Plaintext
Wikipedia and the
Communications
Professional
A primer
WRITTEN BY WILLIAM BEUTLER, BEUTLER INK
PRESENTED BY COUNCIL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRMS + INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS
PAGE 2 WIKIPEDIA & THE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL: A PRIMER
Contents
03 --------------------------- Introduction
04 --------------------------- Acknowledgments
06 --------------------------- Wikipedia’s best practices—and why you should care
07 --------------------------- Why you should consider engaging on Wikipedia
08 --------------------------- Why you might choose not to engage on Wikipedia
09 --------------------------- How to work with Wikipedia
} Getting started
Creating an account
Setting up a user page
} Preparing a request for editors
} Tips for following the above steps
The right way to ask for help
What if I need to ask for help again?
11 --------------------------- How to deal with specific issues
} What if I just want to make a few simple, fact-based updates?
} What can I do if an article is overly negative or derogatory?
} What should I do in the event of vandalism?
} A Wikipedia editor disagrees with me. What can I do?
} What if there isn’t presently an article about my company or client?
} Are there circumstances in which an article may be removed entirely?
} What if I want to add an image?
} What if I’ve made mistakes in my approach to Wikipedia in the past?
} Do “conflict of interest” rules apply only to entries about my company?
} Can I just find someone I know without a paid conflict of interest to make edits for me?
14 --------------------------- Implementing an organizational Wikipedia policy
15 --------------------------- Identifying a Wikipedia specialist
17 --------------------------- Wrapping up
18 --------------------------- Appendix I. A guide to Wikipedia’s most important rules
19 --------------------------- Appendix II. A glossary of Wikipedia terminology
21 --------------------------- Appendix III. Further reading
2014, William Beutler. Released under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.
WIKIPEDIA & THE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL: A PRIMER PAGE 3
01 Introduction
A quick backgrounder on the history and continued confusion around the volunteer
encyclopedia and its professional influences, and what you need to know to get the
most out of this primer
It’s perhaps both ironic and fitting that the first site’s editorial community later developed a set
widely acknowledged example of someone being of w protocols for engagement by professional
Shortcuts called out for editing Wikipedia to enhance their communicators. These rules are not widely known,
own reputation is none other than Jimmy Wales, nor are they always easy to follow, but they have
u WP:CONFLICT Wikipedia’s famous co-founder.1 been drafted, modified, and ratified through the
Conflict of Interest daily work of Wikipedia editors.
(guideline)
In a series of edits in late 2005, Wales adjusted
the wording in his biographical entry to better This primer attempts to address the information
v WP:ORGFAQ match his own interpretation of his career. The gap between the Wikipedia community and PR
FAQ / Organizations changes were flagged by a prominent tech blogger, professionals who want to engage with Wikipedia
(information)
and the subsequent uproar led Wales to apologize. on its own terms. While the advice ahead will not
“People shouldn’t do it, including me,” he told answer every question you may have, it will put
w WP:PSCOI Wired at the time. “I wish I hadn’t done it.” And you on the right path to working with Wikipedia
Plain and simple
yet the magazine also quoted him making the both ethically and effectively.
conflict of interest
following entirely defensible point:
guide
(essay) } HOW TO READ THIS PRIMER
WP:SCOIC “IF YOU SEE A BLATANT ERROR OR This primer is meant to be read from start to
Suggestions for COI finish. Throughout, you will find “Wikipedia
compliance
MISCONCEPTION ABOUT YOURSELF, shortcuts” in the margins. These are simple
(essay) YOU REALLY WANT TO SET IT phrases intended to help you find salient
STRAIGHT.” information on Wikipedia. Enter a shortcut
into Wikipedia’s search field, and you will be
Jimmy Wales
immediately taken to the relevant page. Several
types of pages are included: mandatory site
policies, widely recognized guidelines, generally
Almost a decade after Wales’ controversial edits, accepted essays, as well as others, including
the issue of self-interested editing remains project and information pages.
unresolved. Wikipedia has long maintained a
guideline titled u Conflict of interest—also In addition, occasional snippets of Wikipedia’s
commonly referred to as “COI” which strongly code, or markup language, are included. These
discourages v companies and organizations will be apparent as such because they are
from editing articles about themselves. Because rendered in this typeface.
this guideline is primarily a list of don’ts, the
1. Jimmy Wales: Revision history, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, October 20–November 9, 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&dir=prev&of
fset=20050420070542&limit=500&action=history
2. “Wikipedia Founder Looks Out for Number 1”, Rogers Cadenhead, Workbench, December 19, 2005. http://workbench.cadenhead.org/news/2828/wikipedia-founder-
looks-out-number-1
3. “Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio”, Evan Hansen, Wired, December 19, 2005. https://web.archive.org/web/20140101073245/http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/
news/2005/12/69880
PAGE 4 WIKIPEDIA & THE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL: A PRIMER
} WIKIPEDIA IN OTHER LANGUAGES } ONE MORE THING
You should be aware that this primer was written This primer is released under a Creative Commons
specifically with the English Wikipedia in mind, Attribution 3.0 license and, like Wikipedia itself,
and the rules of engagement may vary across is a work in progress. If you have any suggestions
language editions. While the advice contained for improvement, please contact William Beutler
herein can be considered a safe way to engage at william@beutlerink.com.
with editors of any language Wikipedia, the
best thing to do is look for specific guidelines
governing those communities and look to previous
case studies to determine the best course of
action.
