User talk:Dangerqc/advice

Procedure
Hi, I don't know how to get back to the 'talk' page. So i'm writing here! OK, so if i follow the wiki layout of Microsoft, Twitter and Google as 3 excellent examples, and state the history, founders and products, and link to the press stories we've had on the web and link to companies house then that we're ok, right?

How do i contact you to get back on the wiki proper? Geoff Hughes (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone (almost) can move it at any time. If you have proper press coverage, this is essential.  For what it's worth, google news turns up nothing.  Your best bet is to simply not worry about this.  If this company is actually Wikipedia material, surely someone else will write an article on it.  Friday (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I read the article here about people wasting time. Not wanting to be one of them I do still need to understand the rules of the game. Sorry for the additional questions:

If i follow the Twitter example, they link to the founders Jack Dorsey, Biz Stone, and Evan Williams, and the founders link to the page. Should i do this too? Will i need a personal page? If Jack Dorsey can have a page, can i? If i cannot, is there a fame threshold? What criteria should i aim for?

At what point does an entity become big enough to be listed? There is a risk of chicken and egg, no? They're not on wiki so they can come on the news. They're not on the news, so they can't come on wiki.

The crux is: i would like to add a respectable entry on the page. If i put it the various links together can you advise me on what is missing to meet the criteria? Geoff Hughes (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not about size, it's about coverage in reliable sources. No, you definitely should not start creating more than one article about this- if the company itself has not gotten media coverage, it's quite unlikely that individual people involved with it have.  And, sure, it's a chicken and egg thing.  But, Wikipedia only covers topics that have already gotten significant coverage in other sources.  It's not at all about "this company has a page, so my company should- that's only fair".  Wikipedia doesn't care what's fair.  Wikipedia cares about what's been covered by other sources.  That's what makes it an encyclopedia.  Friday (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Friday. I appreciate you get a lot of people trying their hand at this. Must be tiresome. It's a bit gutting that Wiki instructs editors to put off the good faith entrepreneur - after all, Wiki was small once.

I wonder if you can tell me 2 more things?

1. You said anyone could log in and upgrade the article to be published on the wiki proper. How would they do this? 2. How 'big' / 'famous' do we have to be to want to do this?


 * Someone could, but that doesn't mean they should. As it sits right now, your article is nothing like suitable Wikipedia content.  It's all about sources, as I've tried to explain.  Has your company gotten significant media coverage?  This would mean third-party sources, not your own press releases, for example.  I've googled and found nothing appropriate.  Friday (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)