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.
1 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015
CONTENTS
LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH
As 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.
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
p. 10
INSIGHT FROM WIKIMEDIA
p. 11
HOW WE CONDUCTED
THE RESEARCH
p. 12
LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH
2015 CLASSIFICATION
p. 13
HOW WE CAN HELP
p. 16
CONTACTS
p. 16
p. 4
p. 5
p. 6
p. 7
FAST FACTS
7th
2nd
Year
Edition of the European
research
100
29
European companies
assessed
Criteria
4
25
Parts of the protocol:
Infobox, Features,
Sections, Conversation
& Acknowledgements
Maximum score
65%
European
average score
For more information and to order a report,
please contact:
DANIELE RIGHI
Head of the Lundquist Wikipedia Research
daniele.righi@lundquist.it
3 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015
THE STATE OF PLAY BETWEEN
WIKIPEDIA 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
1/5
VIOLATE
WIKIPEDIA RULES
1. CALLING ALL EDITORS
3. BEWARE OF THE QUICK FIX
The 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.
Often 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.
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
EUROPEAN COMPANIES
score, compared with
ASSESSED
66% in the last edition
of the research.
100
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 nonneutrality 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.
-27%
DECREASE IN
FINANCIAL FIGURES
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 Lundquist
UBS
BT GROUP
ENEL
BP
2
4. GETTING IT RIGHT
1
3
7th
MOST VISITED SITE ON THE WEB
7+ billion
60%
PAGEVIEWS EACH MONTH
(English Wikipedia)
OF THE TIME
WIKIPEDIA RESULTS RANK
IN THE FIRST PAGE OF GOOGLE
4 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015
1. Calling all editors
WIKIPEDIA PAGESVIEWS ARE MASSIVE
Wikipedia 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).
Despite the visibility afforded to company articles on
Wikipedia, corporate related contents on the encyclopedia
areSOMETHING’S
suffering. In
fact, our research show that, for instance,
BUT
WRONG
the number
of company
entries
with updated
financial
Despite
the visibility
afforded
to company
articles
decreased
by 27%
since 2014.
onfigures
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).
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
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.
DECREASING NUMBER OF ACTIVE
AND VERY ACTIVE EDITORS
ON 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
Source:Wikimedia
5 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
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.
Generally, every substantial
piece of content is discussed
here. This is where issues
emerge and debates take
place. 19% of articles present
negative discussion.
1/5
In 2015,
of articles
have at least an alert
which indicates an issue
with the page.
Article Talk
This icon identifies a good
article: complete, neutral,
elegant, verifiable and
illustrated. UBS’s article,
which tops our ranking,
is a prime example.
Read
Edit
View history

Search
COMPANY NAME
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ALERT
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.
81%
In 2015,
of entries
have at least an overview
(10−15 sentences). However,
of entries do not have
this section updated.
38%
55% of companies present
information on criticism
and litigation.
26%
Only
of companies
analysed have updated
contents for all the sections
analysed - such as financial
figures and key people.
PAGE SECTION
Here is where companies’ related contents are.
History section
The history section is among the most prevalent in company articles. Historical
information contributes to justify the Wikipedia eligibility of a company article.
28%
The number of company
articles in which financial
figures are missing or are
outdated is on the rise.
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.
Corporate Governance
In 2015,
of company
articles presented the name
of their Directors or
Executives, down from
in 2014.
On Wikipedia, basic information
is provided in this small box called:
infobox.
Information about Directors and Executives, which Wikipedia’s guidelines recommend,
is less and less present on company articles.
43%
(13% in 2014,
31% in 2015)
Dedicated articles on key people
linked from the company articles
are on the rise:
58 articles about Chairmen in 2015
Vs
54 in 2014;
REFERENCES
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.
about CEOs in 2015
63 articles
Vs
in 2014
55
PICTURES
17% have fewer than
20 sources (the more
the better).
83% of articles have
more than 20.
Providing pictures is an
opportunity for companies to bring
value to Wikipedia, starting on their
path to becoming good Wikipedia
contributors.
63%
of company articles
present 2 or more pictures.
6 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015
3. Beware of the quick fix
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 COMPANIES ARE DOING WRONG
What a blocked account looks like on Wikipedia
Maersk 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.”
