Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Bryan Derksen
It's based on the premise that we have an obligation to accommodate the company's concern over the dilution of the advertising value of their article. We actually have guidelines and policies _against_ that sort of thing; Wikipedia:Spam, Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
We have an obligation to living individuals to show them a decent level of human compassion. Here I think we can accommodate the company's concerns by redirecting to artificial vagina, which means that their Google presence will not be tainted by directly associating their product with competitors.
There's nothing wrong with mentioning competitors. If we describe a product, we can also add links to similar products from other companies. I have no problem with describing any product or company, or using a company's advertising as verification of what they say themselves about their own products. If the information comes from company flyers we need to say that too. This alone does not mean that we are advertising the product because we also accept impartial reports about the product, or competitors' claims as equally worthy of inclusion. If these other claims are less than flattering, too bad for them. When it comes to controversial products we should support the reader's right to receive a neutral picture of the product.
Since we do not accept advertising we have no contractual obligation to say only good things about the company.
Ec