WIKIPEDIA & THE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL: A PRIMER PAGE 5
02 Acknowledgements
Big thanks are owed to veterans of the communications industry and Wikipedia
community for their feedback, as well as those who have contributed to the broadening
of this discussion
Wikipedia and the Communications Professional Advice and feedback for the development
builds on previous efforts by Wikipedia editors and of this primer was provided by:
PR thought leaders, including a “Wikipedia and
Public Relations”4 guide published by the UK’s • Melissa Carney, Fahlgren Mortine
Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR), • Dave Coustan, Voce / Porter Novelli
and a Facebook discussion group, Corporate • Marcia DiStaso, Penn State University /
Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement Institute for Public Relations
(CREWE)5, created by Edelman SVP Phil Gomes • Sam Ford, Peppercomm
in 2012. Research published in 2013 by Marcia • Leslie Gaines-Ross, Weber Shandwick
DiStaso, a professor of communications at Penn • Preethi Jayapathi, MSL Group
State University, demonstrated that Wikipedia is • Patrick Kerley, Proof Integrated
a serious matter of concern to public relations Communications
professionals.6 • Arne Klempert, FleishmanHillard Germany
• Andrew Lih, American University
More directly, this project is an outgrowth of an • Jake Orlowitz, Independent Wikipedian
effort led by the author of this primer, Beutler • Jeremy Rosenberg, Allison+Partners
Ink president William Beutler, to reinvigorate • Andrew Ross, Chartered Institute of Public
the conversation between PR practitioners and Relations
Wikipedia editors. This dialogue led to the • Matt Shaw, Council of Public Relations Firms
creation of the “Statement on Wikipedia by • Max Tatton-Brown, Augur
participating communications firms”,7 ratified by • Paul Wilkinson, Chartered Institute of Public
35 firms as of September 2014—including eight Relations
of the 10 largest global PR agencies.
Thanks are due to several individuals at Beutler
Ink, including: Robyn Baker, Sheri Cook, Chris
Doty, Pete Hunt, Jenny Karn, Jehoaddan Kulakoff,
and Morgan Wehling. Special thanks as well to
Tiffany Farrant-Gonzalez and Oliver Ruff.
4. “Wikipedia and Public Relations”, CIPR, July 2014. http://www.cipr.co.uk/content/policy-resources/best-practice-guides-toolkits/wikipedia-and-public-relations
5. Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE). https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/
6. “Perceptions of Wikipedia by Public Relations Professionals: A Comparison of 2012 and 2013 Surveys”, Marcia W. DiStaso, Ph.D., Public Relations Journal Vol. 7,
No. 3. http://www.prsa.org/intelligence/prjournal/documents/2013_distaso.pdf
7. Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statement_on_
Wikipedia_from_participating_communications_firms
PAGE 6 WIKIPEDIA & THE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL: A PRIMER
03 Wikipedia’s best
practices—and why
you should care
Just because any edit to Wikipedia is possible doesn’t mean that any edit is advisable
If your goal is to contribute to Wikipedia in a 1. The moral case:
professional capacity—on behalf of your own
Shortcuts company or on behalf of a client—and maintain Wikipedia is one of the most important
good standing with its community of editors, the information resources in the world. By respecting
u WP:CONFLICT best way to seek revisions to an article where you community norms, you will contribute to its
Conflict of Interest might have a u conflict of interest is to request overall success.
(guideline)
changes on the v discussion page for the article
in question. 2. And the practical one:
v WP:TALK
Talk page
The principal challenges to this approach include Not only is any risk of “blowback” significantly
guidelines
determining what types of changes are compatible reduced, you’ll earn respect as an honest broker,
(guideline)
with w Wikipedia’s rules, posing requests in leading to more productive discussions.
a way that’s persuasive and easy for editors to
w WP:POLICYLIST
List of policies and
evaluate, and making sure your suggestions are Another good reason involves taking an even
guidelines reviewed in a timely manner. longer view: if the broader dialogue between PR
(information) professionals and Wikipedia is to improve, it will
Given these obstacles, you might wonder why you require the industry to demonstrate that following
can’t just edit a given article directly. After all, the the rules—and enforcing them—is in fact the
simplest and quickest way to update a page is to recognized standard practice.
make the edits yourself. In theory, Wikipedia can
be edited by anyone at any time. In practice, you
should be very careful when dealing with articles
where you have a financial interest.
