Wizz Air allegedly upsets the Wikipedia neutrality balance.

// January 12th, 2010 // Uncategorized

Frequent wikipedia deletions have sparked a recent discussion over Wizz Air’s Customer Service record.

From Wikipedia:

Service Quality to be mentioned here?

The text about Service Quality is frequently deleted, by anonymous users (i.e. only an IP address available). The text however is fully in line with the Wikipedia standards. It is civil and neutral, respects all points of view, and is verifiable and factual.

This page to stimulate a discussion on the Service Quality text, for those who feel need for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugene9 (talkcontribs) 17:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I do believe Service Quality should be mentioned! Probably the people deleting it has an interest which is in conflict with the public interest. Will re-add the articles they deleted. Servicemind (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wizz Air is well known in trying to curb their image, now Wikipedia is upsetting their balance.  Recently added to Wikipedia is a Criticisms section citing many of their now well established methods of conduct:


Wizz Air has taken a fair amount of criticism since its inception over its quality of service and allegedly poor customer support. On August 17th, 2009 they filed an official complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization over the domain Wizzairsucks.com which surfaced a few months earlier by a group of disgruntled customers. [21] Despite the efforts of Wizz Air and their legal team citing trademark infringement over the disputed domain, the case was decided in favor of the respondent(s) and the site remains. [22] On December 22nd, 2009 they were embroiled in a controversy over a story that circulated from Travel.ru [23] claiming they used police dogs and tear gas to forcibly remove several passengers from a canceled flight scheduled from London to Kiev. This was contested by Wizz Air claiming it was a PR attack perpetrated by angry customers of the flight. They released a police report corroborating their version of events which clearly made no mention of either tear gas or dogs being involved in the ordeal.[24] However the story quickly circulated over the internet by disgruntled customers causing a PR problem.

How long until this too is erased?  See our legal section for more on WizzLegal’s attempts to kill wizzairsucks.com  Is this the price tradeoff for decent customer service?  How much in legal fees does Wizz Air pay?  Is a staff of moderators to edit wikipedia and other forums with positive and glowing feedback easier than basic customer service?

Leave a Reply