAGE SECTION

REFERENCES

29 articles out of 30 present the name of their Directors or Executives.

However, 70% of these top managers do not have a dedicated article.

It is not a given that top managers have an article on Wikipedia, nor a right. It is however common practice, provided that there are enough authoritative sources to back up information about their biographies.

13 articles out of 30 (almost half) in our sample present less than 25 sources. This is a very low amount considering that ideally every piece of information should be backed up by an authoritative source.

On average 10% of sources in every article assessed are dead links. It is therefore impossible to verify the information they support.

German EditionWhat we found outThis page illustrates the main elements of a company Wikipedia article, along with some of the key research findings from the German edition. To be noted, none of the articles dedicated to the companies of the DAX 30 have been acknowledged as a Wikipedia best practice.



COMPANY NAME

Search


�

INFOBOX




ALERT

History section

PICTURES









An example is UBS’ article, which tops the EU ranking.Our study reveals that there are no “good articles” among the 30 German companies in our sample.

1/3 of the articles have

at least an alert which indicates an issue with the page.

Only 4 articles obtained the complete infobox score including financial figures and key people: Deutsche Bank, Munich Re, SAP and Siemens.

In 23% of articles (7 articles) financial figures are missing or outdated.



50%

Half of the articlesdo not present informationon criticism and litigation.

Talk page: the article's content is discussed here.

10%of articles (3) have discussions about content that is considered problematic by the editors' community. 40% (12 articles) have no discussion at all over the last 2 years (meaning no one is proposing or discussing improvements).

63% of articles present 2 or more pictures.

Wikipedia welcomes companies willing to give their images to the encyclopedia (e.g historical images).

PAGE SECTION

REFERENCES

29 articles out of 30 present the name of their Directors or Executives.

However, 70% of these top managers do not have a dedicated article.

It is not a given that top managers have an article on Wikipedia, nor a right. It is however common practice, provided that there are enough authoritative sources to back up information about their biographies.

13 articles out of 30 (almost half) in our sample present less than 25 sources. This is a very low amount considering that ideally every piece of information should be backed up by an authoritative source.

On average 10% of sources in every article assessed are dead links. It is therefore impossible to verify the information they support.

Jenny at Daimler Corporate Communications is verified in German and blocked in English due to regulation discrepancies.

Often German companies intervene without understanding the rules of engagement by which Wikipedia operates.We uncovered many accounts involved in the editing process.

> Sanctioned accounts 31% of the accounts identified have been admonishedor blocked for having published promotional in formation, namely facts written using a promotional tone.

> Doing it well Only 25% of the accounts identified use the correct approach.

Contravening username policy is easier for German companiesThe image below shows how the German language Wikipedia is different to the English one. The former allows verified accounts, even if named after the company. The latter forbids this type of action and can even enforce it by blocking the account (due to the promotional tone of the name itself). As such, the best option is to focus on different approaches for different Wikipedia language versions.

Daimler’s account was originally called “Daimler Corp. Communications”. For this reason a Wikipedia editor asked Daimler to choose an alternative name. Thus, “Daimler Corp. Communications” became “Jenny at Daimler Corporate Communications”. However, it is currently blocked. In February Daimler tried to start a, still open, conversation on the topic. In these cases keeping the tone of the conversion collaborative, respectful, friendly and proactive is key in solving the issue.

THE GERMAN CASE: WHERE GERMAN COMPANIES NEED TO LOOK OUT

German Edition

Understanding Wikipedia to avoid reputational backlashes

> Violation of the username policy 50% of the accounts identified are on Wikipedia with either an account or multiple ones containing only the name of the company. They have therefore violated the username policy of Wikipedia which bans promotional usernames.


How to introduce yourself correctly on Wikipedia User DeutscheBankJR and Anja (Deutsche Post DHL) 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.

WHAT GERMAN COMPANIES ARE DOING RIGHT


Anja (Deutsche Post DHL) represents a very good example of an account who also adds a message when she (even if temporarily) stops contributing to Wikipedia.



