The Wikipedia entry for OnTheMarket has been restored to its original condition after changes were made querying its apparent independence.
Wikipedia is an online ‘peoples’ encyclopaedia’ with most of its entries being open to editing by anyone. Some companies use it as a form of self-promotion.
Like most Wikipedia entries about businesses OTM’s entry is normally a straightforward promotional description of its service; the text includes a brief history of the portal and a list of its six founding agents.
In recent months the page had only minor and usually technical changes made to it; however, an online history of the page reveals that in mid-February a number of editorial changes were made.
These made references to its independence, its advertising on an industry blog, and to one particular estate agency which had a representative on the Agents’ Mutual board. The online history shows these references were removed earlier this week and the page restored to its previous condition.
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
How on earth is a trade magazine impartial ,with it's news coverage, when it is, blatantly sponsored by corporate estate agents who launched this portal , (in pre- launch and post- launch phase ) the truth is hard to swallow .
Accept the criticism..., stop making out, non bias Jackanory ,most people have already made their minds up, what's really going on in the industry .
Honestly.....what sad act has got time to edit OTM's Wikipedia page? Ridiculous pettiness.
Still funny though.
honestly , the trade magazine in question is not independent , it has banner advertising from the corporate high street estate agents ,
banks accounts, conversations..., nothings private anymore.... some people are very very naive... to believe putting on act.... will make things go away; when damming evidence is already at hand .....
No one ,company, accomplices , however large .thinking by flexing their muscle can avoid the long arm of the law.
How very cryptic. Is it you that's been changing the wiki page 'Mr Arlington'?!
sophisticated technology has a wonderfully way of tracing back years .... of data in many forms up to sledge hammer expose.
Have people on the inside, become informers ? some red faces ?
lets leave the industry there.
OnTheMarket appears to advertise on EstateAgentToday. Perhaps they post these adverts gratis? Of course not. Why should Wikipedia do so then?
Wikipedia has rules against this under [[WP:NOT]] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not specifically the section [[WP:NOTADVERTISING]]
*5 '''Self-promotion.''' It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]], [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and [[WP:SELFPROMOTION|Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]].
*6 '''Advertising, marketing or public relations.''' Information about companies and products must be written in an [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|objective and unbiased style]], free of [[Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms#Puffery|puffery]]. All article topics must be [[WP:V|verifiable]] with [[WP:Independent sources|independent]], [[WP:Third-party sources|third-party sources]], so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. [[Wikipedia:External links|External links]] to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify [[WP:N|notable]] organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)]] for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing [[public service announcement]]s, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. See also [[WP:FINANCIALCOI|Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]].
That pretty much covers it - no promotion, advertising, marketing, or public relations allowed.
Actually I missed something. The editor who posted the article was presumably paid - since he did not declare his paid status, he is violating the terms of use - see [[WP:Paid]].
Please login to comment