Here are two reasons to take the long view and
follow the rules carefully:
WIKIPEDIA & THE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL: A PRIMER PAGE 7
04 Why you should
consider engaging
on Wikipedia
Many organizations are wary of getting involved with Wikipedia,
but here is why it should matter to yours
The case for Wikipedia’s influence is simple: it is Wikipedia editors gravitate toward articles of
the fifth-most visited website in the entire world, personal or academic interest, which typically
with nearly 450 million monthly visitors accessing excludes business subjects. This means it is
more than 20 billion pages.8 It is arguably actually quite unlikely that someone will write
the world’s most important reference website, an article about your company, unless it is very
following Google, which displays Wikipedia on famous—or becomes embroiled in controversy.
the first page of search results more consistently A new article or addition may in fact objectively
than it does any other website. Although far qualify for inclusion, but simply waiting for it to
from perfect, Wikipedia is an unrivaled resource happen is not much of a solution. And even if an
for information on virtually every topic of public independent editor does so, the addition may not
interest. For companies and organizations, it be accurate, comprehensive, or even neutral. It’s
usually ranks in the top two or three search very much in Wikipedia’s interest that its articles
results. Wikipedia is simply too important to meet these standards, and that includes entries
ignore. about companies and organizations.
To the extent that most companies have any rule Yet Wikipedians tend to be concerned that
for their employees about editing Wikipedia, it’s contributors with a financial interest, or those
usually to avoid it; the possibility of negative representing clients, will privilege marketing
publicity outweighs whatever value there may be goals over building an encyclopedia. This is not
in getting changes made.9 Likewise, Wikipedians an unreasonable worry, but it’s also not good
have sometimes advised businesses and enough reason to discourage them from getting
organizations that might be eligible for an entry involved. Rather, it’s a reason to make sure these
but do not yet have one—or who would like to contributors understand their proper role.
see a new initiative, product or service added
to an existing entry—to be patient. As they say,
if your subject is indeed worthy, someone will
write about it before long.10 Both of these views
are understandable, but we suggest a further
consideration.
8. “Wikimedia Report Card”, Wikimedia Foundation, August 2014. http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/
9. “Corporate editing of Wikipedia revealed”, Katie Hafner, The New York Times, August 19, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/technology/19iht-
wiki.1.7167084.html
10. “Wikipedia: What is the way to register your business name with Wikipedia?”, Quora.com, http://www.quora.com/Wikipedia/What-is-the-way-to-register-your-business-
name-with-Wikipedia
PAGE 8 WIKIPEDIA & THE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL: A PRIMER
05 Why you might choose
not to engage on
Wikipedia
Frustrating as it may be, sometimes you’ll actually be better off staying out of the way
The “Streisand effect”11 describes how efforts to However, you should probably leave well enough
conceal obscure but publicly available information alone, if:
Shortcuts only serves to amplify interest in the matter. (The
phenomenon is so named because of Barbra • You don’t have a reliable source to back up
u WP:RELIABLE Streisand’s memorably unsuccessful attempt your claim
Identifying reliable to remove photos of her Malibu home from the • The correction is more trouble to explain than
sources
Internet.) it’s worth to you
(guideline)
• The change you want to make is incompatible
This effect is often cited as a reason to avoid with Wikipedia guidelines
v WP:LOP
editing—or attempting to influence the content • You don’t have time to participate in a
List of policies
of—Wikipedia articles in which one may have a conversation about your proposed change
(summary)
personal or financial interest, especially about • Raising questions about existing content
WP:LGL clients. When prominent organizations try to might lead to the addition of legitimate
List of guidelines remove or change information on Wikipedia criticism not currently included
(summary) without a valid argument, or through means
incompatible with Wikipedia’s rules, it often Although there are circumstances when getting
makes headlines—just ask British PR firm Bell involved in a Wikipedia entry may not help your
Pottinger12 or the entire United States Congress.13 cause, in most cases your expertise can help
to improve Wikipedia. The rest of this primer
But the Streisand effect is hardly a fait accompli. explains how you can do that without creating
If you have identified an error, inaccuracy, unnecessary headaches.
omission or similar problem—and you can
demonstrate this by citing u reliable sources
and Wikipedia’s v policies and guidelines—you
should not be dissuaded from seeking to change it
through the proper channels.
11. “Streisand effect”, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
12. “Wikipedia investigates PR firm Bell Pottinger’s edits”, Dave Lee, BBC News, December 8, 2011. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16084861
13. “WIth Twitter’s Help, Watch Congress Edit Wikipedia”, Derek Willis, The New York Times, July 14, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/upshot/twitter-wikipe-
dia-and-a-closer-eye-on-congress.html
WIKIPEDIA & THE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL: A PRIMER PAGE 9
06 How to work with
Wikipedia
Are you ready? Let’s get started
First, a disclaimer: the procedures described in does not imply the account represents an entire
this section are absolutely necessary—but not company or organization. A username such as
Shortcuts solely sufficient—for constructive interaction BestComms is likely to be blocked for violating
with the Wikipedia community. Each and every this rule. A better option is Jane at BestComms, or
u WP:USERNAME question about a Wikipedia entry is unique, BC Jane Smith.
