Brand marketers often face challenges when it comes to Wikipedia. From proposing edits and changes to requesting new content, the platform’s strict editorial standards and high visibility can make it tricky. Questions like, “Who should be responsible for updating our Wikipedia page?” or “Can my PR team manage this?” are common things we hear.
We sat down with David King from Ethical Wiki, Walker Sands’ preferred expert on Wikipedia management, to explore key questions and strategies that every marketing professional should know when working with Wikipedia.
What distinguishes white-hat from black-hat practices on Wikipedia?
“There are three factors to white-hat Wikipedia engagement: disclosure, collaboration and good-faith.
Disclosure of your affiliation to the subject of the page is required by law. This is explained in Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, the FTC’s Disclosures Guide, and by other regulatory bodies around the world. These rules prohibit marketers from pretending to be disinterested members of the public when participating on crowd-sourced websites, like Twitter, Facebook, or Wikipedia.
Collaboration with the site’s editors is required by Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest Guideline. This guideline says that, generally, you should propose edits to impartial editors on the site, rather than just making the edits you want. Our clients have had excellent luck lately using Wikipedia’s formal edit request tool.
Good-faith is required by various Wikipedia policies, essays, and so on. Wikipedia’s Supreme Court (known as the arbitration committee) confirmed a while back that PR professionals are expected to do their best to be neutral, avoid advocacy, and make positive contributions. This is a different approach than when working with media that understand the marketer’s role as an advocate.”
What are the three steps to proper Wikipedia engagement?
“There are three steps to any Wikipedia project: content, consulting and engagement.
Content is the most important thing. Drafting good content comes from understanding the types of citations Wikipedia wants, thoroughly researching and reading those citations, and then objectively summarizing them for Wikipedia in proper wiki-code (Wikipedia’s HTML-style code).
Bad content comes when the author starts with the facts or information they want on the page, then finds any brief mention, short blurb, quote or interview they can to cite for the facts they wanted.
Finally, there are some types of information Wikipedia favors more than others. For example, M&A activity is almost always included, even with weaker citations. However, certifications, sales partnerships, and client names are disfavored, unless the citations are especially strong.
The consulting phase is where internal feedback on the content is collected and managed. Some internal feedback will relate to legitimate corrections and clarifications, while other feedback will pertain to promotional content or changes that are contrary to Wikipedia’s rules and norms.
Engagement involves proposing the content to Wikipedia’s editors, incorporating their feedback, answering their questions and following up with their editors. This phase requires patience, as Wikipedia’s volunteer model comes with a culture of, ‘we’ll get to it when we get to it.’”
What are the top three Wikipedia content policies every marketing professional should know?
“The top three content policies on Wikipedia that every communications professional should be familiar with are ‘Verification Not Truth,’ ‘Due and Undue Weight,’ and ‘Not a Resource for Conducting Business.’
The ‘Verification Not Truth’ policy explains that Wikipedia merely repeats whatever credible independent sources (usually journalists) have said. Wikipedia does not determine if something is factually accurate or engage in any of its own journalism. The focus should be on what the citations say and whether the citations meet Wikipedia’s criteria, not whether something is true.
The ‘Due and Undue Weight’ policy says that merely having a citation is not enough to justify including a specific fact. Wikipedia merely ‘summarizes’ all of the information on the subject of a page, but isn’t a comprehensive list of everything that can be cited. For example, press articles that merely mention or quote the subject of the article usually aren’t included.
The ‘Not a Resource for Conducting Business’ policy outlines specific types of information that are seen as promotional and/or directory information that doesn’t belong in an encyclopedic, historical profile. This includes things like listing executives, products, partnerships or office locations.”
What are some common misconceptions about Wikipedia among marketers?
“Marketers often believe they are prohibited from participating on Wikipedia altogether. This misconception can arise after the marketer is blocked from Wikipedia for creating an account like ‘PR at [Company Name].’ These marketers were actually blocked for violating Wikipedia’s username policies, not for being a marketer. Something like ‘David King at [Company Name]’ would be fine, but accounts that are shared by members of a team or company are prohibited.
Marketers sometimes also believe they should make edits to unrelated pages to gain credibility as an editor before participating on the page about their client or employer. The reason this strategy could work is because the marketer is deceiving Wikipedians by making them look more like regular volunteers with a diverse range of interests. This makes editors hesitate to discourage a new editor by reverting their edits.
Some marketers believe that, while they cannot make edits to Wikipedia, they can hire someone who can do so on their behalf. This misinformation is often spread by black-hat Wikipedia firms that claim there is a loophole that allows them to edit on your behalf as an impartial, crowd-sourced editor. Both the FTC’s covert marketing laws and Wikipedia’s Terms of Use expressly state the opposite. Companies are responsible for disclosing those that work for them.”
What could happen if a company fails to follow Wikipedia’s editing guidelines?
“While some high-profile cases of manipulating Wikipedia content have made headlines, Wikipedia deals with promotional content and covert marketing at an extremely large scale. More common consequences include a ‘badge of shame‘ on the page, negative content added to counterbalance promotional material, a contentious relationship with Wikipedia editors, or significant content removals to eliminate bias.
Once a company engages in unethical editing — often unknowingly — it can be challenging to rebuild a collaborative relationship with the site’s editors.”
What role can PR agencies play in assisting clients with Wikipedia, and what boundaries should they not cross?
“Typically, PR agencies don’t have enough billable hours for Wikipedia work for it to make sense to develop in-house expertise. This can result in one of two extreme policies.
First, the PR agency can take on Wikipedia work they lack the expertise for, often making a mess of things. The agency doesn’t know the basics of how Wikipedia works but claims to be experts to clients, the media, and on their blog.
Alternatively, large agencies in particular often have a strict hands-off approach. I recommend the hands-off approach in more than 75% of consultations, so this isn’t bad most of the time. However, it’s frustrating to clients to not have access to an expert to explain why their edits do not comply with Wikipedia’s rules or to get help if they legitimately need to participate.
My advice for PR agencies is to develop a more balanced approach. Learn enough of the basics to request obvious fixes, then outsource to an expert when you need more expertise or a substantial body of content.”
What should companies consider before hiring an external consultant or agency for Wikipedia editing?
“Wikipedia has done all of the legwork for vetting a white-hat firm. Only talk to firms on Wikipedia’s ‘Disclosed paid editing‘ list. Firms on this list meet two basic criteria: (1) Wikipedia knows where the firm is active on the platform, and (2) Wikipedia hasn’t blocked them.
In contrast to the less than 10 firms on Wikipedia’s white-hat list, hundreds of black-hat firms are on the rest of that page. Many of them claim to be ethical without disclosing they are blocked from Wikipedia. In other words, Wikipedia has already done an incredible amount of vetting for you that you wouldn’t be able to do on your own.
Then, you can pick a vendor from that list based on ordinary criteria for a consultant, such as the quality of their advice.”
Navigating Wikipedia with Confidence
Navigating Wikipedia’s complex rules can be challenging for marketers, but ethical management can provide better information to readers while upholding the platform’s integrity. Partnering with a skilled consultant ensures a transparent approach that aligns with Wikipedia’s standards, avoiding pitfalls and fostering positive collaboration.
Thank you, David King, for sharing your insights on Wikipedia engagement and best practices. If your brand is looking for expert guidance, Walker Sands and Ethical Wiki can help you navigate the complexities of Wikipedia while staying true to the platform’s principles.
