Possibly, and this is the most sophisticated question a company can ask. Wikipedia has a core policy called "due and undue weight": an article is supposed to give each topic space roughly in proportion to how much real-world coverage it receives. An incident that was a sliver of two decades of news about you, but takes up a third of your article, is almost certainly violating that rule. That's actually good news: it gives your image problem a policy hook.
It matters because arguments framed in terms of Wikipedia's rules get more traction than arguments about how it affects you. "This is unflattering" persuades no one. "This 2021 event takes up 40 percent of the article but represents a small fraction of the substantial coverage about us, and here is the fuller record" is the kind of argument volunteer editors will understand.
Be ready for the honest version of the answer, though: sometimes the coverage really is dominated by the incident, and the article's proportions are accurately mirroring the record. In that case the fix is not on Wikipedia.
Last updated August 30, 2026.
