Recentism is Wikipedia's habit of giving whatever just happened more space than it will deserve in hindsight. In the short run, this probably works against you. But in the long run, it usually runs in your favor. During a bad news cycle, it may feel like editors are adding material as soon as new coverage hits, and that may be accurate. Ror a while, the article can read as if the incident is the most important thing your company has ever done. Wikipedia's editors know this pattern well enough to have a term for it, and everyone is susceptible to it.
The best path forward is a realization that, almost by definition, it will take time. And waiting is hard. Once the spotlight has moved on, wait a decent interval—this depends on how damaging the story is and how patient your higher-ups are willing to be—and then post a message on the article's talk page. State openly who you work for and propose that the blow-by-blow be condensed into a basic summary, just the facts, pointing out the article's imbalance. You might even invoke the "due and undue weight" policy if you think it helps.
Timing is the discipline. The same request filed amid the headlines looks to editors like pure damage control. Filed six months later, it looks like a fair ask for a second look.
Last updated August 30, 2026.
