Talk:Yodo1

COI

I've cleaned up the article as significant COI was evident: The largest contributions came from users Brock darkseid and Yodo1 (rather telling username), of whom each only has one edit, and both introduced details not found the sources they added (or they just added no source at all). I've cleaned up significant parts of the article, but it is generally in a bad shape. It definitely requires monitoring for future COI edits, but deletion should be considered as the company seemingly isn't notable (thus the need for COI-ers to edit the article to make it appear notable). Lordtobi (✉) 17:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Lordtobi, this is an old discussion, but an employee of the company came onto the IRC live help this morning.

Looks like they've been a victim of WP:SCAM and are now trying to see if they can tidy up the article and get the tag removed.

I am not so sure this company passes WP:NORG, but the employee stated they would have a look for sources.

To the Yodo1 employee:

1. Firstly, it's really worth reading Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. Having a Wikipedia article about your company is not always a good thing either, as you do not control the Wikipedia article and any editors can add verified criticism if there is any.
2. Secondly, our notability criteria for companies has gotten more strict over the years, and we now require companies pass the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria in order to merit an article. Because we're a volunteer project you may find other existing articles that you don't think meet that criteria - that's because no volunteer has gotten around to improving or deleting them yet. We don't compare articles to existing ones. Notability is proven through significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. We need to see significant commentary, analysis, discussion. We don't want to see interviews, PR statements, and routine business coverage. If you think your company passes the criteria above, your easiest way forward is to find three or more sources that meet our golden rule. Feel free to post them as a Reply to this message and I can take a look.
3. Finally, we do not usually allow employees of a company to edit their company's article directly, as this is a conflict of interest. We also require that any user accounts created by an employee make a mandatory paid editing disclosure - failure to do so would lead to that account being blocked. I'm happy to talk through the process if you make a Wikipedia account.

Next Steps

- If you create a Wikipedia account, please make that paid editing disclosure above on your User Page.

- To prove notability, feel free to post some sources you find below and I will take a look and let you know if they are any good.

- If you have any other questions, just post a Reply below. I'll watch this page for new comments, but as we're volunteers it may take a few days to reply. Qcne (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

And a follow up to my above message, for the Yodo1 employee, who left me a message on IRC with some sources. My assessment as follows:

1. Forbes (ciocentre): Written by the CEO, so not independent.
2. Forbes (laurabegleybloom): Brief mention
3. as above
4. Deel: Not independent as they contract with the company.
5. PocketGamer: A database listing/company profile, so not significant coverage.
6. Flexjobs: Brief mention

Then all the primary sources (yodo1.com) can't be used to establish notability, as they are primary, i.e. from the company itself. Qcne (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Qcne @Lordtobi, thanks for taking a look into this - much appreciated.

As Qcne stated, we fell for a WP:SCAM. We are open to any criticism and just want an unbiased review.

I have asked my teammates to compile all of our PR into this document.

Also, I believe I've accurately added to my user profile that I am a member of the company at hand here.

Thanks Milos Pilos Kilos (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)