What is disclosed paid editing?
It means the editor who was paid says so, in public, on Wikipedia. Who paid them, who the client is, which pages they worked on. Wikipedia allows paid editing on that condition and bans it without. This page explains how the disclosure works, what to ask any firm before you pay, and what no firm can do for you.
The plain version
Disclosed paid editing is an editor stating that they took money to work on Wikipedia, naming who paid them and for whom, and confirming that the work follows Wikipedia’s rules. That is the whole of it. The statement appears in two places: on the user page of the account doing the work, and on the talk page of each draft or article. It is required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use and by the paid-contribution disclosure policy.
Paid editing and conflict of interest
These get mixed up, so here is the line between them. A conflict of interest is anyone with a close connection writing about the subject: you writing about yourself, your son writing about his mother, someone from your company writing about the company. Paid editing is one kind of conflict of interest, and the kind Wikipedia regulates most strictly.
Disclosure is what makes paid editing permitted. It does not make the conflict disappear, and that is the point people miss. Because the conflict is still there, the guideline asks conflicted editors to put their work in front of someone independent instead of publishing it themselves: new articles go through Articles for Creation, and changes to existing articles go in as edit requests. A volunteer decides either way. That is the safeguard, and we use it on every engagement.
What our disclosure looks like
The account that does the work carries a statement on its user page naming the company and listing every client. The wording is close to this:
Under that statement sits the list of clients, each linked to their draft or article, and then a short account of how the editor works: because they are paid, they have a conflict of interest, so they do not edit client articles directly; changes to existing articles go in as edit requests on the talk page, new articles go through Articles for Creation where independent volunteers decide, and no acceptance can be guaranteed. The account is operated by one person.
The same relationship is stated on the talk page of each draft or article, so a reviewer looking at the page sees it without having to go hunting. The disclosure is in place before the paid work is submitted, not added afterwards.
“Can we skip the disclosure?”
Clients ask. The answer is no, and we push back until they understand why. The disclosure is not an admission of anything. It is a requirement, one of the rules Wikipedia set for its own encyclopedia, and skipping it is set up for failure. An undisclosed page can go live and sit there for a while. Then someone reviews it, and the day they do, it can be deleted. Not because the writing was poor or the sources were thin, but because the disclosure was missing. Losing a page that way would be a stupid outcome to engineer on purpose.
What to ask any firm, including this one
If you are comparing firms, ask all of them the same questions and compare the answers.
- Which Wikipedia account will do the work, and can I read its edit history and its disclosure?
- Will my name be published as your client, and where?
- Do you guarantee the page will be published?
- Will you submit through Articles for Creation, so a volunteer reviews it?
- What independent sources did you find before I pay, and can I see them?
- What happens if the reviewer declines, and what does it cost me?
- What do you tell me if the case is not strong enough yet?
A firm that will not name the account, that guarantees publication, or that answers the source question with a count rather than the sources themselves, has told you what you need to know.
What clients were told before they came to us
Many of our clients were burnt by another firm first, and the same lines come up again and again. “Guaranteed.” “100% money back.” “We will get the page live.” “We have editors who work for us.” “We have moderators.” “We have admins who will get it published.” That last one is worth being blunt about: no company employs Wikipedia administrators, and that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia publishes its own scam warning saying much the same.
Clients have also told us they were asked to put more money into a project after the first attempt failed, as the condition of another try. They were told the page was in the submission queue and could not be shown a link to it. They were told usable sources were not good enough, which conveniently meant paying for more. If a firm cannot show you the draft and the submission on Wikipedia itself, there may be nothing there.
Edit requests on an article that already exists
We do not edit a client’s article directly. We post an edit request on the article’s talk page setting out exactly what should change, how it should read, and the source behind it. Everything in the request has to follow the guidelines first, or it simply will not be accepted, so we check it before it goes up. Then a volunteer reviews the request and decides. In our experience a request is actioned within a few weeks, sometimes within a day, depending entirely on whether anyone is watching that page. It is slower than editing the article ourselves. It is also the only version of this that holds up, because every change carries a volunteer’s approval rather than ours.
