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