Wikipedia – The Rules of the Game
Editing Wikipedia the right way when there's a conflict of interest
We’re often approached by PR and communications agencies that wish to create a Wikipedia article or edit an existing article for their client. The goal of this post is to give you a broader context and better understanding of how Wikipedia works so that you can better advise your client whether to take the Wiki route to online image building.
The desire to appear on Wikipedia in a positive way is clear. Wikipedia is the 7th most visited website in the world, with 5.07 billion monthly visits, outranking Reddit and WhatsApp, with 4.51 billion 3.02 billion, respectively. Even with AI summaries taking the top spot in many searches, Wikipedia is still one of the highest ranking search results on Google. Despite the lingering question of its reliability, it is trusted by billions of people worldwide and by Google itself, which often pulls Wikipedia data for its knowledge panels, meta data, and virtual assistant. Even LLM chatbots often cite Wikipedia as a source for the information they provide. The fact that Wikipedia editing is so accessible, as almost anyone can edit practically anything at any given time, makes it even more attractive—a quick fix for a tarnished reputation, a shortcut into the public eye.
But it’s not so simple. Wikipedia has a hefty set of rules and regulations and 112,780 active users, as of October 2025, passionately enforcing them.
The North Face Case – Good Advertising, Bad Wiki Work
In mid-2019, The North Face launched a brand awareness campaign on Wikipedia. The company’s goal was to appear in search results for popular hiking destinations. So, it replaced the images on the Wikipedia pages of these destinations with images of athletes wearing its gear while trekking at these locations. The campaign was a success – The North Face photos began to appear at the top of the search pages for the various destinations. However, it didn’t take long for Wikipedia editors to catch on. Once they did, all images were immediately removed, and the campaign was publicly criticized by the Wikimedia Foundation and condemned on social media. Eventually, the company published an apology for exploiting the open platform for commercial needs.
As a marketing stunt aimed at keeping The North Face gear top of mind, the campaign was a success. It was creative, cheeky, memorable, and it cost practically nothing. But for Wikipedia, this was a blatant attack on its rules and guidelines, enraging veteran editors and readers alike.
Why?
Because
Wikipedia is no place for self-promotion. It is run by principled volunteers who will fight for the integrity of the platform.
Because
No matter who or how powerful you are, if your edits deviate from Wikipedia guidelines, they simply won’t stick in the long run.
Because
Once you try such a stunt, every editing attempt you make will most probably be scrutinized by dedicated Wikipedia users, and the entry flagged.
Wikipedia – an Encyclopedia for the People by the People
Wikipedia is built on the principles of openness, accessibility, and transparency. Most Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone, with or without an identified user. The full editing history of each article and the discussions about it are accessible to all in the “talk” and “history” sections.
In order to maintain a high level of reliability, Wikipedia works according to strict editing guidelines. Detailed instructions can be found on Wikipedia itself, but the three main pillars are:
01
Objectivity
Wikipedia aims to provide impartial information. It discourages autobiographical writing and disapproves of anyone writing about people, events, or organizations with which they are affiliated. Language should be clear and simple, tone of voice should be neutral and factual, and information should be based on verified secondary sources.
02
Notability
One has to be something or someone to deserve a Wikipedia article. Subjects must be of public interest, which in Wikipedia terms means there must be an adequate amount of reliable, secondary sources. Interviews, podcasts, or quotes, even in tier-1 media, are primary sources – meaning first-hand accounts that are considered naturally unreliable, and therefore not sufficient in proving notability.
03
Verifiability
All information added to Wikipedia must be backed by reliable sources. A reliable source is objective and vetted/peer reviewed. It may be a major news outlet, a government/academic site, or a professional niche publication. Company websites, opinion pieces, tabloids, or social media accounts are not reliable sources.
Your Best Bet is Playing by the Rules (Declare a Conflict of Interest)
Affiliated editing, or COI editing, while highly discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines, is the only way to attempt adding or editing your or your client’s Wikipedia article. Wikipedia requires disclosure from affiliated editors, both on the user page and the affected Wikipedia article(s). If you do not disclose and are outed as a connected contributor, your edits will be removed and your account blocked. Wikipedia may even block your IP address, to discourage you from attempting to create another user in the future.
Wikipedia guidelines also strongly recommend that you suggest edits on the relevant talk page rather than make the edits yourself. Veteran editors are then entrusted with reviewing these suggestions, which they may implement or reject and request further information. Reaching consensus with editors may be a lengthy process, but ultimately, it significantly reduces the chances of your edits being challenged or reversed in the future.
