User talk:CommTechResearcher

October 2025

Hello CommTechResearcher. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:CommTechResearcher. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=CommTechResearcher|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot,

Thanks for your message. I understand your concern. I’m not being paid or compensated for my edits. I’m just learning how Wikipedia works and trying out different editing tools and features.

In the future, I might want to write or improve an article about the company where I work, but right now I’m only practicing and learning how to edit properly.

Could you please let me know if I should already add the disclosure on my user page, or if it’s better to wait and do that once I start working on the company article?

Thank you for your help and for clarifying this for me. CommTechResearcher (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You indicated that you wish to edit about your employer. As your employer pays you a salary(I hope you don't work for free!), this makes you a paid editor under our rules, it does not require specific payment for editing(otherwise every paid editor would deny being specifically paid to edit). Yes, you should disclose your paid status on your user page. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to read WP:BOSS, and have your superiors and colleagues read it, too. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot,

Thank you very much for your time and for explaining everything so clearly. I really appreciate your help and the resources you shared.

Of course, we don’t want to bend or violate any Wikipedia rules.

Just to clarify, our main goal is not to promote our company, its services, or products in any way. We fully understand that Wikipedia is not a place for promotion.

Our intention is simply to create a neutral, factual article about the company, which was established in 2016 and operates globally. The goal would be to share verified, encyclopedic information such as the company’s history, founders, and product line,  nothing written in a promotional tone.

Ultimately, our goal is to add as much value as possible to Wikipedia readers by providing clear, accurate, and well-sourced information that helps them better understand the company and its background.

We plan to rely only on reliable, independent third-party sources that have already covered the company, and not on any self-published materials.

At this stage, we’re still exploring Wikipedia to better understand how it works,  learning about the tools, editing process, and relevant policies. We want to ensure we follow all rules correctly before doing anything related to the company.

We are absolutely open to adding a disclosure and have nothing to hide. Our only aim is to contribute in a transparent and constructive way, in full compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

I’d really appreciate your advice on how best to proceed in this situation - what would you recommend as the most appropriate next steps, so we can continue learning and eventually contribute without any issues or misunderstandings?

Thank you again for your time and for helping us understand this better.

Best regards,

CommTechResearcher CommTechResearcher (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So when you say "The goal would be to share verified, encyclopedic information such as the company’s history, founders, and product line", that is considered promotional on Wikipedia.(See WP:YESPROMO). You don't have to be actively soliciting customers or selling something, or even talking it up.

You and your company have a fundamental, if common, misunderstanding of Wikipedia; you want to tell us what you want the world to know about your company. That is the wrong approach; Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, demonstrating how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Such sources should not include press releases, interviews, brief mentions, the mere reporting of routine business activities(like the raising of capital or the commencement of operations) or non-notable awards(awards that do not themselves have an article, like Nobel Peace Prize).

My advice is to not proceed with this endeavor at all. It's more challenging than you think it is, and most in your position who attempt it fail. Are you the rarer person who can forget everything that they know about the topic they are associated with and limit themselves to summarizing independent sources(which may not necessarily be complimentary)? Possibly, but the odds are against it. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject, who take note of appropriate coverage of a topic and choose to write about it, summarizing those sources.

Aside from WP:BOSS, please see WP:PROUD as to why an article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one.

If none of this has dissuaded you, you may create a draft via the Article Wizard agter disclosure of your paid status, if you have at least three acceptable sources. If you want to tell what your three best sources are, I can look at them and see what your chances are. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain everything in such detail. I truly appreciate your patience and your clear advice. We completely understand what you mean and the reasoning behind your recommendations.

We definitely do not want to push or promote our product in any way. Our intention is not to use Wikipedia as a marketing channel, and we fully respect the platform’s mission and rules. We simply wanted to explore the process of contributing to Wikipedia correctly and transparently, without breaking any guidelines or causing any issues.

We also took a look at some existing company pages, such as those for RingCentral and Nextiva, and we were hoping to create something similar in structure and tone, based entirely on reliable, third-party information.

We are absolutely open to adding all the necessary disclosures and have nothing to hide. We only want to make a small, good-faith contribution for the wikipedia readers that is factual, neutral, and properly sourced.

Regarding sources, here are a few examples we found that provide independent coverage about our company:

Tracxn.com – contains information about our company’s funding and investors.

Capterra.com – includes verified user reviews and product details.

G2.com – has a dedicated page with detailed product information and over 1,500 user reviews.

TheCXLead.com – features a software review and analysis of our product.

Shifted.eu – includes a short article describing what our company does and its primary focus.

Forbes.sk – features an article covering our Series B investment round ($28 million) and describing our company’s AI-powered call center solutions and business growth.

EU-Startups.com – includes coverage of our Series B funding and highlights our position as one of the fastest-growing AI-powered call center software providers for modern businesses.

Tech.eu – describes our AI-powered communication platform, key investors, and commitment to transforming how businesses connect with customers worldwide.

Gartner.com - product description

We would love to know your thoughts on whether these could be considered acceptable sources under Wikipedia’s guidelines. If you think they are insufficient, we would be very grateful if you could suggest what sources would work better.

If possible, we could also prepare a very early draft of the article and share it with you for feedback before taking any further steps. Of course, only if you would find that appropriate.

Once again, thank you so much for your time, your understanding, and all your help. We really value your guidance and want to make sure we do everything correctly and respectfully.

Best regards, CommTechResearcher (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised that, while understandable, it is actually a poor idea to use any random article as a model, as it too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible in many ways for inappropriate content to get by us, even for years; this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.

I can provide a more detailed explanation later, but none of these sources establish that your company is notable in a Wikipedia sense. One thing I will say now is that raising capital or funding rounds contribute nothing to notability, those are routine business activities. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]