So, you've decided it's time for a Wikipedia article | Part III
What should my draft article look like?
Hello again! Glad to see you're still with us on this adventure in developing an article that has the best chance of being accepted by the Wikipedia editing community. In the first installment, we talked about the key policies and guidelines you need to understand beforing voyaging into the world of Wikipedia content development. After that, we talked about the kinds of sources that are out there, and which ones are going to help you the most in showing the Wikipedia community your subject deserves a standalone article. Now, it's time to tackle the question of what your draft should look like.
When you start writing content for Wikipedia, you'll have set aside any urges to write descriptive prose. A company selling gear for space travel wouldn't get to say they're supplying "those adventuring few who explore the farthest reaches of human capability" in their Wikipedia article, they'd just have to call them astronauts. Here are a few more tips that will bolster your success and help avoid pitfalls, or at least avoid spending time and effort on an article that won't be accepted:
Less is more
You'll be asking folks who are volunteers to spend their free time reviewing your article. If your draft has 100+ sources, and every SKU in your inventory, you'll likely get a fast rejection. Remember, you're asking volunteers to spend their time reviewing the draft, it's important to make the task easy for them. It's far better to start with a solid article using only the highest-quality sources, and plan to expand the article later. You should have enough content that your draft isn't a stub—an article too short to provide encyclopedic value, but keeping your article simple and to the point will aid the review process. First and foremost, the draft must clearly show why this topic is interesting and worth reading about.
Money doesn't make a topic notable
One of the most common challenges companies (especially startups) face on Wikipedia is that editors aren't interested in how much venture capital they've raised, and the best-planned product/service/brand in the world doesn't count until it's launched, has a solid operating history and a documented impact. If your company is less than a year old, it's unlikely there's enough quality coverage to develop a standalone article. If your product or service is still being proven, there's likely not enough information on its impact to support a standalone article.
You don't own your Wikipedia article
There's no way to sugarcoat it: any Wikipedia editor out there can come along and add information to your article, or remove content that doesn't meet guidelines. And the content in there must be balanced and impartial. When it comes to drafting your article, you can't select only the most flattering parts of your history. Whether you've had a few hiccups along the way, or a major scandal, if it's covered in mainstream media, it will have to be given fair treatment on Wikipedia. However, embracing balance is a way to show the Wikipedia community you're there to improve the encyclopedia, not just to promote your product or service.
In the long run, most biographies or company profiles on Wikipedia will have a similar structure. That means anyone looking to get an article created can look at existing articles for a sense of what information shows up the most.
Biographies: To have a compelling article, you'll want to have information about the subject's early life and education, their early career and accomplishments specifically attributed to them, recognition, and a clear claim to why the subject is notable, or in other words, a compelling end to this sentence: They are primarily known for…
Company profile: Editors will be looking for details about the company's founding (who, when, where), early growth, major milestones, industry recognition, and contributions to its field. Like biographies, the article needs to be able to end this sentence in a compelling way: The company is primarily known for…
Where does that leave us?
If you've made it here and are thinking "jeez, this whole Wikipedia thing just doesn't sound like the bowl of spaghetti I want to jump in'', you're not alone. The reality is that it takes a significant amount of research and analysis to know whether it's worth the time and resources to submit a draft article for review. If you've already tried and found the process more difficult than you expected, it's also hard to know when to try again.
Luckily, that's exactly what we're here to help with. Getting an article placed on Wikipedia can be a worthwhile investment. Among other things, it's seen as proof of legitimacy, is excellent for SEO, and contributes to your Google Knowledge Panel. It's also a long process that can take months to see to completion.
At Beutler Ink, we start by reviewing everything we can find about your subject, compiling all available sourcing that meets Wikipedia's standards, drafting a preview article that shows what information about the subject will look like, providing an in-depth analysis on likely obstacles the draft may face, and providing recommendations for developing the article further. If the article looks viable, we will walk you through every step of the process, from preparing your draft to submitting it, as well as responding to feedback from editors, with the end goal in mind: an accurate, up-to-date Wikipedia article that tells your story properly.
Sign up for notifications about our next post! Or, click here to set a meeting with our Wikipedia team—let's explore your situation and see what's possible.