7 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015
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.
WHAT COMPANIES ARE DOING RIGHT
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.
8 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015
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.
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
9 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015
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.
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.
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.
Andrea Zanni, President of Wikimedia
Italia (the non-profit organization that
operates and manages Wikipedia)
Lundquist Framework
1
>
>
>
DO NOT CONSIDER WIKIPEDIA A SUBSECTION OF THE
CORPORATE WEBSITE
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia sustained by
a 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)
2
>
>
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”
DISCLOSE YOUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST
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
Companies that are willing to correctly engage with the encyclopedia
can transparently contribute in a beneficial way, starting from noncontroversial and objective information. They can then evolve into
trustworthy and respectful members of the community.
Daniele Righi, Head of the
Wikipedia Research
3
>
>
WIKIPEDIA IS A WEBSITE, NOT YOURS, NOT ANYONE ELSE’S.
THERE IS NO PRESS OFFICE NOR AN ARTICLE OWNER,
SO ENGAGE FIRST
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
4
>
>
BRING VALUE TO WIKIPEDIA
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
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?
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 that
a 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.
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.
11 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015
HOW WE CONDUCTED
THE 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.
THE PROTOCOL IS STRUCTURED AS FOLLOWS
Infobox
Page features
7th
The first part of the protocol examines the content
of the infobox, located on the right-hand side of a
MOST VISITED
SITE ON THEsuch
WEB as
Wikipedia company article. It covers
information
the year of foundation, corporate logo, headquarters,
financial figures, number of employees, and industry.
Page sections
7th
7th
7th
60%
The second section looks at a range of features such
as categories that improve navigation through the
MOST
SITE ONallow
THE WEB
OF
THEVISITED
TIMEwhich
PAGEVIEWS
EACH MONTH
encyclopedia,
pictures and references
WIKIPEDIA RESULTS RANK
(English
Wikipedia)
users to verify information in the Wikipedia article.
IN THE FIRST PAGE OF GOOGLE
Conversations & acknowledgements
The third part evaluates the information in the main body
of the Wikipedia entry. The protocol takes into account
MOST VISITED
SITE ON to
THEbusiness,
WEB
many different themes, from company
history
information on directors and executives, to criticism.
Penalty point
7+ billion
7+ billion
7th
60%
This year a new section was added that is dedicated to
how Wikipedia actually takes shape and to how entries
MOST
THE WEB
OF
THEVISITED
TIME SITE
PAGEVIEWS
EACH MONTH
are judged
by the Wikipedia community.
TheONresearch
WIKIPEDIA
RESULTS
RANK
(English
Wikipedia)
looked at the conversations taking place around the
IN THE FIRST PAGE OF GOOGLE
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.
7+ billion
60%
In 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
MOSTpages.
VISITED SITE ON THE WEB
OF THE TIME
PAGEVIEWS EACH MONTH
is a negative discussion in the talk
WIKIPEDIA RESULTS RANK
(English Wikipedia)
IN THE FIRST PAGE OF GOOGLE
12 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015
