Getting a Wikipedia page for your brand - is it worth the effort? Just spent 6 months trying

Former Wikipedia editor here. Let me share the inside perspective:

Why most company pages fail:

1. Not actually notable - Coverage exists, but it’s:

   • Press releases repackaged
   • Directory listings
   • Passing mentions, not substantive coverage
   • Affiliated sources (industry publications too close to company)

2. Obvious COI editing - Wikipedia editors can spot company-written content instantly

3. Promotional tone - Even subtle marketing language gets flagged

What actually establishes notability:

The honest assessment:

A $50M B2B company might not naturally be notable to Wikipedia. The standard is essentially “would a general encyclopedia reader expect to find this company?”

Let me share data on why Wikipedia matters for AI:

Wikipedia influence on AI systems:

The impact of having a Wikipedia page:

Companies WITH Wikipedia pages:

• 3.5x more likely to be mentioned by ChatGPT for brand queries
• More likely to have accurate information presented
• Better entity recognition across platforms

BUT (important caveats):

1. A stub/minimal Wikipedia page has limited value
2. A page flagged for COI issues can hurt more than help
3. Wikipedia is ONE signal among many

The alternative strategy:

If you can’t get a Wikipedia page:

• Get mentioned IN relevant Wikipedia articles (easier)
• Focus on other high-authority sources AI uses
• Build presence on Crunchbase, industry databases

Wikipedia is high-value but not the only path to AI visibility.

We went through this process successfully. Here’s what worked:

Our situation:

• Tech startup, $30M raised
• Notable co-founders with individual pages
• Covered in TechCrunch, WSJ, several times

What got us approved (after 2 attempts):

1. Built genuine notability first (18 months)

   • Major publication coverage
   • Industry awards
   • Analyst firm mentions
   • Customer case studies in business press

2. Had a neutral Wikipedia editor create the page

   • Not us, not a consultant we hired
   • An editor interested in our industry who noticed we were notable

3. Minimal, neutral content

   • Just facts, no marketing language
   • Well-sourced with 15+ references
   • Short and factual, not comprehensive

Key insight:

We didn’t try to create our own page. We focused on becoming genuinely notable, then the page happened naturally.

Timeline:

• Months 1-12: PR focus on substantive coverage
• Month 14: Noticed a draft existed
• Month 18: Page went live
• Total time: 18 months, but Wikipedia wasn’t the goal, visibility was

Let me share alternatives if Wikipedia isn’t achievable:

High-authority platforms AI also values:

Strategy for “Wikipedia adjacency”:

1. Wikidata entry - Lower bar than Wikipedia, still helps
2. Mentioned in existing articles - Add your company as example in relevant Wikipedia articles (if appropriate and not promotional)
3. Sources for Wikipedia - Create content Wikipedia editors might cite

The Wikidata approach:

Wikidata is Wikipedia’s structured data database. You can create an entity for your company with basic facts (founding date, industry, location). This helps AI systems understand your company as an entity even without a full Wikipedia article.

Requirements are lower than Wikipedia. Worth exploring.

Agency perspective on Wikipedia strategy:

What we tell clients:

1. Wikipedia should not be a goal - It’s an outcome of being notable
2. PR investment is the real work - The coverage that makes you notable
3. Timeline is years, not months - For most companies

Our approach:

We never promise Wikipedia pages. We promise:

• Strategic media coverage
• Thought leadership placements
• Industry recognition
• Coverage that COULD support Wikipedia notability

If Wikipedia happens as a result, great. If not, the coverage itself has value.

Red flag clients:

“We need a Wikipedia page in 3 months” - These clients are setting themselves up for failure or unethical shortcuts.

Realistic timeline:

For a company currently not notable:

• Year 1: Build coverage foundation
• Year 2: Expand media presence, awards, recognition
• Year 3: Evaluate Wikipedia feasibility

If you’re not willing to invest 2-3 years, Wikipedia probably isn’t for you.

Ethics angle that gets overlooked:

Why undisclosed Wikipedia editing backfires:

1. Community monitoring - Wikipedia has tools to detect coordinated editing
2. Permanent record - Your attempts are logged forever
3. Reputation damage - Being caught is worse than no page
4. Legal risk - Some jurisdictions view this as deceptive practice

What’s OK:

• Requesting corrections to factual errors (disclosed)
• Suggesting sources on talk pages
• Creating Wikidata entries (more permissive)

What’s NOT OK:

• Creating your own article without disclosure
• Hiring editors who don’t disclose
• Manipulating sources to appear independent

The irony:

Companies that engage in undisclosed editing often end up LESS visible because their pages get deleted and they get flagged for future scrutiny.

The ethical path:

Focus on becoming genuinely notable. If you deserve a Wikipedia page, it will happen. If you don’t, no amount of manipulation will make it stick.

This discussion has really clarified my thinking. Here’s my updated approach:

What I learned:

1. Wikipedia is an outcome, not a goal - We were approaching this backwards
2. Notability can’t be manufactured - Our PR wasn’t generating the RIGHT kind of coverage
3. Shortcuts are dangerous - Wikipedia consultants who guarantee results are probably unethical
4. Alternatives exist - Wikidata, other high-authority platforms

New strategy:

Immediate (this quarter):

• Create comprehensive Wikidata entry
• Optimize Crunchbase profile
• Ensure all high-authority platform profiles are complete

Medium-term (this year):

• Shift PR focus to substantive coverage (features, not mentions)
• Target publications Wikipedia editors trust
• Build toward genuine notability

Long-term (2-3 years):

• Re-evaluate Wikipedia feasibility
• If notable, let a neutral editor create the page
• Don’t force it

The mindset shift:

We were trying to game Wikipedia for AI visibility. Instead, we should build the kind of presence that makes Wikipedia natural.

Thanks everyone for the honest perspectives.