Username policy
influenced by factors such as:
(policy)
v Creating an account takes very little time.
• What has been written about the subject in Although including an email address is optional,
v WP:SIGNUP it is strongly recommended. If you lose your
reliable sources
Why create an
• What Wikipedia currently says about the password and do not have an email on file, there
account?
subject is no way to recover your password; you will have
(information)
• How Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines apply to create a whole new account.
w WP:COI
Conflict of interest Understanding how these factors affect a par- Setting up a user page
(guideline) ticular article or topic makes all the difference
in whether a request is likely to be successful. After you’ve created an account, it’s time to create
x WP:RELIABLE Remember that Wikipedia editors are looking to a user page. At a minimum, it should include your
Identifying reliable create (and approve) reference-quality information name and your employer. If you participate on
sources written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia on behalf of clients, list them here as
(guideline) you begin to do so. Stating your intention to follow
} GETTING STARTED Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, especially
y WP:NPOV those about w conflicts of interest, x reliable
Neutral point of The very first step to participating on Wikipedia is sources, and y neutrality, can also go a long way.
view the creation of a user account. While it’s techni-
(policy) cally possible to contribute without creating an Previously existing accounts
account, you will be well-served by establishing an
z WP:CLEANSTART identity within the Wikipedia community. You may already have a Wikipedia account, and
Clean start
wonder if you should start over. You certainly can
(policy)
Creating an account do so, as z Wikipedia’s policies expressly permit.
However, unless your previous edits are simply
A very important rule to understand and follow too embarrassing, just make a note of previous
is that Wikipedia requires each account to be edits on your user page and recommit to following
controlled by u one person. For this reason, Wikipedia’s best practices.
you should be careful to choose a username that
PAGE 10 WIKIPEDIA & THE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL: A PRIMER
Shortcuts Getting your bearings improve your chances of making a quality sugges-
tion, think about your proposed contribution from
u WP:TUTOR If this is your first time on Wikipedia as anything both the perspective of a reader seeking useful in-
Tutorial but a reader, two resources to help you get you get formation, and of a volunteer editor trying to serve
(project)
started are the u official tutorial and a guided the interests of that reader. If you can articulate
tour called v The Wikipedia Adventure. Take how your proposed edits will benefit Wikipedia’s
v WP:TWA some time to read the w Simplified ruleset for a intended audience, your proposed updates are
The Wikipedia concise explanation of the community norms that more likely to be accepted.
Adventure
Wikipedians observe.
(project) The right way to ask for help
w WP:SIMPLE } PREPARING A REQUEST FOR EDITORS Writing an effective request requires a basic
Simplified ruleset understanding of how Wikipedia works and a
(information) Once you’ve established an account, you’re ready much better understanding of the subject you
to start seeking assistance. As complicated as wish to address. Here are some key points to think
x WP:CITET Wikipedia can be, the process of asking for help is about when seeking assistance:
Citation templates relatively straightforward:
(information) • Make sure you’re logged in before you start
• Identify your goals for a specific Wikipedia • Keep the message as concise as possible
y WP:CHEAT article • Link to sources and guidelines that support
Cheatsheet
• Locate independent sources to support the your point
(information) • Include a descriptive heading on your request
point(s) you wish to make, and turn them into
message
x formatted citations
z WP:MOS • Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia’s y • Disclose your professional interest and how it
Manual of style relates to the entry clearly
markup language—the HTML-like code
(guideline) • Just below the heading, add an { edit
behind all Wikipedia pages—and its z
Manual of Style request template so editors can find it:
{ WP:EDITREQ {{request edit}}
• Write your own version of what you think
Edit request
should be added, or clarify what should be • Don’t forget close with the snippet of code to
(information)
removed and / or modified add a | signature: ~~~~
| WP:SIG • Locate the discussion page for the article
to which you wish to propose an edit—it’s What if I need to ask for help again?
Signatures
(guideline) behind the “Talk” tab at the top of every
entry—and make your best case for why the Trust us, you probably will have to ask for help
change would benefit readers more than once! Wikipedia editors are volunteers
} WP:DEADLINE
• Be aware that you may have to ask in more who prefer to spend most of their time working
There is no
deadline than one place before you receive help; on topics related to their own interests, and are
(essay) take your time, look for editors who have frequently busy offline as well.
already shown interest in the topic, and don’t
Finding a balance between persistence and
* WP:COI/N bombard numerous editors with requests
Conflict of interest • Once a particular issue has been resolved, be patience is key, and being respectful of volunteer
/ Noticeboard sure to thank the editor(s) who helped you, } editors’ time is a must. A good rule of thumb
(project)
and close any outstanding requests is to wait 48 hours after your first posting to start
looking for help again, and to limit any follow-
# WP:TEAHOUSE up requests to one or two new messages every
Teahouse 5–7 days. You may find editors willing to help by
} TIPS FOR FOLLOWING THE ABOVE STEPS
(project) visiting projects such as * Conflict of interest/
Think carefully about what you ask for Noticeboard or the # Teahouse.