What can and cannot be done to an existing article
Legitimately: an article that has not been updated in years can be expanded where independent coverage exists for those years. Older material that was never used can be brought in. Errors can be corrected. The page can be watched afterwards, for as long as the client wants, so that changes do not go unnoticed.
Not legitimately: removing true, well-sourced negative information. If a solid independent publication covered something in depth, it belongs on the page, because the page is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia carries the whole record, not the flattering half. What can be fixed is what is false, unsourced, or missing its ending. If a subject was under a lawsuit from 2012 to 2015 and was found not guilty, the article should say both, with sources. That is not spin, it is the rest of the fact. Articles about living people are held to a stricter standard than most, in both directions.
What we do beyond the minimum
We search archives most people skip, including old newspaper clippings, before we conclude the coverage is not there. We put changes in as requests even when a quicker route exists, so that each one is justified and reviewed. And we do not disappear when the page goes live: we stay with the talk page, the discussions, and any reviewer feedback that follows, as part of the engagement rather than as an extra.
The one thing to remember
It is better to be honest than to deal with the consequences later. Disclosure does not say you paid someone to promote you. It says you hired professionals to do work you did not have the time or the expertise to do yourself.
Questions people ask
What is disclosed paid editing on Wikipedia?
It means an editor who was paid to work on an article says so publicly: who paid them, who the client is, and which pages they worked on. The disclosure appears on the editing account’s user page and on the talk page of the draft or article. It is required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use and by Wikipedia’s paid-contribution disclosure policy. Paid editing with disclosure is allowed. Without it, it is a Terms of Use violation and the account is blocked.
Is paid editing the same as a conflict of interest?
Paid editing is one kind of conflict of interest, the kind Wikipedia regulates most strictly. A conflict of interest also covers anyone close to the subject: the subject writing about themselves, a family member, an employee or a business partner. Disclosure makes paid editing permitted; it does not remove the conflict, which is why disclosed paid editors submit drafts through Articles for Creation and use edit requests rather than editing articles directly.
Can I pay someone to write my Wikipedia page without anyone knowing?
No honest firm will do that. Undisclosed paid editing breaks the Wikimedia Terms of Use. Articles created that way are deleted and the accounts are blocked when they are found, however good the writing was and however long the page has been live. A firm that offers to keep it quiet is offering you a page that can be removed later.
What questions should I ask a Wikipedia firm before paying?
Which account will do the work, and can I see its edit history and disclosure. Will my name be published as the client. Do you guarantee publication. What happens if the reviewer declines. Will you submit through Articles for Creation. Can you show me the independent sources you found before I pay. What do you do if my case is not strong enough. Any guarantee of publication, any claim to employ Wikipedia administrators, and any refusal to name the account are reasons to walk away.
How does a Wikipedia edit request work?
For an article that already exists, a disclosed paid editor does not change the page directly. They post a request on the article’s talk page saying exactly what should change and why, with sources. A volunteer editor reviews it and decides. In our experience that takes a couple of weeks, sometimes much less, depending on who is watching the page. It is slower than editing the page, and it is the method the guidelines ask conflicted editors to use.
Can a Wikipedia firm remove negative information from an article?
Not if it is true and supported by a solid independent source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the article covers what reliable sources have reported, good and bad. What can legitimately be fixed is information that is false, unsourced, out of date or missing context. A lawsuit that ended in acquittal, for example, should say so, with a source.
What can a firm legitimately do for an existing Wikipedia article?
Expand an article that has not been updated in years when independent coverage exists for that period, add material from older sources that was never used, correct errors through edit requests, and watch the page afterwards for changes. All of it through requests a volunteer approves, with the paid relationship disclosed on the talk page.
Guides
Policies cited
Ask whether a page is possible
Send a name and anything written about the subject by someone else. You get a written source review before any payment.
Book a review call