7+ bill
PAGEVIEWS EACH M
(English Wikipedia)
7+ bill
PAGEVIEWS EACH M
(English Wikipedia)
LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH 2015
EUROPE 100
LUNDQUIST WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH 2015 – EUROPE 100
Position
2015
Company
name
Country
Score 2015
(max 25)
1
UBS
Switzerland
90.0%
2
BP
UK
88.0%
3
BT Group
UK
86.0%
3
Enel
Italy
86.0%
5
Airbus
France
85.0%
6
Daimler
Germany
84.0%
6
Deutsche Bank
Germany
84.0%
6
Vodafone Group
UK
84.0%
9
Danone
France
83.0%
9
Gazprom
Russia
83.0%
NEW
9
Luxottica
Italy
83.0%
NEW
12
Volkswagen
Germany
80.0%
13
Statoil
Norway
79.2%
14
Siemens
Germany
78.8%
15
Rio Tinto
UK
78.4%
16
Barclays
UK
78.0%
16
Heineken
Netherlands
78.0%
16
Intesa Sanpaolo
Italy
78.0%
16
Royal Dutch Shell
UK
78.0%
20
Telefónica
Germany
77.2%
21
Eni
Italy
76.2%
21
L'Oréal
France
76.2%
21
Orange
France
76.2%
24
Société Générale
France
76.0%
24
Total
France
76.0%
26
BASF
Germany
75.0%
27
Syngenta
Switzerland
74.4%
28
Nestlé
Switzerland
74.0%
28
Royal Bank Of Scotland
UK
74.0%
30
BNP Paribas
France
73.8%
31
Credit Suisse Group
Switzerland
73.2%
32
Ericsson
Sweden
72.0%
32
Lloyds Banking Group
UK
72.0%
32
Unilever
Netherlands
72.0%
35
Maersk Group
Denmark
71.4%
35
Reckitt Benckiser
UK
71.4%
37
GlaxoSmithKline
UK
71.0%
37
SABMiller
UK
71.0%
13 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015
Score difference
compared to 2014
Position
2015
Company
name
Country
Score 2015
(max 25)
39
H&M
Sweden
70.8%
40
Allianz
Germany
70.0%
40
AstraZeneca
UK
70.0%
40
BHP Billiton
UK
70.0%
40
BMW
Germany
70.0%
40
HSBC
UK
70.0%
45
EDF
France
69.8%
46
Diageo
UK
69.0%
46
Roche
Switzerland
69.0%
48
RELX Group
UK
68.0%
49
BG Group
UK
67.0%
49
British American Tobacco
UK
67.0%
51
ING
Netherlands
66.2%
52
Prudential
UK
66.0%
52
SAP
Germany
66.0%
54
AXA
France
65.8%
55
Imperial Tobacco
UK
65.0%
55
Shire
UK
65.0%
57
ABB
Switzerland
64.2%
58
Henkel
Germany
63.0%
58
Standard Chartered
UK
63.0%
58
Telenor
Norway
63.0%
61
Engie
France
62.8%
62
Glencore
UK
62.0%
63
Associated British Foods
UK
60.0%
64
LVMH
France
59.4%
64
Sanofi
France
59.4%
66
Bayer
Germany
59.2%
66
Novartis
Switzerland
59.2%
68
Santander
Spain
59.0%
69
Anheuser-Busch InBev
Belgium
58.0%
70
Munich Re
Germany
57.0%
70
National Grid
UK
57.0%
72
Nordea
Sweden
56.0%
72
Richemont
Switzerland
56.0%
74
Christian Dior
France
55.8%
75
Rosneft
Russia
55.4%
NEW
76
Continental
Germany
54.4%
NEW
77
Inditex
Spain
54.2%
78
Zurich Insurance Group
Switzerland
53.8%
79
Hermes International
France
53.2%
79
Swiss Re
Switzerland
53.2%
14 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015
Score difference
compared to 2014
NEW
NEW
NEW
Position
2015
Company
name
Country
Score 2015
(max 25)
81
Atlas Copco
Sweden
53.0%
81
Swisscom
Switzerland
53.0%
NEW
83
Vinci
France
52.8%
NEW
84
Generali Group
Italy
51.2%
84
Crédit Agricole
France
51.2%
84
Deutsche Telekom
Germany
51.2%
87
Lukoil
Russia
50.8%
88
Novo Nordisk
Denmark
50.2%
88
Vivendi
France
50.2%
90
Iberdrola
Spain
49.2%
91
Linde
Germany
49.0%
92
Pernod Ricard
France
48.8%
93
UniCredit
Italy
47.8%
94
ASML Holding
Netherlands
46.0%
95
Deutsche Post
Germany
45.0%
96
Air Liquide
France
43.8%
97
BBVA
Spain
42.2%
98
Schneider Electric
France
39.0%
99
Investor
Sweden
37.8%
NEW
100
Fresenius
Germany
35.8%
NEW
15 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015
Score difference
compared to 2014
NEW
NEW
HOW WE CAN HELP
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 activities
do not comply with its rules.
For more information and to order a report,
please contact:
DANIELE RIGHI
JOAKIM LUNDQUIST
Head of the Lundquist Wikipedia Research
daniele.righi@lundquist.it
Founder of Lundquist
joakim.lundquist@lundquist.it
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.
16 - Lundquist Wikipedia Research 2015