companies and wikipedia: friend or foe?...companies and wikipedia: friend or foe? wikipedia is the...

1 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015

Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015, 7th year

COMPANIES AND WIKIPEDIA:FRIEND OR FOE?Wikipedia is the seventh most visited website in the world, with company articles perennially well positioned on the first page of search results.

Yet despite this visibility, the articles about the 100 largest companies in Europe often lack information, according to the Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015. With the already small number of active Wikipedia editors decreasing, this situation is likely to worsen.

Some companies think that by editing their articles themselves they have an easy workaround. Any company that edits articles about them, 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 the 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.


7thYear

2ndEdition of the European research

100European companies assessed

29Criteria

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

25Maximum score

65%Europeanaverage score

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

The 2015 research looked at Wikipedia’s English language coverage of Europe’s top largest 100 European companies (based on the FT500 index). The research will be followed by German, Swiss and Italian editions.

CONTENTS

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

INSIGHT FROM WIKIMEDIA

HOW WE CONDUCTEDTHE RESEARCH

LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH 2015 CLASSIFICATION

HOW WE CAN HELP

CONTACTS

FAST FACTS

p. 5

p. 6

p. 7

p. 12

p. 11

p. 4

p. 13

p. 16

p. 16

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

DANIELE RIGHIHead of the Lundquist Wikipedia [email protected]

p. 10


MOST VISITED SITE ON THE WEB

7thPAGEVIEWS EACH MONTH(English Wikipedia)

7+ 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 2015 revealed that companies averaged 65% of the total score, compared with 66% in the last edition of the research.

The content element 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 company pages 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)

1. Calling all editors

DECREASING NUMBER OF ACTIVE AND VERY ACTIVE EDITORSON 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 their were only 3,374 in October 2015. Very active editors make up 0.01% of Wikipedia’s more than 26 million registered users (some people could have created multiple usernames over time, however the percentage is still staggeringly low). They are followed by 30,482 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 3.8% of the more than 26 million registered users became “contributors” as of October 2015 (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 PAGESVIEWS ARE MASSIVEWikipedia 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: 7+ billion in October 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

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 company articles. Historical information contributes to justify the Wikipedia eligibility of a company article.

Criticism & litigationCriticism & 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 entrieshave at least an overview (10−15 sentences). However, of entries do not have this section updated.

Only 26% of companies analysed have updated contents for all the sections analysed - such as financial figures and key people.

The number of company articles in which financial figures are missing or are outdated is on the rise.

(13% in 2014, 31% in 2015)

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

55% of companies present information on criticismand litigation.

Generally, every substantial piece of content is discussed here. This is where issues emerge and debates take place. 19% of articles present negative discussion.

63% of company articles present 2 or more pictures.

83%17% have fewer than20 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 company articles presented the name of their Directors or Executives, down from in 2014.

2. What we found out

Our research shows that company Wikipedia articles have issues and, compared to last year, less information.This page illustrates the main elements of a company Wikipedia article, along with some of the key research findings.


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 company articles. Historical information contributes to justify the Wikipedia eligibility of a company article.

Criticism & litigationCriticism & 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 entrieshave at least an overview (10−15 sentences). However, of entries do not have this section updated.

Only 26% of companies analysed have updated contents for all the sections analysed - such as financial figures and key people.

The number of company articles in which financial figures are missing or are outdated is on the rise.

(13% in 2014, 31% in 2015)

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

55% of companies present information on criticismand litigation.

Generally, every substantial piece of content is discussed here. This is where issues emerge and debates take place. 19% of articles present negative discussion.

63% of company articles present 2 or more pictures.

83%17% have fewer than20 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 company articles presented the name of their Directors or Executives, down from in 2014.

Often companies intervene without understanding the rules of engagement by which Wikipedia operates.

We uncovered many accounts (in fact, almost 40% 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 violate the username policy of Wikipedia (which bans both usernames implying shared use and promotional ones).

> 12 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 COMPANIES ARE DOING 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. An account, which has the same name of the global agricultural company, deleted controversial information. Due to the 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.

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 COMPANIES ARE DOING RIGHT


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

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.

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


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?

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 self-related articles, 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.





60%




60%




60%




60%




60%

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

HOW WE CONDUCTEDTHE RESEARCH

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

In 2015, the Wikipedia research took into consideration the top largest 100 European companies (based on the FT500 index). Evaluations were conducted in September 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.

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 2015 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


LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH 2015 – EUROPE 100

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 RESEARCH 2015EUROPE 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




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.

companies and wikipedia: friend or foe?...companies and wikipedia: friend or foe? wikipedia is the...

Documents