More strictly than almost any other kind of company, because the content is medical, and Wikipedia holds medical claims to a higher standard of evidence than ordinary facts. Statements about what a drug does, how well it works, and what its risks are must be backed by sources such as review articles in medical journals, which summarize many studies, or guidance from major health authorities. The sources a company would naturally use, such as its own trial announcements, its press releases, and most news stories about a single study, don't qualify for medical claims.
In practice, this means the company's article and the drug's article follow different rules, which many pharma communications teams learn the hard way. Corporate facts such as revenue, leadership, and acquisitions follow the normal standards and can be updated like any other company's. The article about your lead product is medical content, watched closely by editors who enforce the higher standard. A correction citing your own trial data will fail there, while the same correction citing an independent medical review might succeed.
Anyone proposing an approach to pharma work that doesn't treat those two kinds of articles differently hasn't done much pharma work.
Last updated August 30, 2026.
