Wikipedia:Public relations and marketing

If you are a marketing or public relations professional who has been directed to this essay after trying to market for a client on Wikipedia, please realize the reality of the situation. That reality is: You are in the wrong place. You won't succeed at doing your job here, and trying to do it is only going to annoy the unpaid volunteers who maintain this encyclopedia. It will probably backfire on you and your client, and potentially make both of you look bad. Wikipedia has standards and rules that do not allow what you and your client want on it. It would be best that you just accept this reality and do your job elsewhere. The intent of this essay is just to help you understand this. The following includes a collection of some typical reactions that PR and marketing professionals have when this reality is presented to them:

"But it's user-generated, Web 2.whatever, right?"
Yes, it sure is, but Wikipedia is explicitly not a place where people or brands should be going to control their messaging. This is an encyclopedia, and nothing else. Everything on here is based on what has already been reported in reliable sources. If you don't like what the reliable sources are writing about your client, take it up with them – not with Wikipedia. If they issue corrections, Wikipedia will correct its content as well. If they aren't writing about your client at all, your client is probably not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Either way, it is not Wikipedia's problem and you shouldn't be trying to solve it by writing about them here.

"But it's my job!"
No it isn't. You weren't hired to write an encyclopedia. That is all that is going on here; if you are trying to do anything other than that, this isn't the place for it.

"I'd rather the article wasn't even here if I can't control it."
Yeah, it's easy to understand why someone paid to say only good things about a person would feel that way, but frankly, that's just too bad. It doesn't work like that. Let it go.

"Can't I just create another account and not tell anyone what I'm doing?"
You can try (if you are comfortable with abusing a volunteer-run website that is just trying to present free knowledge to the world), but people in your profession tend to have a hard time maintaining the neutral tone expected of an encyclopedia; it's the stark opposite of what is normally expected of you, so you'll probably get caught, and then someone on Wikipedia will have to block your new account and your original account, and probably tag the article about your client as having been edited by an undisclosed paid editor, which will make them look bad. This is of course the opposite of what they are paying you for, and this makes you look bad as well. The main takeaway; it's better for everyone if you don't. Wikipedia is there for you to read, always, but you should probably leave writing it to the people actually committed to this project – not to your client.

If you insist on editing on behalf of a client:
There is a right way to go about doing that, if you really, really want to, but in all honesty, most Wikipedians would still rather you didn't. But if you must, here are some instructions on how to do it professionally and properly.
 * Create an account. Be sure the account name you choose does not violate the username policy. You can use the format " at ", but not just the name of the company.
 * Post a Paid-contribution disclosure on your user page.
 * Do not edit the article on your client directly . Use the requested edit process each time.

This all seems quite laborious, doesn't it? You know what? Just as this essay has been telling you repeatedly, it's reality. It is this way because marketing and PR people have been a constant, day-in-day-out problem since practically the moment this project was founded. And yes, "problem" is the correct word here. Your goals are incompatible with and an annoyance to this encyclopedia; they directly undermine the mission and standards of it when they are enacted improperly, and they are enacted improperly all too often. Wikipedia is doing one thing, and you are trying to make it into something else that it is not. That's why Wikipedians tend to be so defensive about this subject – you are not the first, or even the five-thousandth person to think about trying to edit content about your client. And you certainly won't be the last. So save the Wikipedian user base and yourself from all the unnecessary trouble, and '''just don't. Walk away if you don't like it. Too many people in your profession have refused to follow, or in many cases, have outright abused Wikipedia's system'''. That is the reason it has to be this way.