Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2017. Since 2008 COMPANIES AND WIKIPEDIA: FRIEND OR FOE? In this report: European, Italian, German and Swiss editions (Updated in May 2017) 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. 1 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015 LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH As part of its research into online corporate CONTENTS information, the Lundquist Wikipedia Research covers the article content of major corporations. THE STATE OF PLAY BETWEEN The latest research programmes look at: WIKIPEDIA AND COMPANIES • Wikipedia’s English language coverage of Europe’s top largest 100 companies (based on the FT500 index) European Edition p. 3 • The Italian language coverage of Italy’s top 100 companies • The English language coverage of the German DAX 30 1. Calling all editors p. 4 • The English language coverage of 48 Swiss listed companies 2. What we found out p. 5 3. Beware of the quick fix p. 6 RESEARCH FAST FACTS 4. Getting it right p. 9 Years running INSIGHT FROM WIKIMEDIA p. 10 29 4 Criteria Parts of the protocol: COUNTRY FOCUS Infobox, Features, Sections, Conversation Italy p. 14 & Acknowledgements 25 Germany p. 21 Maximum score Switzerland p. 26 65% European 43 Swiss average score average score HOW WE CONDUCTED 58% German 4 Italian p. 32 average score average score THE RESEARCH HOW WE CAN HELP & CONTACTS p. 33 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. VIOLATE 1/5 WIKIPEDIA RULES 1. CALLING ALL EDITORS 3. BEWARE OF THE QUICK FIX The number of active Wikipedia editors is dwindling, which Often companies, armed with the knowledge that the means fewer eyes and hands to update and improve the Wikipedia pages about them are inadequate and that encyclopedia’s pages. Therefore, information such as key the encyclopedia appears high in internet search results, financial data, historical notes and information on top succumb to the temptation to intervene directly to edit management, can be incomplete or prone to inaccuracy. their dedicated articles. We easily uncovered by a simple check a selection of 21 companies violating Wikipedia 2. POOR QUALITY OF PAGES (RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH) rules (whether by choosing a promotional name or directly Based on our screening of 29 criteria for a comprehensive intervening), which can expose them to reputational company article, which take into account what Wikipedia consequences including negative media coverage. recommends, the Lundquist Wikipedia Research 4. GETTING IT RIGHT revealed that companies 100 Since the research first launched in 2008, Lundquist’s averaged 65% of the total guidelines are helping companies understand and EUROPEAN COMPANIES score, compared with implement the correct procedures of engagement ASSESSED 66% in the last edition with the Wikipedia community. This allows companies of the research. which meet Wikipedia’s eligibility criteria to contribute transparently to improving their dedicated articles. 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 Wikipedia is an important player when shows an alert signaling an issue with the page (such as it comes to a company’s reputation, non-neutrality or a lack of references meaning the content yet its internal mechanism has is not verifiable as required by Wikipedia). Furthermore, been weakening over the last years the number of company articles with updated financial with the decline of active editors. figures has decreased by 27% since 2014. UBS obtained Furthermore, company articles are the top score followed by BP, BT Group and Enel. missing information. It is important for companies to engage constructively DECREASE IN with the online encyclopedia, in order -27% FINANCIAL FIGURES to ensure information is accurate. Joakim Lundquist, Founder of Lundquist UBS BP BT GROUP ENEL 2 1 3 5th 8 billion 60 MOST VISITED SITE ON THE WEB PAGEVIEWS EACH MONTH OF THE TIME (English Wikipedia) WIKIPEDIA RESULTS RANK IN THE FIRST PAGE OF GOOGLE 3 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016 1. Calling all editors WIKIPEDIA PAGEVIEWS ARE MASSIVE Wikipedia 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 The major challenge for Wikipedia is since then with the aim to filter bot traffic, resulting the editing. It is in danger of imploding in 20% less pageviews: 8+ billion in March 2017). and the complexity of the issues it deals with is not going to get any easier. BUT SOMETHING’SDespite the WRONG visibility afforded to company articles on DespiteWikipedia, the visibility corporate afforded related to contents company on articlesthe encyclopedia Charlie Beckett, Director of POLIS, on Wikipedia,are suffering. corporate In fact, related our research contents show on that, the for instance, London School of Economics and Political Science’s journalism encyclopediathe number are ofsuffering. company entriesIn fact, with the updatednumber financialof think tank, in an interview with Lundquist for this research figures decreased by 27% since 2014. company articles in which financial data are missing or are outdated is on the rise (13% in 2014, 31% in 2015). 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. DECREASING NUMBER OF ACTIVE AND VERY ACTIVE EDITORS ON THE 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 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source:Wikimedia 4 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015-2016 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. Talk page: the article's content is discussed here. This is where issues emerge and debates take In 2015, of articles 1/5 place. 19% of articles have This icon identifies a good have at least an alert discussions about content that article: complete, neutral, which indicates an issue is considered problematic by elegant, verifiable and with the page. the editors' community. illustrated. UBS’s article, which tops our ranking, is a prime example. Article Talk Read Edit View history Search COMPANY NAME From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ALERT INFOBOX On Wikipedia, basic information Editors can put an alert banner if an issue is spotted (such as promotional contents is provided in this small box called: or lack of references). As you can see in the screenshot (“August 2009”), alerts can infobox. remain on the page for a very long time. Only 26% of articles In 2015, 81% of articles PAGE SECTION obtained the complete infobox have at least an overview Here is where companies’ related contents are. (10−15 sentences). However, score including financial of entries do not have History section figures and key people. 3 this section updated. The history section is among the most prevalent in articles about companies. Historical information contributes to justify the Wikipedia eligibility of an article.