Guide: Media Coverage for Wikipedia References
Introduction
Having a well-structured and properly referenced Wikipedia page can significantly boost a company’s online presence and credibility. Doing it wrong can get the Wikipedia article edited in a way that damages the brand, or even gets the article deleted. For PR practitioners, directors of marketing, and directors of communications, understanding how to procure media coverage that qualifies as suitable references for Wikipedia is crucial.
This guide will walk you through the intricacies of Wikipedia references, using a fictional crypto company, “CryptoInnovate,” as our example. We’ll explore what constitutes a good Wikipedia reference and how to identify appropriate sources and strategies for obtaining reference-worthy media coverage.
What is a Wikipedia Reference?
Wikipedia references are the backbone of the encyclopedia’s content statements. They are publicly visible evidence designed to support the statements made in articles, allowing Wikipedia readers and editors to verify the information and explore topics in greater depth.
Locating References in Wikipedia Articles
References can typically be found in several places within a Wikipedia article:
- Inline citations: Small superscript numbers or letters that link to the full reference at the bottom of the page.
- References section: A dedicated area at the end of the article listing all sources cited.
- Further reading or External links sections: Additional resources that may not be directly cited in the article but provide valuable related information.
Qualities of a Good Wikipedia Reference
Not all sources are created equal in the eyes of Wikipedia editors. Understanding what makes a good reference is crucial for PR and marketing professionals aiming to improve their company’s Wikipedia presence.
Preferred vs. Non-Preferred Sources
Wikipedia has clear guidelines on what constitutes a reliable source. Generally, preferred sources include:
- Reputable news organizations
- Peer-reviewed academic journals
- Books published by respected publishing houses
- Government publications and reports
Non-preferred or discouraged sources often include:
- Press releases
- Company websites
- Personal blogs or social media posts
- Forums or discussion boards
- Self-published materials
An example of a source that is currently deemed unreliable
Anti-Defamation League: One might think the ADL would be considered reliable, but, according to Wikipedia “There is consensus that the ADL is a generally unreliable source for the Israel/Palestine conflict, due to significant evidence that the ADL acts as a pro-Israeli advocacy group and has repeatedly published false and misleading statements as fact, un-retracted, regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict.“
The Importance of Substantial Coverage
A major aspect of a good Wikipedia reference is that it provides substantial coverage of the subject. This means:
- The article should be mainly about the subject (in our case, CryptoInnovate), not just mentioning it in passing.
- The subject’s name should ideally appear in the headline or early in the article, indicating its significance to the content.
- The coverage should provide meaningful information about the subject, not just a brief mention or listing.
Types of Content Suitable for Wikipedia References
Wikipedia accepts a wide range of content types as references, provided they meet the criteria for reliability and relevance. Understanding these content types can help PR and marketing professionals target the right sources for their Wikipedia strategy. Below are some examples using our sample company as an example:
Scientific and Academic Sources
- Peer-reviewed journals: These are considered among the most reliable sources, especially for technical or scientific claims. For CryptoInnovate, this might include articles in blockchain technology journals or cryptography publications.
- Academic books: Books published by university presses or respected academic publishers can provide in-depth, reliable information.
- Conference proceedings: Presentations or papers from reputable academic or industry conferences can be valuable sources, especially for cutting-edge topics in the crypto world.
Mainstream Media and Publications
- Newspaper articles: Articles from respected national or international newspapers (e.g., The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal) are generally considered reliable.
- Magazine features: In-depth articles from reputable magazines, especially those focusing on technology or finance, can be excellent sources.
- Online news sites: Established online news outlets with editorial oversight are often acceptable. For CryptoInnovate, technology sections on sites like CNBC or Reuters could be relevant.
Industry-Specific Publications
- Trade journals: Publications specific to the industry can provide specialized, in-depth coverage but are often biased.
- Professional magazines: These can offer insights into industry trends and company profiles.
Books and E-books
- Non-fiction books: Books published by reputable publishing houses, especially those covering the history or analysis of the industry, can be valuable references.
- Technical manuals: For specific technical claims about technology, technical documentation from respected sources might be appropriate.
Government and Institutional Sources
- Government reports: Official reports or documents from government agencies (Think: SEC filings, congressional testimonies) can be highly reliable sources.
- Think tank publications: Reports from respected, non-partisan think tanks or research institutions can provide valuable analysis and data.
Multimedia Sources
- Video content: While less common, video content from reputable sources (e.g., interviews on major news networks, TED Talks) can sometimes be used as references.
- Podcasts: Transcripts or audio from established journalistic podcasts might be acceptable, especially for quotes or first-hand accounts.
Digital Archives and Databases
- Digital libraries: Resources from established digital libraries or archives can be valuable, especially for historical context.
- Specialized databases: For financial or technical data about CryptoInnovate, information from respected industry databases might be appropriate.
When selecting sources for Wikipedia references, consider not just the type of content but also its reliability, neutrality, and relevance to the subject. For CryptoInnovate, a mix of technical sources (for details about the technology), financial publications (for market impact and company performance), and mainstream media (for general company information and industry trends) would likely create a well-rounded set of references.
Remember, Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources over primary sources. This means that an article analyzing CryptoInnovate’s impact on the crypto market would typically be preferred over a direct statement from the company (a primary source). Always aim for sources that provide comprehensive, objective coverage rather than those that might be perceived as promotional or biased.
Promotional content in Wikipedia pages is one of the fastest ways to get the page harshly edited, or even deleted.
The Difference Between High-Quality and Low-Quality References
Understanding the distinction between high-quality and low-quality references is very important for maintaining the integrity of a Wikipedia article, and also for maintaining the viability of the article itself.
