Wikipedia Notability: How do Editors Decide what’s Notable? — WikiNative

In my work as the UK’s foremost professional Wikipedia editor, potential clients often ask me, how do I get-round Wikipedia’s notability requirements? Are there any loopholes?

Fortunately, Wikipedia contains many loopholes, but to find them one must first understand the concept of notability.

Internet fame is not a prerequisite for Wikipedia notability

Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia does not contain information on absolutely everything. Its editors compile knowledge from sources which they as a group deem reliable, such as newspapers (excluding celebrity gossip rags) and books (excluding self-published eBooks). (Broughton, 2008)

“In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes “ — Andy Warhole

The Sixteenth Minute by Jeff Guinn and Douglas Perry.

According to Wikipedia, the above quote appeared in the programme for his 1968 exhibition at the Moderna Museet in Stockholm. While not a direct quote, the German art historian Benjamin H. D, Buchloh hypothesised that a breakdown in the hierarchical structures used to measure fame could cause everyone to become famous for a brief period.

The 2000s and 2010s saw an increase in both fame but also its ephemerality. Internet sensations come and go within hours. YouTubers, Instagrammers, and viral hits may enjoy brief periods in the spotlight then fade back into obscurity. For example, does anyone apart from BuzzFeed remember Egg Boy? Probably not.

Internet sensations may make appearances in mainstream media, particularly the tabloid press or breakfast TV. However, such coverage rarely extends beyond the events behind that individual’s five minutes in the spotlight.

You’ll find an excellent example of an Internet celebrity half an hour up the road from WikiNative HQ in the small market town of Whitchurch. Jackie Weaver works for the Cheshire Association of Local Councils as a de-facto referee for village council meetings. In February 2021, she became an Internet sensation after footage emerged of her dispersing a virtual riot in an extraordinary Handforth Parish Council meeting.

Breakfast TV slots and YouTube reaction videos soon followed. However, despite bringing joy and laughter to the Internet and gaining coverage in multiple reliable sources, being famous for a single event does not make someone notable. At least, not as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The Wikipedians are the proper authority on this.

If the protagonist from The Handforth reality TV show were to sign a deal with a major publisher, compete in a major sporting event or win a Nobel Prize, they might qualify for a Wikipedia page. If like most Internet celebrities, that person is only notable for a single event, Wikipedia may have a page with the individual’s name in its title. However, the page will automatically redirect to the event for which they are known. For example, William Connolly redirects to a section of the Wikipedia entry for EggBoy’s nemesis and victim, Fraser Anning.

Being relevant in your field doesn’t necessarily make you Wikipedia notable

Having journalists quote an expert opinion or insight from you or a person from your business concerning a trending topic is an excellent way of showing that you are relevant to your area of expertise. However, in practical terms, bylines and mentions do not translate into encyclopaedic content. There’s simply nothing for us to dig into or grab hold of.

I have seen many copywriters, PR professionals or “professional Wikipedia agencies” attempt to create content based on bylines or passing mentions. Their methodology usually looks something like this;

• Source A: One mention in The Financial Times.

+

• Source B: A by-line in The Sunday Times.

+

• Source C: A soundbite on BBC Evening News.

= Statement X: “So-and-so is often called upon by the press to talk about such and such as a leading authority in their field.” — ProCreativeWriter97

Not only is the above statement far too vague for an encyclopaedia, but it combines sources A, B and C to synthesise a piece of original research: statement X.

While this kind of synthesis is a staple of poetry, blogging or journalism, Wikipedians class synthesis as original research and forbid it.

Moreover, Wikipedia editors can easily spot paid editors because they often post content sourced from a mishmash of bylines, mentions, and weak primary sources such as podcast blurbs or Amazon buy links. (Nikesh Joshi, 2020)

I’ll write more about the tools and techniques that Wikipedia use to catch paid editors in a future blog.

Wikipedia sets the notability threshold a little higher for company pages

Wikipedia functions as both a general encyclopaedia, like the one in your local second-hand bookstore and a subject-specific encyclopaedia like the one in your psychiatrist’s office.

Wikipedia’s duplicity means that obscure subjects which may not make it into a general encyclopaedia may still pass muster if editors can demonstrate that the subject meets a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG).

I often refer to SNGs as notability loopholes because, when applied correctly, communications professionals can use loopholes to create articles about subjects that would otherwise fail general notability. However, due Wikipedia’s suspicion of the public relations industry at large, such loopholes do not exist for organisations. That means your business must pass the general notability guideline before Wikipedia accepts an article about it.

Yet, a cornucopia of Wikipedia notability loopholes exist for people. For example, if your CEO won a significant award or a national beauty pageant this might qualify them. Alternatively, if you hold a named chair or distinguished professor appointment, that might be enough to land you that coveted Wikipedia fame.

If you think you might meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, then you should get in touch with me for a notability assessment.

However, please don’t send me every piece of press you or your business have ever earned and then ask me if you qualify for a Wikipedia page.

My notability assessments take two hours, cost £240, and clients pay me for my time in advance.

Works cited

Broughton, J., 2008. Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. First Edition ed. Sebastopol : Pogue Press .

Nikesh Joshi, F. S. M. G., 2020. Detecting Undisclosed Paid Editing in Wikipedia. New York , Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 2899–2905.

Originally published at https://www.wikinative.com on February 19, 2021.