Editing Wikipedia to shape a reputation is not like editing your own site. It runs on community rules, not brand goals. The safest path is to avoid direct editing, supply high quality sources, and use formal request routes. The playbook below shows what you can do, what you cannot do, and the alternatives that usually work.
A practical guide to working around Wikipedia in a reputation campaign. You will see what actions are permitted, what is prohibited, and how to use the Talk and Draft systems to request changes without creating new problems.
- Never hide a conflict of interest. Disclose it in one line.
- Do not add marketing or new claims. Summarize published sources.
- Use the Talk page and an edit request template. Let volunteers edit.
What you can do, what you cannot do, and the safer alternative
| You can | You cannot | Safer alternative |
|---|---|---|
| Disclose a conflict of interest on the Talk page | Edit your own page directly to remove criticism | Post a short COI note and use the edit request template |
| Suggest neutral wording that summarizes sources | Write promotional language or superlatives | Propose text with citations and invite review |
| Provide high quality, independent sources | Cite press releases or your own site for contested claims | Use mainstream coverage, books, or journal articles |
| Ask to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material | Delete negative content that is properly sourced | Request balance, move to a controversies section, or add context |
| Request corrections for factual errors | Threaten legal action on-wiki | Show the reliable source and ask a volunteer to fix it |
| Create a Draft in the Draft namespace for review | Publish a new page about yourself from a brand account | Draft with sources, then submit to Articles for Creation |
| Upload freely licensed images with correct rights | Upload copyrighted photos you do not own | Use images that you own under a free license, with author and date |
| Ask for a page to be moved if the title is incorrect | Create duplicate pages to control the title | Start a title discussion with sources and usage data |
Five core policies you must respect
Articles summarize significant viewpoints from reliable sources. You cannot push advocacy or remove due criticism if it is covered in high quality sources.
Content must be backed by sources that readers can check. If a claim is challenged and unsourced, it can be removed. If it is sourced well, it stays unless new sources change the balance.
Wikipedia does not publish your analysis or private documents. The article reflects what reputable sources already say, not what you wish to prove.
Negative material about living people requires high quality sourcing and careful tone. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative content should be removed quickly, usually by a neutral editor.
You may participate with disclosure, but direct editing is discouraged when you have a financial or personal stake. Use Talk pages and requests, and let unrelated volunteers make the change.
Safe workflow to request changes
- Collect sources that are independent, reputable, and recent. Aim for multiple outlets, not a single press release.
- Draft neutral text that simply summarizes the sources. Keep it short and factual.
- Disclose COI with one line on the Talk page. Example below.
- Post an edit request on the Talk page that includes your draft text and citations.
- Wait for a volunteer. Answer questions, do not argue. If no reply after a reasonable time, you can politely ping another editor.
Copy and paste request templates
Hello, I have a conflict of interest. I work with [Person or Brand]. I will not edit the article directly. I have a short request below with sources.
Change requested: Replace the sentence beginning “[current wording]” with: “[your neutral wording]”.
Reason: The current text is out of date or not supported by the sources below.
Sources: 1) [Publication, date] 2) [Publication, date] 3) [Book or journal]
Change requested: Remove the claim “[text]”.
Reason: The statement is negative and has no citation to a reliable source. Biographies of living people require high quality sources.
Note: If sources exist, I am open to balanced wording with those sources.
Risk estimator for your next action
Pick the option that matches what you plan to do. The tool will rate risk and suggest a safer route.
Images and licensing in one page
Use a license that allows reuse, like CC BY SA. Name the author, the date, and the source. Company headshots are fine if you own the rights and release them under a free license.
Use simple, factual captions and stable filenames. Avoid promotional text. Keep EXIF dates if possible.
Do not upload images you do not own. Do not watermark. Do not upload a logo you cannot license. Do not use restricted stock photos.
If you run into problems
- Stay polite. Thank people for their time. Hostility backfires.
- Seek a second opinion. Ask another editor to review the Talk thread.
- Use noticeboards for neutral input if a discussion stalls. Keep the request short and factual.
- Accept partial wins. Balanced text and fresh sources often help more than removals.
Final checklist before you post
| Check | What good looks like |
|---|---|
| COI disclosure ready | One line that says who you are and that you will not edit directly |
| Neutral wording drafted | Two to four sentences that summarize sources without spin |
| Strong sources collected | Multiple independent articles or books with dates and authors |
| Scope confirmed | No new claims, no original research, no sales language |
| Tone checked | Calm, factual, and easy to verify |
Wikipedia is not a place to campaign. It is a reference that follows its own rules. If you disclose conflicts, provide high quality sources, and use Talk page requests with neutral wording, you can correct errors and improve balance without making new problems.
