Ian Woollard wrote:
My point about organic growth is that if an article
isn't linked in,
then in a hypertext environment like the wikipedia, it shouldn't be
there. And there's a lot of companies sitting there, unlinked, because
every time they linked themselves, somebody went 'who cares' or 'link
spam' and unlinked them.
Then add the links, and quit worrying about those ignorant fools that
obsess about link spam.
That doesn't happen with truly notable
companies though.
<fact>
I think any guidelines should start from another
article, whereas
right now it starts from the company. Just adding in data along the
lines of 'there exists a company called X that makes Y, and Z said
they were really good!' into the wikipedia is ultimately useless.
If the X and Y are substantially on the mark that part of the article
should not be removed only because of a badly written Z. At worst one
should remove Z's comments. Better would be to introduce neutrality
with offsetting information, but that requires work.
Ec