To mitigate the risk of calamitous outcomes, here are some handy guidelines for attempting a COI edit on Wikipedia:
-
Do not edit Wikipedia articles directly
All edits should be suggested in talk pages, and new articles should be suggested as drafts.
-
Do not use promotional or marketing-oriented language
Don't use industry jargon or trademarked product names when writing for Wikipedia. Avoid superlatives and overly descriptive language.
-
Do not use marketing materials as sources
Don't attempt to use press releases, advertisements, or product pages as sources. Using such sources will not only flag your edits, but your intentions.
-
If it is not backed by a source, it can’t be on Wikipedia
Any facts that cannot be substantiated with Wikipedia-approved sources will be treated as speculation. Any claim you make must be backed up by at least one source.
Please remember that not everyone is worthy of a Wikipedia article. Notability is far more complicated to prove on Wikipedia than it might be in any other context, and it does not mean what you think it means. Adjust your client’s expectations accordingly, and prepare for an extended battle. And finally, keep in mind that Wikipedia articles reflect reality as it appears online. If there’s a lot of negative news coverage about your clients, they may be better off without a Wikipedia article about them.
Wikipedia is a Double-Edged Sword
It’s easy to downplay the risks of a failed Wikipedia edit attempt, if you’re not aware of real-world implications. Your edits can be reversed, and your user and IP address can end up being blocked from the website indefinitely – but that’s not all. In some cases, insistent edit attempts that do not follow Wikipedia rules can be considered vandalism, resulting in entries becoming protected or semi-protected, which means that only a handful of established editors can edit them.
In addition, clumsy attempts by companies to improve their own Wikipedia articles can cause reputational damage outside of the Wikipedia sphere. In 2023, Indian Tycoon Gautam Adani and his company of the same name came under fire for attempting to “clean up” the company’s image on Wikipedia by employing several undisclosed paid editors over the course of at least ten years. The company’s users did not disclose their affiliation, did not follow Wikipedia article writing guidelines, and removed conflict of interest warnings from the affected pages. The story broke on regional media, shaming the businessman and his employees and causing a lasting stain on his legacy.
The ubiquitous nature of Wikipedia articles may convince you that attempting to create one for yourself is an easy, low-risk job. If you’ve read this far, you may now understand that isn’t the case. Wikipedia editing is a beautiful challenge, but when done hastily, it may cause more damage than good to your client’s image. When done correctly in a way that honors the platform, its heritage, community, and rules, the results can be powerful, and longstanding.
To consult on any and all Wikipedia-related queries for you or your clients, contact us.
Tl;dr? Here are some FAQs:
Yes, you can - but it requires time, effort, and a lot of patience. By following the conflict of interest (COI) editing protocol and respectfully engaging with Wikipedia editors, you may be able to successfully edit your company’s Wikipedia page.
While it is highly discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines, if you are open and truthful, disclose your affiliation with the subject matter and do not try to erase factual occurrences, then yes - it is ok. You just need to follow conflict of interest (COI) editing guidelines.
Yes! Anyone can edit a Wikipedia page, with or without creating an account. If you make an edit without creating an account, your edit will be attributed to your IP address, so please be aware of that. Please also take into account that edits made without an account or proper reasoning are more likely to be contested, and dedicated Wikipedia editors may be more critical of them.
Sometimes. While the majority of Wikipedia edits don’t require approval, some protected articles require any edits to be approved by administrators. In addition, conflict of interest (COI) guidelines instruct connected contributors to suggest edits rather than make them. In such cases, edits must be approved by other editors before they are actually made. New articles on Wikipedia must also be approved by other editors before they move from the “draft” space to the “article” space.
That depends. If you insert misinformation or disinformation, your edit will likely be reversed, and you will receive warnings from other editors. If you insert biased content, inappropriate language, or hate speech, you will be blocked and banned from Wikipedia. In some cases, Wikipedia will also block your IP range, to discourage you from creating a new account. If your edits are deemed “vandalism”, they can cause the affected article(s) to become “protected” - which means editing will be limited and only authorized users can access them. There are different levels of protection that range from allowing new and unregistered users to request edits, to only allowing high-level administrators to make edits.
Most of the time, yes. Even unregistered users leave behind their IP address when they edit on Wikipedia, which can easily be traced back to them. Wikipedia also blocks most VPN services, preemptively rejecting any registrations from IPs in the range associated with them. Wikipedia sleuths, if prompted, can investigate users with convoluted histories and contested edits all the way to the purchase of their device or SIM card. While there are ways to avoid detection, it is generally not advisable to try and “outsmart” Wikipedia.