Wikipedia has far too many rules for you to un-
derstand every nuance before you get involved. To
WIKIPEDIA & THE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL: A PRIMER PAGE 11
07 How to deal with
specific issues
The following pages provide a starting point for how to work
through common Wikipedia questions
What if I just want to make a few simple, seeking changes that might be seen as an attempt
to “whitewash” the entry. Although the temptation
fact-based updates?
Shortcuts to remove information that you believe to be
misleading or misconstrued can be very strong—
It can be very tempting to make an edit that
u WP:UNDUE seems obvious or uncontroversial, such as
and the pressure you may face internally can be
Due and undue powerful—patience will pay off in the long run.
correcting a spelling error. While it’s entirely
weight Instead of trying to get it right immediately, focus
possible that you will face no immediate
(policy) on getting it right eventually. Eventually lasts much
objections for making a small update, consider
longer.
that, in the future, you may wish to make more
v WP:RCP
Recent changes substantial changes. If you wish to propose a new
section or a rewrite of an existing article in the What should I do in the event of vandal-
patrol
(project) future, you will have an easier time if you don’t ism?
face the possibility of volunteer editors asking why
you did not use the discussion page previously. Unfortunately, Wikipedia’s official guidelines and
recommended best practices are at odds here.
In short, you’re best served if you go above and The former explicitly lists undoing vandalism
beyond what is necessary to make sure not only as an “uncontroversial edit” that anyone can
that you’ve never engaged in direct editing but make. On the other hand, Jimmy Wales’ advice—
also that you’ve made no edits that might be often called the “Bright Line”14—is that PR
construed as COI edits. “I’ve never edited the practitioners should never edit articles directly.
article directly” is a much stronger position than “I You have a judgment call to make. Consider the
have, but only a little”. following:
What can I do if an article is overly negative 1. If the edit has just appeared, give it about
15 minutes. Wikipedia editors are v always
or derogatory?
watching, and may fix the problem without
you doing anything.
To bring a biased article back toward neutrality,
2. If they don’t, think hard about whether
expect that you will have to explain your specific
the material is “true” vandalism—e.g.
concerns and present solutions that would bring
nonsense or profanity—or merely inaccurate
the article closer to Wikipedia’s guidelines than its
or contentious material. If the latter, find
present state. Oftentimes “negative” information
another editor to review it.
belongs in the article, but it may be given u
3. Decide how damaging the vandalism is, and
undue weight, in which case you will need to work
whether it is worth risking a slap on the wrist
with editors to find the correct balance.
for editing the page directly, even if editors
Remember the “Streisand effect” and avoid
14. User:Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Paid_Advocacy_FAQ
PAGE 12 WIKIPEDIA & THE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL: A PRIMER
Shortcuts eventually decide you are right. Wikipedians is sourced almost entirely to trade publication
are extremely concerned about possible and mainstream news articles. Are you willing to
u WP:BLP defamation, and the u Biographies of living include information that a reader may expect to
Biographies of persons policy may apply. If you decide your find, even if it is not entirely favorable? Are you
living persons best option is to go ahead, leave a note on prepared for this entry to be forever available for
(policy) the discussion page explaining what you did anyone to edit at any time?
and why.
v WP:DISPUTE Are there circumstances in which an article
Dispute resolution A Wikipedia editor disagrees with me. may be removed entirely?
(policy)
What can I do?
Typically, an article may only be removed when
w WP:3O Occasionally you may find an editor who, for the subject clearly does not meet the Notability
Third opinion
whatever reason, strongly opposes a suggestion guideline. However, editors often disagree on this
(process)
you have made. In such a scenario you have to threshold, which is why Wikipedia’s z Articles for
decide whether a reasonable editor would take deletion process is both lively and unpredictable.
x WP:NOTES
your side, and also whether it is worth pressing
Notability
(guideline) the point. In these cases, remain calm and try to Just because an article may be outdated, biased,
find an acceptable compromise with the editor. poorly written, or poorly sourced { does not
y WP:Drafts You may find that it will be more constructive mean it should be deleted. In many cases,
Drafts to modify your suggestion. However, if you find these shortcomings are | opportunities for
(project) yourself stuck on an issue with a single editor, improvement.
seek a v dispute resolution forum such as w
z WP:AFD Third opinion to find another viewpoint. Don’t get What if I want to add an image?
Articles for deletion stuck, get help!
(project) Wikipedia is published under a Creative Commons
What if there isn’t presently an article (CC) license and, in most cases, original images
{ WP:ATA about my company or client? you wish to upload should be as well. You must
Arguments to own the copyright or receive permission from the
avoid in deletion
Creating an entirely new article can be a copyright holder to do so. If you are unfamiliar
discussions
significant challenge. Among the reasons why: with this license, think of it as halfway between
(essay)
Wikipedia’s x Notability guideline makes clear “all rights reserved” and “public domain”. }
that not every topic is eligible for a standalone Image use policy on Wikipedia is complicated, so
| WP:ARTDEV
entry; writing a new article from scratch requires make sure you understand how it applies to the
Article development
a substantial amount of work, not to mention type of image you want to add. In most cases,
(information)
expertise; and the process of submitting a new “Attribution” (or “CC-BY”) is the specific license
article can be confusing. to choose.
