So, you've decided it's time for a Wikipedia article | Part II
How do I know if my new article will meet Wikipedia's guidelines?
Oh hi! Welcome back. Last time, we laid some of the groundwork for understanding the policies and guidelines that Wikipedia editors most frequently reference when deciding if a new article should be created, and whether a draft article meets the site's content guidelines. That was a good start, but how do you know if you've got enough sources to write a good article, and whether they're considered "reliable" or not? This time, we'll dig into some of the criteria we apply when assessing individual sources about a topic, and gauging how much they will contribute (or not) to a draft being accepted.
We always start new article creation projects with the same question: what can I write about this topic using only what journalists have already written? As we discussed last time, Wikipedia editors prefer to rely on journalism as opposed to other types of web content to establish the subject's notability. But some types of sources are much more useful than others. Here's how it all breaks down:
Very useful for showing notability
In-depth features and profiles in international and national, mainstream media: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes*, USA Today, NPR, Reuters, The Times, etc. Very useful sources don't have to be as famous as these, but they should be relatively well-known. And even the top-tier sources still have to pass another test before we know we can use them in establishing notability for a topic. Specifically, the topic of the article needs to also be the topic of focus in the source article. A CEO being quoted, getting a minor mention in a context other than the reason the subject is notable (e.g. an executive whose home sale is covered in a newspaper's real estate section) will not count.
*While articles by Forbes' staff writers are considered top-tier, anything written by a "Forbes Contributor" does not qualify for use on Wikipedia, because contributing writers receive little or no editorial oversight.
Somewhat useful for showing notability
In-depth features and profiles in regional media or well-known digital outlets or smaller regional news outlets. These will be the major newspapers in your state, or online outlets like VentureBeat or The Verge. These publications are considered credible for topics relevant to their focus (such as the tech industry), but sometimes not for other topics (such as medical information). Having a few of these in an article helps, but unless you have years upon years of this type of coverage, it won't be enough to pass the high bar of notability.
Rarely useful for showing notability
Industry press, low-readership/niche outlets. These can help build out the history of a subject, and confirm some specific details, but they won't carry much weight when it comes to determining if the subject has met the notability threshold. Additionally, these types of outlets are more often behind paywalls, which prevent editors from easily verifying the information they contain. Essentially, these are sources where you can find interesting facts, but they won't sway editors to decide the article should exist.
Never useful for showing notability
Some sources are not helpful, and their presence may actually hurt your chances of having your article accepted, because editors will see their presence as a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines. This includes: All social media, press releases (whether your own or someone else's), paid media, interviews, blogs, pages from company websites, publications by think tanks, industry analysts such as Forrester or Gartner, news about stock prices or funding rounds, and opinion columns.
What’s Next
If you've identified a few sources in the "very useful" category, or one or two "very usefuls" and a mixed-bag of "somewhat usefuls" with a peppering of "rarely usefuls", odds are you have enough to build a decent draft.
Next, you've got to figure out what information is worth including, how to choose a source if several publications or stories confirm the same details, and just what exactly to do with that pesky profile in a top-tier outlet that is ripe with useful details but has some unflattering content. On top of all that, how do you know if the statements in your draft are appropriate, neutral, and balanced? All of that is what we'll cover in the third and final installment of this series on article creation.
Sign up to receive a notice when Part III is available.