Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool

Rules Forbid Original Research, Encourage Education Over Persuasion

Nov 2, 2009

Self-Published Reports Not Welcome on Wikipedia, 2008 Marcin Rybarczyk, used with permission

Wikipedia may be able to get the word out about a company, but its users are only interested in dispassionate, third-party information which educates.

One of the challenges facing business writers on Wikipedia is the credo of “no original research.” As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia collects information which has already been published in reliable sources and organizes it according to its neutrality policy. Much of the information that a freelance business writer or company employee may wish to add to a Wikipedia entry is summarily dismissed as original research and removed, because no such third-party sources exist. This also relates to such things as testimonials: “Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material.”

New information cannot be published first on Wikipedia, as that is the role of news and academic organizations. According to the policy, “If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to première such a discovery. Once your discovery has been presented in a reliable source, it may be referenced.”

Wikipedia and Marketing

The policies of Wikipedia specifically forbid editors from advancing a point of view or promoting a business in an article. Seasoned editors are quick to spot articles and additions which violate these rules, recognizing signs that the edits may not be unbiased:

Heavy use of superlatives
Assertions about a company or its services
Press release-style announcements

The quickest way to make editors suspicious with any claim in a Wikipedia article about a business is to neglect to cite its source. All assertions which are not common knowledge should be tied to a source which is independent of the subject, and the phrase “common knowledge” is defined by the reviewing editor, not the one who added the information in the first place. Without any citation, such information is labeled “OR” or “original research,” and removed immediately. Including a citation may convince a casual reviewer to assume that the information is accurate, but if the source is self-published (such as a company web site, a blog post, or a white paper), it will not be considered credible.

Dispassionate Reporting of Existing Facts

The goal of Wikipedia is to report on existing and verifiable human knowledge, and to that end the writing must have a dispassionate tone and be written in the third person. Use of superlative language in an article is suspicious to editors, as such words are used to evoke specific emotions, something which Wikipedia specifically seeks to avoid doing. The appropriate way to use such wording is as a direct quote from a reliable source. For example:

Steve Jobs may describe the newest iPhone as “revolutionary,” in a presentation, but stating this in its article on Wikipedia would be considered original research.
If a prominent technology writer quoted Jobs as calling the iPhone revolutionary, or used that word to describe the product, the review could be properly cited. The word “revolutionary” would be attributed to one or the other individual and would no longer be regarded as original research.

As Wikipedia's standard is one of verifiability rather than truth, it doesn't actually matter if the iPhone is revolutionary – what matters that is that the wording is properly attributed. If another reviewer claims that the iPhone is “old hat,” for example, the quote may be included by an editor to provide balance to the views of the iPhone in society.

Writing for the Scholar

The most effective way to add information about a business to Wikipedia is to view its editors and readers as buyer personae. Wikipedians are not making purchase decisions while visiting the site, they are gathering information about a company or its products and services. Its users tend to be well-educated and desensitized to persuasive marketing techniques. Communication by writing for Wikipedia is effective only if it does not insult the reader's intelligence by make unsubstantiated claims.