How to update a company Wikipedia page

To update a company Wikipedia page, identify the specific problem, find suitable published evidence and prepare a neutral change proposal. If you work for or represent the company, use a transparent process that allows independent editors to review substantive changes. Keep a record of the request and the response.

For a communications team, the task often starts with a simple observation: the article names a former CEO, uses an old company name or describes a transaction as pending after it has completed. The next step is to establish exactly what is wrong and what the available evidence supports.

Read the article, its references, recent revision history and talk page before drafting a correction. This helps your team understand whether the information is an unnoticed error or the subject of an earlier discussion. Record the article URL and the version you reviewed so everyone works from the same starting point.

Make a short issue list. For each item, capture the section, current wording, proposed correction, supporting source and reason the change matters. This prevents a straightforward correction from becoming an unfocused attempt to rewrite the entire article.

• Factual discrepancy: A statement conflicts with appropriate published evidence.
• Outdated information: The statement was once accurate but needs a date or an update.
• Missing context: Readers May need additional sourced information to understand a development.
• Editorial disagreement: The wording or prominence is disputed even though the underlying facts are sourced.

These categories are a practical review aid, not official Wikipedia labels. Their purpose is to help your team choose a precise request and avoid describing every unwelcome sentence as an error.

English Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidance strongly discourages directly editing affected articles where you have a conflict. It provides a route for proposing changes on the article's talk page. If contributions are paid, the applicable disclosure requirements also need to be followed.

Assign one person to coordinate the company's evidence and internal feedback. That person can maintain the issue list and make sure the proposed wording reflects published information. Bringing several colleagues into the same discussion without coordination can create confusion about which request is current.

A useful proposal states what should change, where it appears and which evidence supports the replacement. Wikipedia's edit request guidance emphasizes clear, specific requests. For conflicts of interest, consult the simple COI edit request instructions and the relevant request template.

The following fictional example shows the level of precision to aim for. It is an illustration of a completed request's structure, not a statement about a real business.

• Role: I am an employee of the company discussed in this article.
• Location: The opening paragraph currently identifies the headquarters as Bristol.
• Proposed wording: The company is headquartered in Manchester, England.
• Evidence: A cited business news report describes the completed relocation and identifies the new headquarters.
• Reason: The existing sentence describes the earlier location. The proposed change updates that single fact.

In an actual request, provide the source's full title, publication date, link and relevant passage. Complete the required role disclosure as well. Keep unrelated requests separate so an editor can assess the headquarters change without first resolving a dispute about company history or market position.

A figure that appears outdated may refer to a different period or entity. Before replacing it, check whether revenue is reported for the group or a subsidiary, whether headcount is an annual average, and whether a cited acquisition was announced or completed. Record the definition alongside the value.

The same care applies to leadership changes. An announced appointment and an effective start date can differ. Your proposed wording should match the event that has actually occurred and the source you cite. This small check can prevent a correction from introducing a new inaccuracy.

A communications objective does not by itself justify removing a sourced account. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy concerns fair representation and appropriate weight. A useful discussion identifies the factual or contextual issue rather than asking editors to make the company look more positive.

For example, if an article describes an investigation but omits a later published outcome, prepare the later source and explain the missing chronology. Let the proposed addition stand on its evidence. Avoid combining it with a request to erase all previous coverage of the issue.

After the request is reviewed, record the outcome and any remaining questions. If the change is declined, read the explanation before resubmitting. More insistence is not a substitute for resolving the reason given.

Set a review rhythm that matches your company. A business undergoing frequent transactions may need more frequent checks than one with a stable operating structure. As a practical starting point, schedule a review after major public announcements and assign someone to examine relevant notifications between those reviews.

Include the article's talk page and relevant language editions in that routine. Our Wikipedia monitoring service is a useful starting point for discussing ongoing observation alongside occasional correction work.

Can we replace the entire article with an approved company text?

Internal approval does not establish that the text is suitable for Wikipedia. Start with specific sourced issues. A broad rewrite needs a clear editorial rationale and can be harder for an independent contributor to review.

How quickly will an edit request be reviewed?

Do not build a corporate announcement plan around a guaranteed Wikipedia response time. Independent review is outside your team's control. Prepare the evidence early and keep your owned channels accurate while the request is being considered.

Bring the article link, the passages you believe need attention and the strongest supporting sources. Augusta Atlantic provides Wikipedia editing and update consulting to help companies assess the work and prepare an appropriate way forward.