So, you've decided it's time for a Wikipedia article | Part 1
Policies and Guidelines
Here's a question heard every day in marketing or communications teams across the country, and even the world: why don't we have a Wikipedia page? The question may be asked about an established business, a new product line, or a startup that’s taking off. Whatever the case may be, now you've set your sights on creating a new entry in the world's most-visited encyclopedia—in fact, one of the most-visited sites on the internet.
Before long you've drafted an entry, but don't know what to do next. Or maybe you figured out how to post it, only to see it pulled down almost immediately. A select, industrious few of you might have found Wikipedia's Articles for Creation feature and submitted a draft, but (eventually) heard from editors about how the sourcing isn't good enough, the language is too promotional, and something about whether your topic is "GNG", whatever that means.
All of a sudden, you realize, whatever Wikipedia is, it is not such a simple task to create an article after all, and there is a lot to learn. It's okay to feel confused and frustrated. Wikipedia is rife with jargon, invisible tripwires, and enough policies and guidelines to fill… well, an encyclopedia. The good news is, at Beutler Ink we deal with this everyday, and we're here to offer some clarity and practical advice.
The truth is, creating a new Wikipedia article is hard, and there are many hurdles to jump over before the site's volunteer editing community will accept one from someone with a financial connection to that company or topic—in other words, a conflict of interest. Editors on Wikipedia set the bar high for deciding to accept new articles, and for good reason. Without it, the site would become clogged with promotional material and articles packed full of claims that haven't been verified.
All that said, it doesn’t have to be an impossible task. But there are several key policies and guidelines you should understand well, and the following tips will help you get off on the right foot. So, let's see if we can untangle a bit of the bowl of spaghetti that is Wikipedia's policies regarding creating new articles for business reasons.
Must-know policies and guidelines
There are thousands of guidelines, policies, essays, and discussions on Wikipedia. Luckily, you only need to familiarize yourself with a few of them when it comes to new articles:
The “GNG” is what editors look at when deciding if a topic is "notable", a term which boils down to having enough coverage in independent reliable sources over time to show that the topic is of interest to a general audience. The term "notability" can be confused with "importance", but shouldn't be. It's like rectangles and squares: all notable topics are important, but not all important topics meet the requirements of the GNG.
Sourcing reigns supreme on Wikipedia, and never more so than when you're seeking placement of a new article. Editors want to see multiple examples of reported, professional journalism specifically about the topic that are in-depth. What does that mean, exactly? You need your article to rely on sources from journalistic outlets with a reputation for accuracy and good fact-checking. What’s more, these need to be works of journalism, particularly reporting—whether it’s a news article, profile piece, or feature story—produced through that outlet's normal editorial process. Here are a few places where folks commonly get tripped up:
Interviews published in the form of a Q&A piece don't count, as they're considered to be unedited opinions and aren't expected to be fact-checked. Similarly, op-eds do not count toward notability, and cannot be used to verify facts in encyclopedia articles.
Press releases also don't qualify, because they are promotional, not journalistic. On today's internet, some outlets (and even some well-known ones) will slightly edit and republish press releases as if they are news stories, but Wikipedia editors won't be fooled.
Paid or sponsored content on otherwise reliable sources (think your local newspaper's auto section) is not considered independent of the subject.
User generated content from sites like Crunchbase and the like are also a no-go. The information hasn't been vetted by a professional editorial staff, so it can't be used to support anything on Wikipedia.
No social media. LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, etc. are also considered marketing, not journalism, and do not count toward notability. YouTube might count, if the account belongs to a well-respected newsgathering organization. Additionally, having a verified Twitter account is not a factor editors consider when determining if a topic is "notable".
Everything on Wikipedia should be written in a neutral voice, and represent all (and only) relevant facts, without bias. This is one that seems easy enough, but in practice can be quite difficult. In essence, picture the driest piece of toast you've ever eaten. Your Wikipedia article should be drier than that. It has to avoid peacock terms, cannot speculate about anything, and must not include analysis or opinion. If you notice an adjective sneaking into your draft, best to remove it.
This feels like a good point to pause. The guidelines and policies we've discussed here are not exhaustive, and there are plenty more that affect a draft's chances of being accepted, but these are the top three most likely to make a difference.
Next time, we'll look at some useful tips for gauging whether your article is in line with these rules. Sign up to receive a notice when Part II is available next week.