7 Signs a Wikipedia Editing Service is Probably a Scam
Tips to help you navigate the hordes of scammers online who will gladly take your money and leave you in worse shape on Wikipedia than you began with.
It's easy to find someone on the internet who will be perfectly happy to take your money and leave you high and dry. From your cousin's hacked Facebook account to the daily barrage of email phishing attacks and now even text message spam, internet fraud is sadly everywhere. Scammers are even present in the Wikipedia services sector. In fact, Beutler Ink is one of only a handful of agencies that truly embrace the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use for conflict-of-interest editors, and understand Wikipedia's rules and content policies. Far more common are shady firms that promise results they can't deliver for low costs. It seems too good to be true, and it is. We hope these tips will help keep you safe from Wikipedia service scams. Here are seven things to look for when evaluating a Wikipedia service online:
Do they have an "about" section on their website? Does their staff page show real people work there?
Transparency matters, and whether the people behind the company are willing to put their name or face on it is one of the first things you should look for on a website that offers Wikipedia services. If there's no About page at all, that's a huge red flag. At the very least, there should be a short blurb about the company's history. But really, they should show that they're real people, who you could go and find somewhere like LinkedIn. If the whole website is a single landing page designed to funnel you quickly into a "live chat" or "limited time offer", be prepared to lose whatever money you give to that company and have nothing to show for it on Wikipedia. If you're especially unlucky, you might even end up as a discussion topic on the conflict of interest noticeboard. And just like a Wikipedia article's edit history, those discussions never go away.
Do they guarantee results on Wikipedia?
Seeing any promise along the lines of "100% Satisfaction" is a huge red flag. The truth is that no one can guarantee you a result on Wikipedia, here are a few reasons why: If you play by the rules you'll be collaborating with volunteer editors who all have their own interpretation of things like reliable sources, neutral point of view, and content balance. If a site says they'll directly edit your article, that's a blatant violation of Wikipedia's rules, and you can read our past blog post on Wikipedia marketing fails for some examples of how badly it can go. If they say they'll publish your article, make sure to find out exactly what they mean. A company could charge you to place a draft in a user account, or submit a draft for review by other Wikipedia editors (this is the proper route, by the way), and claim they've held up their side of the bargain. But if the draft is poorly written, and doesn't include proper sourcing, it will likely be deleted before long. Or, they will publish the article directly to Wikipedia (against the rules for paid editing) and it could be taken down almost immediately. It's worth keeping in mind: being successful on Wikipedia takes a long time. If you're offered 100% guaranteed results with your Wikipedia needs, ask yourself how many things in life are 100% guaranteed.
How does the site compare to known Wikipedia agencies?
It's fascinating how many Wikipedia service sites are near clones of one another. And they seem to disappear as fast as they appear. A few hallmarks to look for: the site is a single landing page, they make lofty claims like "highly recommended by The New York Times" or have a bar of scrolling brand logos with no context at all. What about the reviews and testimonials? Some real winners won't even bother to use more than one or two stock photos that repeat many times for reviews from laughably fake personas such as "John S., Company Executive." And, of course, if the site claims to have a staff of exceptional writers, but its copy appears to have been written by someone sitting down at a keyboard for the first time, that's a good moment to turn around and leave.
Is there a clearly stated policy on following Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules?
We cannot emphasize this enough: any legitimate Wikipedia services agency will clearly state that they are going to be following all of the rules for conflict-of-interest editors. See the bottom of our Wikipedia capabilities page for an example. If a site says they will outright create an article, or directly edit your article, then you are absolutely, 100%, looking at a scam. Those are "blackhat" editors. The harm they cause and the amount of time and resources they waste is horrendous. Please do not support them.
How aggressive is their marketing?
If you've received five messages from a chat bot (that probably is claiming to definitely not be a chat bot) 10 seconds after opening a site, you've likely found a scammer. "Free consultations" are another staple of scam websites; a respectable firm will not charge you for a sales call. If they're also bombarding you with 70% off offers that magically escalate to 80 or 90% percent off as you scroll down the landing page, best to just leave. Look out for this in email marketing about Wikipedia services, too. A short list saying they can set you up with a company profile, or executive biography, and generally promising your Wikipedia dreams on a silver platter is not from any sort of legit company. As we illustrated above: there's just no one in the world that can guarantee you a result when it comes to Wikipedia.
What is their overall online presence like?
Like any industry, there will be companies that are clear thought leaders. For instance, if they have a blog with dozens of posts about the ins -and -outs of Wikipedia, that's a good sign they're legit, and have the experience needed to deliver on their promises. Even better if they also have active profiles on sites like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Try finding some real reviews on websites like Trustpilot, do they look legitimate or are they all from users who have made a single review? Point being, if a company is active in their online presence, they're far more likely to be, you know, actual people.
Are they on the list of blocked Wikipedia editing services?
It turns out that one of the best places to see who is breaking Wikipedia's rules is Wikipedia! The editing community keeps close tabs on Wikipedia editing companies, accounts or suspected accounts associated with them. We're glad to be on the short-list of firms who have never been blocked from Wikipedia. Obviously we think you're best-served choosing us for Wikipedia support, but if even one person ends up with a firm on this list instead of a scammer, then this post has done its job.
That about wraps it up!
A lot of these may seem obvious, but the scam sites keep showing up and Wikipedia is in a constant battle against poor quality drafts and obvious cases of undisclosed paid editing.
Someone must be hiring these scammers—please don't let it be you! For more examples of how to spot and avoid these dubious operators, we recommend this Twitter thread from Annie Rauwerda's depths of wikipedia. Wikipedia experts about what's possible for your article, reach out today to schedule a meeting with our team. We won't guarantee you results, but we will give you an honest answer about what's realistic to expect for your Wikipedia article.