To date, since June 6, 2012 – nothing has changed and our entry is still incorrect.
Point one on Wonga:
On 20 November 2012, Stella Creasy demanded an apology from the company after The Guardian reported that abusive tweets were sent to her by Wonga employees. Further investigation of the Creasy case showed that computers registered to Wonga.com’s London office were used to abuse Creasy over Twitter, and delete criticism, as well as the reference to “usury” from Wonga.com’s Wikipedia page. Wonga.com admitted that a “junior employee” may have sent the tweets and defended what it regards as its right to correct “inaccurate” Wikipedia articles, though Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest says such edits are “strongly discouraged.”
And the second point…
According to The Times, PR company RLM Finsbury edited Mr Usmanov’s Wikipedia entry to remove mention of a freedom of speech row, where the Russian billionaire had allegedly threatened bloggers who repeated allegations that he was a “gangster and rackateer”, first made by Britain’s former ambassador to Uzbekistan, with legal action.
Details were also removed of a Soviet-era criminal conviction that was later overturned by the Uzbekistan Supreme Court and a description of the disappearance of a former Megafon shareholder, reports the newspaper.
Source: The Daily Telegraph
In Wonga, this is potentially arguable as a case of ‘he said she said’ and with Finsbury one thing that was removed was a rumour, the second was a court case that was overruled and the third a conspiracy theory.
Honestly, I’m tired of this debate and I really, really don’t know if it’s worth continuing it.
But, perhaps if Wikipedia is provided such weighty protection from our industry, we should insist that it also posts a suitable warning on the site.
Something on the lines of ‘Beware, the information you are reading is probably wrong, out of date and potentially libellous.’
For reference, I include the official responses from the CIPR.