How to create and edit articles for Wikipedia

Wikipedia is among the top ten most visited sites on the Web. When there is a Wikipedia article on a topic that you search on, I'm sure you’ve noticed that article usually appears as one of the top few results, frequently in the number one position.

There's no doubt that Wikipedia is important.

However there are few people who understand the inner workings of Wikipedia and how the more than 3.8 million articles in the English language (and millions more in 282 other languages) are created.

Sure, Wikipedia is an open platform and anybody can create or edit an article. But it's more complicated than that. A lot more complicated.

I asked my friend Colin Warwick to help us out. Colin is a Product Marketing Manager at Agilent Technologies. He writes the popular Signal Integrity blog and tweets at @SignalIntegrity.

David: How did you get interested in contributing to Wikipedia?

Colin: "Around 2004, a colleague at MathWorks - Ned Gulley - gave a talk on the crowdsourcing phenomenon: What it was, why it was happening, and Wikipedia was his prime example. His point was the success of Wikipedia is surprising. How can a bunch of unmanaged volunteers compete with the resources of, say, Microsoft (who had Encarta at the time) or the venerable Britannica. There's that famous quote: 'The problem with Wikipedia is that it works in practice, but not in theory'."

David: So why does it work then?

Colin: "It's true that a naive application of a theory like the tragedy of the commons would predict failure. But in the case of Wikipedia we get the inverse outcome because the cost of a contribution is much less than its value over time. For example, it costs very little for a contributor to enter knowledge from their experience into the servers, and very little for Wikipedia to serve that information over and over again to readers, generating great value over time. Unlike the pasture of a physical commons, information isn't degraded much by use. So the value of Wikipedia increases over time attracting more readers, some of whom become contributors, forming a virtuous cycle."

David: So you got sucked into the vortex?

Colin: "Yes. I became intrigued and started to add little facts I found here and there. The interaction with other contributors was startling at first but I began to realize that in questioning my assumptions I was not only contributing but pushing my own understanding to a higher level."

David: Give us an example.

Colin: "In my work, I had to learn about a new technology we wanted to enter called ODB++. I started researching it and gathered and read a ton of web links. But I noticed there wasn't a Wikipedia article about it. So I started one."

David: Just like that?

Colin: "Just like that. The best way to start or add to a Wikipedia article is to gather good web links first. Web-based versions of newspaper and magazine articles. Books. In Wikipedia-speak, it's called reliable sources."

David: What about blog posts and other social media?

Colin: "Ironically for a user-generated content site, Wikipedia looks down on user-generated content. Blogs can be a reliable source if the blogger is notable for something other than blogging."

David: Interesting. I didn't know that before speaking with you. So what happened next?

Colin: "Other editors started contributing to the article as I was writing it. At first it was really irritating to have some unknown person editing 'my' article as I was writing."

David: Wasn't it your article?

Colin: "Technically, no. If you contribute to Wikipedia, you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons license. And they warn you 'If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here'."

David: That seems harsh. So what's the value for contributors on Wikipedia if that's the case?

Colin: "Well, once I got over the irritation, I began to see a benefit: I learnt whole new perspectives from the other contributors that I didn't even know existed. There's a discussion page behind every article where you can ask: 'Why did you delete what I wrote?' It's kind of addictive. Who's going to end up right or wrong or what compromise will be reached? You can see why Wikipedia contributors give each other virtual barnstars as a token of appreciation in at those moments. It's evocative of communal barn building in certain rural communities. I had my barn-building moment on that article!"

David: The article you wrote wasn't directly about your company. Many people want to know if they can create an article about their own company or its products and sevices. I'm asked that a lot. Can you do that?

Colin: "You can but it's very difficult to not run afoul of Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules, COI in wiki-speak. Other editors can smell marketing puffery a mile way and will delete it as advertising in a heartbeat. The only workaround is to put Wikipedia's goal of a neutral point of view (NPOV in wiki-speak) first, and then either proactively seek what's called a COI review, or simply let nature take its course. As with all articles, you have the best chance of your edits 'sticking' if you come armed with reliable sources: don't simply add your opinion."

David: Cool. Finally after many years of using Wikipedia I feel like I know a little about how it is put together and how someone in business can benefit from contributing. Hey Colin, you should write a book about all this stuff.

Some smart editor or publisher who is watching this blog should cut a deal with Colin to do a book.

Comments

[Signalintegrity]

Thanks, David. Wikipedia is indeed an interesting (and challenging) place to publish great content. Looking forward to the book deal :-)

[David Meerman Scott]

Thanks for taking the time to educate us, Colin!

[Terri O. Johnson]

David -- I enjoyed our dialogue a while back on this very topic. Thank you for looking into the question in greater detail. As mentioned, We are very interested to have LearningRx cognitive brain training added to Wikipedia. Like Colin Warwick, I've become intreged by how Wikipedia works and evolves.

I've enjoyed reading "The New Rules" and applying to our marketing & PR strategy.

Here is a link to my blog, Education & Wellness:
http://edenprairienews.com/blog/15149143/Education++Wellness

These are posts of my news columns that run in Eden Prairie News & Chanhassen Villager in Minnesota.

Cheers, Terri O. Johnson

[Signalintegrity]

Terri, Given the complex and controversial nature of brain function and the fact that you are not disinterested in LearningRx, I'd recommend an indirect approach: focus on having your system evaluated in controlled studies that are published in peer-reviewed journals. I see you are doing this here:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/11/prweb8978068.htm

Once the studies are complete, contributors who are knowledgable will add the info. If not, add it yourself to an appropriate page (learning, intelligence, or preferably something more specific) and flag it for a third-party COI review.