} WP:IUP
Image use policy
(policy) Outlining the steps for writing a new article would What if I’ve made mistakes in my approach
require more space than this primer allows. But to Wikipedia in the past?
let’s say you have written one and believe it meets
* WP:COI
Wikipedia’s content guidelines: you’ll still need
Conflict of interest Fear not: it is exceedingly common for an em-
(guideline) to find a volunteer editor to review and approve ployee or representative to have edited a company
it. The good news is that Wikipedia has existing or organization’s entry without following—or even
processes to assist you, such as the new y Drafts being aware of—Wikipedia’s * conflict of inter-
project. est guidelines. If you or someone you represent
has made unconstructive edits in the past, or
Before you begin, think carefully about whether otherwise have made substantial COI edits—even
you can provide a balanced, accurate entry that if well-intentioned—you’d be well-advised to
15. “Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)”, Creative Commons. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
WIKIPEDIA & THE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL: A PRIMER PAGE 13
Shortcuts acknowledge that fact when you ask for help on a
discussion page, or ask a specific editor, for the
u WP:NOTE first time. In our experience, most editors will be
Notability pleasantly surprised that you are up-front about
(guideline) the fact, and this may encourage them to assist
you.
Certain kinds of mistakes are worse than others,
of course, and historical obliviousness will
be forgiven much more readily than repeated
attempts to circumvent Wikipedia processes. If
repeated attempts have been made to restore
an article deleted following community review,
for example, re-creating it once the topic has
achieved u Notability can be more difficult than
it would have been otherwise.
Do “conflict of interest” rules apply only to
entries about my company?
These guidelines apply to any article that is
materially relevant to your organization or client,
not just the main profile, or articles about its
products, services and employees. It also includes
articles covering competitors, industry-related
subjects, and any topic in which your organization
may have a vested interest. Although it may not
always be clear to you what counts, it’s best to err
on the side of caution by disclosing your interest
and starting on the discussion page first.
Can I just find someone I know without a
paid conflict of interest to make edits for
me?
Wikipedia’s COI guidelines cover not just paid
but also unpaid potential conflicts. While unpaid
conflicts are not as strongly discouraged, asking
a relative, a friend, a customer, or a former intern
to make changes is not a good long-term strategy.
Not only is this approach ethically dubious, the
pattern of edits may give editors reason to suspect
an undisclosed COI, and similar problems may
result. Bottom line: it just isn’t worth it.
PAGE 14 WIKIPEDIA & THE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL: A PRIMER
08 Implementing an
organizational
Wikipedia policy
These days, almost every organization of any 2. Lead a training initiative
significant size maintains a social media policy
communicating acceptable online behavior to its
Identify someone within your organization to lead
employees. However, anecdotal evidence suggests
a training initiative, or to identify and work with
that Wikipedia is usually overlooked in these
a Wikipedia consultant who can help you do so.
policies—perhaps because Wikipedia is not always
Even if there is someone within your organization
considered to be “social media”—even if a policy
who already edits Wikipedia, it is likely they will
is intended to cover it. Here are some starting
need to put in some additional time to research
points for creating a Wikipedia policy for your
this particular topic.
organization:
3. Join the “Statement on Wikipedia from
1. Include Wikipedia in your social media
participating communications firms”
policy
If you work for a communications agency, consider
If your social media policy does not currently
joining the “Statement on Wikipedia from
address Wikipedia, consider amending it to
participating communications firms” on behalf of
include it specifically. This addition can be very
your firm. Joining means that you agree to follow
simple, for example:
Wikipedia’s rules, understand its best practices,
and promote compliance within your organization.
If you choose to contribute to Wikipedia on
Note that we only recommend joining the
your own time, take care to follow the site’s
statement if, and when, you have policies and
policies and guidelines at all times. If you are
procedures in place to ensure you will do all you
not authorized to participate on Wikipedia
can to uphold your participation in the statement.
for work purposes, avoid editing any articles
which may be construed as relating to your
4. Dissemination
employment.
Determine the best plan for dissemination of
Consider including advice not to edit from an
these rules and guidelines. If Wikipedia is likely to
office location, as your organization’s IP address
be an ongoing area of interest—e.g., if you are a
may be tied to these changes. Once the policy is
marketing or public relations firm—you may wish
in place, take any violations as seriously as you
to seek formal training via webinar or an in-person
would bad behavior on other social platforms.
workshop by a Wikipedia specialist.