Examples of High-Quality References
- A feature article about CryptoInnovate in a respected financial publication like Forbes or Bloomberg.
- An in-depth analysis of CryptoInnovate’s technology in a peer-reviewed blockchain publication. Note: Crypto industry publications are often not considered reliable enough to use as important references. This is often due to Wikipedia editor bias.
- A government report mentioning CryptoInnovate’s impact on the cryptocurrency market. Government reports are generally considered relaible.
Examples of Low-Quality References
- A press release on CryptoInnovate’s website announcing a new product.
- A blog post written by CryptoInnovate’s CEO on the company blog.
- A forum discussion where users speculate about CryptoInnovate’s future projects.
What Constitutes a Reliable Source for Wikipedia?
A reliable source for Wikipedia is one that has editorial oversight, fact-checking processes, and a reputation for accuracy. These sources are typically well-established publications or institutions known for their credibility in the relevant field.
Consequences of Using Low-Quality References
Using subpar references can have several negative impacts on a Wikipedia article:
- Individual statements may be challenged or removed if not properly sourced.
- The article’s overall credibility may be questioned, leading to increased scrutiny from editors.
- In extreme cases, an abundance of poor references could lead to the article being nominated for deletion.
Consequences of Having Too Few References
Having only a few references, even if they are good, is risky. For example, at the time of this writing a crypto company has only three references for a Wikipedia article created only a few months ago. Below is an image of their references. Note that all three are pretty good. They are Y Combinator, Forbes, and The Standard.
… And Not Always Good Ones
But further digging shows that:
- The Forbes article was written by a Contributor, not a staff writer. Contributors are often paid to make those contributions and so are generally thought of as less reliable than Staff writers.
- The Y Combinator article is not an article, but only a listing of other articles.
- The last reference, The Standard, is not on the list of unreliable publications, so may be OK.
Identifying Suitable References for a Wikipedia Page
One good strategy for finding appropriate references is to look at the Wikipedia pages of similar companies or individuals. For CryptoInnovate, this might involve looking at the Wikipedia pages of other cryptocurrency companies or blockchain technology firms. Pay attention to:
- The types of publications cited (such as: tech journals, financial news sites, and academic papers)
- The depth of coverage in the referenced articles
- How recent the sources are
- Who created the reference content, a staff writer or a contributor? Contributors are often frowned upon.
Seeming Flexibility with References
While Wikipedia has clear guidelines on reliable sources, you may notice some articles contain references that don’t seem to meet these standards. But why? Well, for several reasons:
- Historical acceptance: Some older references may have been grandfathered in before stricter guidelines were implemented.
- Lack of better sources: In some cases, a less-than-ideal source might be temporarily accepted if no better alternatives exist.
- Editor discretion: Wikipedia editors are human and may have varying interpretations of source quality. People are biased.
- No one noticed: The low-quality references may be there simply because no one has noticed yet.
I’s important to note that relying on these exceptions is not a recommended strategy. Always aim for the highest quality references possible because not doing so can get you in trouble, especially for challenging industries to earn a Wikipedia article in such as crypto companies.
Strategies for Obtaining High-Quality Wikipedia References
Now that we understand what makes a good Wikipedia reference let’s explore how to get them.
Researching Suitable Publications
Start by creating a list of publications that are frequently cited in Wikipedia articles for companies similar to CryptoInnovate. This might include:
- Technology publications (e.g., TechCrunch, Wired)
- Financial news outlets (e.g., Forbes, Bloomberg)
- Industry-specific news sites
- Academic journals focusing on the technology (of our example company)
Analyzing Reference Structure
Pay close attention to how the references are structured in successful Wikipedia articles. Look for:
- Articles where the company is the main subject (like the name is in the headline)
- Content written by staff writers rather than contributors or guest authors
- Publications known for unbiased reporting in the crypto industry
- Publications not on the “naughty list“.
Effective Publication Outreach for Wikipedia-Worthy References
Securing media coverage suitable for Wikipedia references requires a different approach than traditional PR strategies. A press release just won’t cut it.
Tailoring Your Outreach
When reaching out to publications, keep in mind:
- Focus on publications that are likely to provide substantial coverage of the subject
- Pitch stories that go beyond simple announcements, offering in-depth analysis or industry insights
- Pitch stories that directly support a statement you are planning to make on Wikipedia (don’t edit your own page, though)
- Aim for coverage by staff writers or respected industry analysts
- Never push for promotional content; instead, offer genuine news value or expert commentary. Promotional content will often kill a Wikipedia article.
Developing Wikipedia-Friendly Content
Work with journalists and publications to create content that:
- Provides comprehensive information about the role of the subject in the industry
- Includes verifiable facts and figures about the company’s operations, technology, or market impact
- Offers expert insights from leadership on industry trends or challenges
Conclusion
Getting media coverage that qualifies as suitable Wikipedia references requires a strategic approach that differs from traditional PR practices. By understanding Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sources, analyzing successful articles in your industry, and tailoring your media outreach accordingly, you can dramatically improve your chances of building a robust and credible Wikipedia presence for your company.
Remember, the goal is not just to get mentioned in various publications but to get substantial, high-quality coverage that provides genuine value to Wikipedia readers and meets the encyclopedia’s standards for neutrality and reliability. With patience, persistence, and a focus on quality over quantity, you can develop a strong foundation of references that will support a comprehensive and authoritative Wikipedia article for your company.
I’m going to say it one more time to make sure it sinks in, though: Nothing promotional.
Tags: Wikipedia.
