You want a Wikipedia page for your brand, your CEO, or even for yourself. You know how to tell a story, but aren't sure if the page will make it past publication.
Your success lies in a single word – popularity.
Notability is the test that Wikipedia editors use to decide if a topic is worthy of its own article. You need to develop a case, using only sources recognized by Wikipedia, which explains why the guaranteed entry is included in a global encyclopedia.
Wikipedia's requirements are very precise, especially for pages about living people. You cannot rely on the check mark blue on Instagram or a page on IMDb. You also cannot use the magnanimity of client lists or celebrity endorsements. Those credentials are impressive, but they unreliable by the authority of Wikipedia.
. @Wikipedia editors do not consider the blue checkmark a reliable source, @jrick said via @CMIContent. Click to post a Tweet The gold standard is notable for its media coverage and includes many rigorous criteria. Let's dive into that rabbit hole.
Criterion 1: Coverage coming from a media
The range that you cite should come from the news media. Marketing and PR content, such as news release , your website or even a bio from a speaker's office, don't cut it. You want to cover newspapers, magazines, TV shows, radio shows, books – this is Wikipedia's strike zone.
Newspaper, magazine, TV coverage is within @Wikipedia's strike zone for sourcing, @jrick via @CMIContent said. Click to Tweet What about blogs, podcasts, and e-newsletters? While these platforms are part of the media ecosystem, they are often not highly configurable enough to meet the popularity requirements. (Exceptions include SCOTUSblog , daily and Strategyery .)
Criterion 2: Notable stores
The sources should not only be independent, but also be notable or be part of the mainstream media . A local or trade publication (Think: ARLnow or PR Daily) is less useful than a regional or national publication (Think: The Star Ledger or CNN.)
What is considered “mainstream”? It's a bit gray. As a general rule, the store must hire people to edit and issue corrections when there are errors.
Criterion 3: Independent stores
Your media citations should be independent of the topic of the page. This criterion governs anything you self-publish. (Sorry, Authors of Kindle Direct Publishing .)
It also excludes sources you might think are perfectly acceptable. For example, Washington, DC, chapter of the American Marketing Association published a profile mine , a volunteer for the group, on the group's website. Independent, this is not.
Here's another scenario: Let's say you're a member of the American Chamber of Commerce and are featured on FreeEnterprise.com . Unfortunately, the site is not trustworthy in the eyes of Wikipedia because it is sponsored by the board.
Be careful about mainstream agencies that have both paid and self-published platforms.
Get the famous site Medium . On the one hand, much of the material here is self-published, which means it's not independent. On the other hand, parts of the Vehicle, such as OneZero , works with full-time editors and reporters, making them the mainstream. To wit: You can quote onezero.medium.com; you cannot quote media.
The same is true for sponsored content. It is not a reliable source as it pays to publish. Even if the content is published on a mainstream media site, it still does not meet Wikipedia's standards of credibility. (Just ask The Atlantic, where fame was forced cancel my puff on Scientology .)
#content sponsored on mainstream media sites does not match @Wikipedia's trustworthiness rating, @jrick via @CMIContent said. Click to Tweet
Why media coverage is the gold standard
Here's the view from Wikipedia: To be covered by the media, a reporter must believe that the topic is important or interesting. Reporter content undergoes a traditional review process that includes fact checker editors and even lawyers.
While media coverage can be a flawed form of confirmation, it is the least flawed form of authentication available. Indeed, Wikipedia worthiness has proven to be such a fair standard that social media companies, like Twitter, may use it soon in deciding which handle warrants a coveted verification badge.
Criterion 4: Relevancy focuses on the page topic
The media should include more than mention of your topic. In other words: Being cited once or twice in an article is not particularly helpful. Widely quoted is better but not necessarily enough. What you want is how relevant your topic is.
Criterion 5: Online relevance
Once you have media coverage that meets the above criteria, then you need initial links. Simply put, if the article does not appear online – so that others can access and verify it – then you cannot quote it. This is part of the ban Wikipedia's original research; Every request you make must be meticulously noted.
Criterion 6: Relevancy is maintained
Finally, you need to demonstrate that media coverage is not only substantial, but long-lasting. For example, if all the clips come from three months ago, then Wikipedia might consider you as “ only notable for an event . In such cases, your best bet is not to create New but in pursuit of inclusion now available one.
TIP: I recommend at least six verifiable citation links per page. While it's not a magic number, it's a good test of popularity.
I recommend at least six verifiable citation links to the @Wikipedia page, says @jrick via @CMIContent. Click to Tweet
Other insurance options
If you're having trouble filling out mainstream media links, don't despair. You can find examples of alternative coverage, such as:
- Mention the awards won by the page theme
- Op-eds written by page theme
- Key conference keynotes delivered by site theme
Creative confidence
The bottom line: Wikipedia is a maze of policies and guidelines. (Yes, those are two separate things.) These rules can be unclear, uncompromising, and even contradictory. (One of Wikipedia five pillars is “Wikipedia has no firm rules.”)
These walls protect the integrity of the encyclopedia, contributing to its high ranking on Google. But they also lead to Wikipedia's reputation not hospitable .
To avoid that fate, let's focus on that one word - fame - and all it entails in Wikipedia.
Cover photo by Joseph Kalinowski / Content Marketing Institute
Post a Comment
Post a Comment