WIKIPEDIA & THE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL: A PRIMER PAGE 15
09 Identifying a
Wikipedia specialist
Some issues may just be too complicated to solve on your own—here’s how
to begin looking for help
Although this primer should help to solve small 3. Are you an active contributor to
problems and give you a basic of idea of how to
Wikipedia yourself?
interact with Wikipedia editors, you may wish to
consider hiring a consultant who specializes in It’s a good idea to ask the specialist whether they
Wikipedia to advise your efforts or even engage are a member of the Wikipedia community outside
the site on your behalf. However, one should be of any paid consulting they may do. Chances are
very careful: the complicated (and even opaque) very good that someone who edits Wikipedia on
nature of Wikipedia has given rise to a cohort of their own time will supply you with better advice.
“black hat” consultants—and even some firms— Ask them to provide you with their username so
who circumvent Wikipedia’s rules as a matter of you can review their profile.
practice.
4. Can you provide references to
Here are five questions you can ask to determine previous clients who have been satisfied
if you’re talking with a “white hat” specialist: with your work?
1. What is your approach to disclosure of
As in any specialist field, ask to speak with
your work on Wikipedia? previous clients to confirm that your consultant
actually does what they say. Ask to see the
If a consultant suggests that they will not
Wikipedia article(s) they worked on, and do
disclose their connection to you on Wikipedia, or
your own due diligence: look at the article’s talk
recommends that you do not declare a conflict of
page to see if there is evidence they discussed
interest, this is a major red flag. Non-disclosure
changes with volunteer editors. Have there
is a violation of Wikipedia’s Terms of Use16,
been substantial changes to their work since
and an NDA will not be seen as a legitimate
completion? If there have been disagreements
justification.
over content, how were they resolved?
2. What kind of timeline can I expect?
5. Can you help me [do something this
Fixing just one section may take a few weeks; primer tells you is contrary to Wikipedia’s
proposing substantial changes to an article, or rules]?
creating an entirely new entry, can take months.
Don’t be afraid to play a little dumb, and ask a
There are two reasons for this. First, your
question that you know the answer to should be
consultant should research the topic themselves
“no”. If the specialist advises why not to do this,
so they can be confident that any proposed edits
and offers another solution instead, you can be
are aligned with the goals of Wikipedia. Second,
more confident you are hiring someone with a
your consultant should be working through
solid understanding and ethical stance regarding
Wikipedia’s community, almost all of whom are
Wikipedia.
volunteers with limited time to help. Be wary of
anyone who promises a quick turnaround.
16. Terms of Use, Wikimedia Foundation. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
PAGE 16 WIKIPEDIA & THE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL: A PRIMER
10 Wrapping Up
Remember that if you put Wikipedia first, you’ll rarely go wrong
Although there is no way this primer can cover Remember that your value to Wikipedia lies in
everything you need to know about Wikipedia, we helping it accomplish these core goals: to be an
believe the above should give you the knowledge objective, accurate, and up-to-date collective
and confidence to get started in the right way, and information base. Look for suggestions to make
the necessary background to learn further, and to not merely based on what your company or
make more significant contributions over time. As organization would like to see, but what the reader
complex as Wikipedia can be, engaging with it in who comes to Wikipedia to learn about a subject
a professional capacity simply requires the time would want to know. Think carefully as well about
and commitment to do it right. It also requires how to interact with the community that is already
internalizing its mission and figuring out how you engaged in this practice, and how to have the
can help advance it. patience to work with them in the collaborative
spirit that makes Wikipedia unique. These are
This guide began with a quote from Jimmy Wikipedia’s best practices, and they will serve you
Wales that he would perhaps like to forget. Let’s well.
conclude by invoking the one he is actually best
known for:17
“IMAGINE A WORLD IN WHICH EVERY
SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET IS
GIVEN FREE ACCESS TO THE SUM OF
ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. THAT’S WHAT
WE’RE DOING.”
Jimmy Wales
17. “Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales Responds”, Robin Miller, Slashdot, July 28, 2005. http://slashdot.org/story/04/07/28/1351230/wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales-
responds
WIKIPEDIA & THE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL: A PRIMER PAGE 17
I Appendix I
Among Wikipedia’s most important rules
One of the reasons Wikipedia can be so difficult
y Reliable Sources:
to understand is the sheer breadth and complexity Trade publications, newspapers, magazines,
Shortcuts of the rules governing it. Even longtime Wikipedia academic journals, and government filings are the
editors do not know all of them, and they among the kinds of sources most useful in writing
u WP:AGF sometimes interpret particular rules differently.
Assume good faith about companies and organizations, and they
Here are some of the most important ones to should be appropriately cited.
(guideline)
familiarize yourself with:
v WP:NPOV z Verifiability:
Neutral point of u Assume good faith: Closely related to the rule about sourcing,
view Wikipedia contributors have many diverse and Wikipedia requires that any material added to
(policy) divergent views, so it is imperative that they agree Wikipedia be publicly verifiable. If a fact is true,
to get along in order for Wikipedia to work. As long but you can’t demonstrate this to editors beyond
w WP:COPYRIGHT as you act in good faith, others should extend the your say-so, leave it out.
Copyrights same courtesy to you.
