Understanding Wikipedia’s Editorial Policy

Understanding Wikipedia’s Editorial Policy: Why Some Sites are Published While Others Are Not

Wikipedia, the world’s largest online encyclopedia, is an invaluable source of information, with millions of articles covering diverse topics. However, some individuals and organizations have expressed frustration when their content submissions are not accepted, while other similar sites seemingly gain approval.

1. Wikipedia’s Notability Guidelines: One of the primary reasons why some sites are published on Wikipedia while others are not lies in Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Wikipedia demands that content must be about notable topics, which implies that the subject should have received significant coverage from reliable, independent, and verifiable sources. If a site lacks such extensive coverage and cannot establish its notability, it is likely to be excluded from Wikipedia.

2. Reliable and Verifiable Sources: Wikipedia emphasizes the importance of relying on reputable and verifiable sources for content. While some sites may have valuable information, their credibility may be questionable due to the lack of reliable references. In contrast, similar sites that provide verifiable information and are sourced from authoritative references have a higher likelihood of getting published.

3. Neutral Point of View (NPOV): Wikipedia follows a strict Neutral Point of View policy, which requires all content to be presented in a balanced and unbiased manner, without promoting any particular viewpoint. If a site exhibits a clear bias or promotional tone, it may not meet Wikipedia’s editorial standards, leading to its exclusion.

4. Conflict of Interest: Wikipedia discourages self-promotion and content generated by individuals or organizations with a vested interest in the subject matter. While some sites may be created to serve commercial or promotional purposes, Wikipedia maintains a neutral stance, prioritizing information based on merit and value rather than promotional intent.

5. Editorial Consistency: Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, and content is subject to review by editors from diverse backgrounds. As a result, some variations in the interpretation of guidelines may occur. While some sites might pass the review process due to leniency or differences in judgment, others might face more stringent scrutiny.

6. Volume and Quality of Contributions: Established contributors on Wikipedia may receive more leeway due to their track record of providing valuable and well-sourced content. Conversely, newcomers or infrequent contributors might face a higher barrier to accepting their content.

7. Timeliness and Relevance: Wikipedia values up-to-date information and topics that are relevant to a wider audience. If a site fails to provide timely and current information or covers topics deemed irrelevant, it might be denied publication.

Does Wikipedia have shareholders?

Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that operates Wikipedia, does not have shareholders in the traditional sense. The Wikimedia Foundation is a charitable organization, and its primary mission is to empower and support a global volunteer community in creating and curating free educational content.

The foundation is funded through donations from individuals, organizations, and grants from various sources. These funds cover operational expenses, server costs, technology development, and other activities related to supporting and maintaining the Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia.

Being a nonprofit entity, the Wikimedia Foundation’s focus is on serving the public good rather than generating profits for shareholders. This approach ensures that Wikipedia remains free and accessible to everyone without commercial interests influencing its content.

It is estimated however that Wikipedia is worth $7 Billion Wikipedia Net Worth 2023 | MD Daily Record It has raised money from donations and Ads and I can see why they would think of CMJUK as a competitor. Unlike Wikipedia, we are not an encyclopedia but an online business journal.

We will however consider a donations page rather than a paywall.

Final Thoughts From The Editor

I attempted to write an article about Cymru Marketing Journal (CMJUK) and was indefinitely blocked:

According to Wikipedia, it is not how important you think your article or business/organization school, etc. to be it has to do with notoriety and how influential you are. Our goal is to make CMJUK as big as Forbes or Inc to name a few not forgetting Wikipedia, just added to the list, which tells me they only publish entities of net worth, and while our company does not have any public financial records it is hard for them to distinguish how valuable we are.

Wikipedia’s editorial policies are designed to ensure the quality, reliability, and neutrality of the content it hosts. The platform’s emphasis on notability, verifiability, neutrality, and consistent editorial review contributes to its reputation as a credible source of information. While some sites might meet these stringent criteria and gain approval, others might not be cut due to credibility issues, conflict of interest, or promotional content. Understanding Wikipedia’s guidelines can help content creators tailor their submissions to improve their chances of publication and contribute to the growth of this valuable resource. Furthermore, if a writer is paid to contribute, by a third party or employer, Wikipedia expects a commission, you can read about paid contributions here, Not only this but choosing a username can be a violation of their terms as mine was CMJUK, you can see their username policy here.

With this said other than linking the notability article and the links above, I will never use them again in any of our articles and agree with the many education organizations who refuse to use them as a credible source, so from now on we will be their competitor. Not only this they talk to you with little respect and accuse you of being dishonest #331dot

I on the other hand speak to everyone with dignity and with the highest respect no matter what their background is or who they are.

I tried to download the edited article which was written by AI, but they deleted it yet still kept my logo so will send them a cease and desist order to take my logo down as they no longer have my permission to have it on their site.

#wikipedia #notability #elegibility #editorial #encyclopedia #landingpages