Position2017

Company name

Score 2017(max 25)

1

2

3

4

4

6

6

8

9

10

10

10

13

14

14

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

23

25

26

27

28

29

30

Deutsche Bank

Siemens

Adidas

Daimler

SAP

BMW

Henkel

Deutsche Lufthansa

Allianz

E.ON

BASF

Thyssenkrupp

Volkswagen Group

Bayer

Merck

In�neon Technologies

ProSiebenSat.1 Media

Beiersdorf

RWE

Continental

Fresenius

Linde

HeidelbergCement

Munich Re

Deutsche Telekom

Deutsche Post

Commerzbank

Deutsche Boerse

Fresenius Medical Care

Vonovia

86.0%

82.0%

76.8%

75.0%

75.0%

71.0%

71.0%

70.0%

69.2%

63.0%

63.0%

63.0%

62.6%

60.6%

60.6%

57.6%

55.0%

54.0%

52.8%

52.5%

50.0%

49.5%

47.0%

47.0%

45.0%

44.2%

43.0%

42.0%

29.8%

10.0%

LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH LISTED GERMAN COMPANIES



4 5outof

COMPANIESTHAT WE FOUND ARE ENGAGING ON

WIKIPEDIA HAVE VIOLATED RULES

AMONG 48 LISTED SWISS COMPANIES ASSESSED, 3 DO NOT HAVE ANY DEDICATED ARTICLE

12 3

5thMOST VISITED SITE IN SWITZERLANDMOST VISITED SITE IN ITALY

6th











20%

27%

65%


550+ million

2/10

MOST VISITED SITE IN ITALY

6th











20%

27%

65%


550+ million

2/10

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-language Wikipedia. This is also true, however, for both the French and the German-language 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 German-language Wikipedia were 6,207 while in the French-language 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 ARTICLESBased 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, with almost 80% of the articles (dedicated to the 48 listed Swiss companies 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 signalling an issue with the page (such as non-neutrality or lack of references meaning the

THE STATE OF PLAY BETWEENWIKIPEDIA AND SWISS COMPANIESWikipedia 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 reveals. Our analysis brings to light that four out of five of the companies that we found are engaging on Wikipedia have violated rules. This is counter-productive and should prompt a call for a renewed commitment in understanding how the free encyclopaedia works with the aim of contributing appropriately.

content is not verifiable as required by Wikipedia).

The article about UBS obtained the overall score followed by the Roche and Nestlé articles. The best improver article is the one dedicated to Kuehne + Nagel followed by Swisscom and Swiss Life.

SPOTTING THE “BAD GUYS”:DO SWISS COMPANIES BEHAVE ON WIKIPEDIA?Armed with the knowledge that the Wikipedia pages about them are inadequate and that the encyclopedia appears high in internet search results, companies often succumb to the temptation to edit articles about themselves.We easily uncovered by a simple check 19 company accounts,15 of which (79%) violate Wikipedia rules. This might involve choosing a promotional name or making edits directly, which can expose them to reputational consequences including negative media coverage.

Percentages are higher than in our European ranking: 33% of European companies have at least an account and 64% of these violate rules (see page 6).

GETTING IT RIGHT 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 to contribute transparently in improving their articles (see more on page 9).

UBSROCHE

NESTLÉ

Country focus: SWITZERLAND


One in four


COMPANY NAME

Search


�

INFOBOX




ALERT

History section

PICTURES




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.





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

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

Only 4 companies analysed obtained the complete infobox score including financial figures and key people: ABB, Adecco, Nestlé and UBS.

Articles with missing or outdated financial figuresare on the rise.

(27% in 2014, 36% in 2015)


do not have this section updated.38%

69% of articles do not present informationon criticism and litigation.

Talk page: the article's content is discussed here. 13% of articles have discussions about content that is considered problematic by the editors' community. 62% have outdated or no discussion at all (no one recently proposing or discussing improvements).

Only 20% of articles present more than 2 pictures.

36%62% have fewer than 20 sources

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.

of articles have more than 20

PAGE SECTION

REFERENCES

Only 22% of articles present the name of Directors or Executives.

Swiss EditionWhat we found outThis page illustrates the main elements of a company Wikipedia article, along with some of the key research findings from the Swiss edition.


WHAT SWISS COMPANIES DO WRONG


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 or blocked for having published promotional information.

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.

Spotting “bad guys“:do Swiss companies behaveon Wikipedia?


How to introduce yourself correctly on WikipediaUser 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 8 and insights from Wikimediaon page 10.

Read and understand firstThe 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.

