UKAS has not proved itself up to writing its own promotional material to the international standards required by Wikipedia. It has displayed its bias clearly (but without stating its confidence limits, as it requires of its victims).
Wikipedia warns that its article on the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) “appears to be written like an advertisement.” It is clear to Wikipedia editors that the article is not neutral. How could we disagree?
It’s time for readers of this blog to add some of the criticisms that undermine the basis for management accreditation. How about refutations of the “Why accreditation is important” section? Is paying the inspection cartel really the only way of obtaining assurance of quality? Why has UKAS still not put forward any solid evidence that paying the accreditation tax brings any improvement for customers?