(policy)
{ What Wikipedia is not:
v Neutral point of view: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but what does that
x WP:NOTE Wikipedia guidelines require a given topic be mean? One way to explain this is by identifying
Notability covered by only one entry, so articles must be what “is not”. On this (very long) list: a dictionary;
(guideline) even-handed and consider all relevant viewpoints a directory; a mirror site; a manual; a textbook; a
fairly. general repository for information.
y WP:RELIABLE
Identifying reliable
w Copyrights:
sources
Plagiarism and copyright violations are a big
(guideline)
problem for Wikipedia, and you should be very
careful that you avoid contributing to it. Always
z WP:VERIFY
make sure that new material for Wikipedia is
Verifiability
original at the time it is being proposed. This
(policy)
applies equally to copyrighted images.
{ WP:NOT
What Wikipedia is x Notability:
not One of the thorniest questions for companies
(policy) and organizations is whether a company meets
the requirements for a standalone entry. The
general rule is that a topic must have “significant
coverage in reliable sources that are independent
of the subject” before it is considered eligible.
PAGE 18 WIKIPEDIA & THE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL: A PRIMER
II Appendix II
A glossary of Wikipedia terminology
As you have surely realized, Wikipedia has its own effectively. You may also wish to try the u Visual
jargon that can rival almost any technical field. Editor, which you can turn on in your account’s
Shortcuts Gaining fluency can take a long time, but this list will user preferences.
help you understand several of the most common
u WP:VE terms: Templates: Snippets of markup that create more
VisualEditor
complex Wikipedia layout elements. Warning tags
(project)
Article: A Wikipedia page that is part of the on articles and edit request templates are two of
encyclopedia portion of Wikipedia. Also informally the most common you will run across.
called an “entry”, or sometimes just called a
“page”. User contributions: Similar to the History page
for articles, every change to Wikipedia made by
Bright Line: On Wikipedia, the phrase has come any user is visible in a list on a page associated
to mean Jimmy Wales’ advice for PR pros that one with each user account.
should never directly edit articles where one has
a financial interest. It’s not a policy or guideline, User pages: Once you have an account, this
but we recommend following it. is basically your “home page”. If you wish to
represent a company, organization or other type of
Conflict of interest: Not a concept unique to client on Wikipedia, it is very strongly advised that
Wikipedia, but one that you should always keep in you declare these interests here.
mind. Financial relationships are usually viewed
as the most critical. User talk: Just as Wikipedia articles have a dedi-
cated discussion section, so do user accounts.
Discussion page: Every article has its own When you have a question for a specific editor, the
forum for editors to discuss the content and best thing is to find their personal discussion page
development of the article, interchangeably called and ask there.
a “talk page”.
Wikimedia Foundation: The nonprofit parent
Editor: Who is a Wikipedia editor? Pretty much any- organization of Wikipedia and related projects
one who decides they are. Another common term you
such as Wikimedia Commons, abbreviated “WMF”
will see in formal cases is “user” and, less formally,
or called “the Foundation”. Know that it usually
“Wikipedian”.
avoids getting involved in content questions.
History page: Every article is accompanied by
WikiProjects: Self-organized groups of Wiki-
a page where you can find all previous changes.
pedians who are interested in similar topics, and
Remember this: every edit made to Wikipedia is
cooperate on article-improvement projects. They
saved, forever.
might be a useful resource for you, if you can find
Markup language: This is the term for the code one that’s active.
underlying all Wikipedia articles, similar to HTML.
While easier to learn, it still requires study to use
WIKIPEDIA & THE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL: A PRIMER PAGE 19
III Appendix III
Additional resources
Corporate Representatives for Ethical Perceptions of Wikipedia by Public Rela-
Wikipedia Engagement tions Professionals
https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/ http://www.prsa.org/intelligence/prjournal/
documents/2013_distaso.pdf
A Facebook group launched in 2012 for the
purposes of discussing issues involving PR A comparison of research surveys conducted in
and Wikipedia. It’s a closed discussion, but 2012 and 2013 by Penn State Professor Marcia
requests to be added are usually honored. Often DiStaso, creating a detailed picture of how the
abbreviated as “CREWE”. public relations industry views Wikipedia.
Statement on Wikipedia from participat- Wikipedia Signpost
ing communications agencies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Signpost
Wikipedia:Statement_on_Wikipedia_from_
participating_communications_firms A weekly “newspaper” about Wikipedia and the
Wikimedia movement, by and for the Wikipedia
A statement of intention to follow Wikipedia’s community.
rules joined by 35 (and counting)
communications agencies. The creation of this Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia
primer is a project led by the organizers of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_
primer, also called the Donovan House group. editing_on_Wikipedia
Wikipedia and Public Relations Yes, Wikipedia has an article about people editing
http://www.cipr.co.uk/content/policy-resources/ Wikipedia articles to serve their own interests.
best-practice-guides-toolkits/wikipedia-and-
public-relations
A best practices guide similar to this one,
created by the Chartered Institute of Public
Relations in association with Wikimedia UK.
2014