WHAT SWISS COMPANIES DO RIGHT

WHAT COMPANIES IN GENERAL CAN DO BETTER




Position2016

Company name

Score 2016(max 25)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

11

13

14

15

16

16

18

18

20

20

22

23

23

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

UBS

Roche

Nestlé

Credit Suisse Group

Syngenta

ams

Kuehne + Nagel

Logitech

ABB

Swiss Life

Swisscom

Novartis

Richemont


Swiss Re

Lindt & Sprüngli

Schindler Group

Transocean

Sika

Oerlikon

Swatch group

Geberit

LafargeHolcim

Givaudan

SGS

Julius Baer

Sulzer

Helvetia

Adecco

Barry callebaut

Clariant

Partners Group

Baloise

ARYZTA

Dufry

GF (Georg Fischer)

Straumann

92.0%

73.0%

72.0%

71.2%

68.4%

68.0%

67.2%

66.4%

64.0%

63.0%

61.0%

61.0%

60.0%

58.8%

56.8%

52.0%

52.0%

48.0%

48.0%

46.0%

46.0%

45.0%

43.0%

43.0%

41.0%

39.2%

38.4%

36.4%

36.0%

35.4%

35.0%

33.0%

32.8%

31.4%

30.4%

29.6%

29.4%

NEW

NEW

LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH LISTED SWISS COMPANIES



Position2016

Company name

Score 2016(max 25)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

11

13

14

15

16

16

18

18

20

20

22

23

23

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

UBS

Roche

Nestlé

Credit Suisse Group

Syngenta

ams

Kuehne + Nagel

Logitech

ABB

Swiss Life

Swisscom

Novartis

Richemont


Swiss Re

Lindt & Sprüngli

Schindler Group

Transocean

Sika

Oerlikon

Swatch group

Geberit

LafargeHolcim

Givaudan

SGS

Julius Baer

Sulzer

Helvetia

Adecco

Barry callebaut

Clariant

Partners Group

Baloise

ARYZTA

Dufry

GF (Georg Fischer)

Straumann

92.0%

73.0%

72.0%

71.2%

68.4%

68.0%

67.2%

66.4%

64.0%

63.0%

61.0%

61.0%

60.0%

58.8%

56.8%

52.0%

52.0%

48.0%

48.0%

46.0%

46.0%

45.0%

43.0%

43.0%

41.0%

39.2%

38.4%

36.4%

36.0%

35.4%

35.0%

33.0%

32.8%

31.4%

30.4%

29.6%

29.4%

NEW

NEW

Position2016

Company name

Score 2016(max 25)


38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

46

46

Lonza

Actelion

Sonova

Temenos

DKSH

GAM

Sunrise

Ems-Chemie

Galenica

PSP Swiss Property

Swiss Prime Site

29.2%

27.8%

27.0%

26.4%

26.0%

21.6%

20.4%

10.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

non existent

non existent

non existent

NEW






60%




60%




60%




60%




60%

HOW WE CONDUCTEDTHE RESEARCH

Lundquist tracks how well Wikipedia presents major corporations as part of its research into online corporate information since 2008.

In the 2016 edition, the Wikipedia research evaluated the English-language articles about the 100 largest European companies - based on the FT500 index - (September 2015), the English-language articles about the 48 listed Swiss companies (January 2016), the Italian-language articles about the 100 largest Italian companies (November 2015) and the English-language articles about the 30 German companies included in the DAX 30 index (September 2016).

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.

The protocol has been also 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.

InfoboxThe first part of the protocol examines the content of the infobox, located on the right-hand side of a Wikipedia company article. It covers information such as the year of foundation, corporate logo, headquarters, financial figures, number of employees, and industry.

Penalty pointIn 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 when there is a negative discussion in the talk pages.

Page featuresThe second section looks at a range of features such as categories that improve navigation through the encyclopedia, pictures and references which allow users to verify information in the Wikipedia article.

Page sectionsThe third part evaluates the information in the main body of the Wikipedia entry. The protocol takes into account many different themes, from company history to business, information on directors and executives, to criticism.

Conversations & acknowledgementsThis year a new section was added that is dedicated to how Wikipedia actually takes shape and to how entries are judged by the Wikipedia community. The research looked at the conversations taking place around the 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.

THE PROTOCOL IS STRUCTURED AS FOLLOWS


HOW WE CAN HELP

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

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 activitiesdo not comply with its rules.

DANIELE RIGHIHead of the Lundquist Wikipedia [email protected]

JOAKIM LUNDQUISTFounder of [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.

Documents

Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2017. Since 2008 COMPANIES ......COMPANIES AND WIKIPEDIA: FRIEND OR FOE? ... DANIELE RIGHI Head of the Lundquist Wikipedia Research [email protected]