Bryan Derksen wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
They're sending people to Wikipedia to find out more about their product? I feel like I should have a problem with this, but I can't think of one. A quick glance at the history of the appropriate article doesn't show any obvious spamming. There is an element of it appearing that Wikipedia is somehow endorsing the product, but I don't think it's a major element.
Indeed, I think this could actually be quite positive depending on the details of their involvement with writing the article itself. "We've got a good product, and to prove it we'll direct you to a site that's outside our control and that has a strict policy of neutrality." Sort of like referring people to one's Better Business Bureau profile.
What better endorsement is there than the truth? A lot of people will mistrust a company's own website. For food products we can carry ingredients lists and vitamin contents without requiring the consumer to use a microscope to read the packaging.. If the company uploads bullshit it could be in for a very rough ride.
Ec