Take a look at the discussion/talk page behind a controversial article to get a feel for the ebb and flow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heritability_of_IQ

I don't recommend you add a page about your company yourself. It will almost certainly by deleted rather quickly.

Hope this helps!

-- Colin

[Signalintegrity]

...just noticed that someone did create an article entitled LearningRx and that it was _d_elete _b_ecause it was considered _spam_ ("db-spam" in wiki-speak) in 2007 by an administrator. Administrators on wikipedia have powers regular contributors don't have: the power to block a contributor from making damaging edits to the project, for example, and the power to delete an inappropriate page without further debate ("speedy deletion").

[Signalintegrity]

BTW, a Wikipedia user with the screen name King4057 just pointed out to me two related topics:

* CREWE: Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement - a Facebook group by PR folks who want to interact with Wikipedia

https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/

* WikiProject Cooperation - help for PR folks and paid contributors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation

[Signalintegrity]

...looks like the person behind the King4057 Wikipedia screenname/login is David King @David44357

http://socialfresh.com/contributors/david-king/

[David Meerman Scott]

Colin - thanks so much for all this additional information. "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement" sounds interesting. I'll check it out.

[David King]

Yup, that's me, the Wikipedia guy. Colin already hit the bulls-eye. You're not prohibited from editing your own article, but if you're (a) an amateur editor and (b) you have a COI, it's going to be very difficult to make welcomed contributions.

COI edits are "strongly discouraged" because they tend to lead to trouble, but the COI guideline has language around exceptions because ultimately it's all about the contributions themselves.

You can invest in training, hiring or partnering with expertise on how to do it well or follow the five bullets here under "what everyone should know"
http://www.pr-squared.com/index.php/2012/02/wikipedia-for-marketers-the-last-word

Think of Wikipedia like the New York Times. You wouldn't write yourself in, but you could ask for factual corrections, pitch stories to neutral editors, or offer contributed articles. Resist the temptation to just dive in and edit, just because it's openly editable.

Extremely pleased by the way to see more bridges being built between volunteers and the marketing community. Appreciate you covering this oft-forgotten topic.

-David King

[David Meerman Scott]

Hey David - thanks for stopping by. I liked your article over on Todd's Shift blog. He is a friend so it is nice to be connected now to you.

[Signalintegrity]

Hi @David44357, I like your analogy of thinking of Wikipedia as being like the New York Times. No-one likes a gate-crasher.

-- Colin

[Gilbert Homes]

Awesome article, I am so grateful we have so many people willing to contribute to Wikipedia. I think it will stand the test of time as something the human race is capable of when working together to achieve a goal.

[Signalintegrity]

Thanks, Gilbert. Wikipedia's stats are impressive. Collectively editors add about 11 million edits a month.

http://m.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/technology-can-topple-tyrants-jimmy-wales-an-eternal-optimist-20111107-1n387.html

-- Colin

[Terri O. Johnson]

Colin (and David King)- Thank you for the comments and suggested links to evalute further how we might pursue a Wikipedia listing for LearningRx.

I also found it interesting that you found and included a link to the National Science Foundation (NSF) student launched in Texas. Your link was to PRWeb. I did my own search and was surprised at how difficult it was to find information about several larger studies we have going on. For one, we are the subject of a NSF study on the ability to improve IQ. Here is one brief mention of another study from the researcher, Dr. Oliver Hill: http://democrats.appropriations.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/cjs/2011_STEM_Ed_Hearing_1_Oliver_Testimony.pdf.

I believe it was mentioned that blogs are not considered to be an adequate source, as an example: http://www.parentguidenews.com/Catalog/SpecialNeeds/BrainTraining.

Is there a published ranking of the "legitimacy" of source information allowable for Wikipedia postings?

Respectfully, Terri O. Johnson

[David King]

Blogs can be a reliable source, but it depends on if it's self published, who the author is, and what it's being used for.

See "What Counts as a Reliable source"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source

For example, a blog may (or may not) be reliable enough to add to the company article that the company has conducted these studies, but not enough to use their results as statements of fact on subject-matter articles.

[David Meerman Scott]

David - thanks for clarifying a bit on blogs.

It's such an interesting topic to me. Is Huffington Post a "blog"? If yes, is HuffPo less reliable than, say, India's "Hindustan Times" website because they happen to also publish a print newspaper?

[David King]

The reliable sources policy indicates three factors to consider - the author, the publication and the content itself.

The Huffington Post wouldn't count as a "self published" blog and would probably be considered a credible publication/author. So would the print paper. That's an easy, clear case, unless you're citing an op-ed rather than a journalist.

But say I do a post on my blog calling out CNN for all their errors in a story on Newt Gingrich's Wikipedia editing. Well, now CNN and "some guy's blog" have contradicting stories - which one is more "reliable"?

CNN is a more authoritative publication, but I have more expertise than the reporter and the content itself has more evidence in the form of actual documented Wikipedia records.

Now consider the same scenario for abortion or politics and you start to see why these rules exist to keep the encyclopedia neutral. Neutrality isn't just something that comes naturally - it comes as a result of a complicated system that works.

[David King]

The Wikipedia SignPost article on this scenario is representative of how this would be handled on Wikipedia, by summarizing all major viewpoints from credible sources (including mine and CNN's).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-13/In_the_news

[Peter Scazzer]

Pretty nice conversation. It's very nice to hear that 11M are contributing to Wikipedia per month, sharing their knowledge online, but Colin was right share what you want to share and face the risk of your article will get posted on other websites.