A proposal needs an evidence check before a budget
Imagine the founder of a fictional Australian advisory firm receives an offer to create a Wikipedia page. The proposal bundles a Wikidata item with promised Google visibility. The price is clear, but the evidence behind the offer isn't.
Before commissioning work, assess each project's inclusion criteria, the contributor's obligations and the business problem you're trying to solve. Seek review where evidence supports it, ask the community about uncertain cases, or defer and fund a documented business need.
A proposal should separate the research and drafting you'll receive from the decisions reserved for the community. If the underlying concern is that search systems misunderstand the business, start with how AI search understands your business to identify the affected surface.
Identify the record and outcome you need
A Wikipedia article is an encyclopaedia account assembled from published sources. A Wikidata item represents an entity through structured statements and references. They're connected projects with different inclusion rules. Check whether a record concerns the founder or the company.
Google's explanation of Knowledge Panels says they're generated automatically using information from multiple web sources. It also distinguishes Business Profiles, which serve businesses with a particular location or service area. The documentation establishes neither a Wikipedia prerequisite nor a guaranteed panel outcome from Wikimedia inclusion.
Search for existing articles and items using the trading name, legal name and former names. Read the descriptions and references to check that a result concerns the same organisation. A shared name can hide a different business, and an existing record may make a new submission unnecessary.
Write the desired outcome in practical terms. Correcting an address, clarifying a company identity and commissioning an encyclopaedia draft require different work. If the problem is an existing panel error, follow the Knowledge Panel correction guide before considering a new record elsewhere.
Assess the coverage behind a Wikipedia proposal
The English Wikipedia company-notability guideline assesses substantial treatment of the company in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. Each source needs to satisfy those qualities. Routine announcements, paid profiles, company material and reprints fall short of that standard.
Eligibility rests on coverage of the company itself, rather than its size, revenue or founder's fame. Ask the supplier to identify the passages that analyse the business itself, explain editorial independence and assess the publisher's reliability. The guideline sets no universal article-count threshold.
Follow one fictional source dossier
This fictional advisory firm's dossier illustrates how to assess a supplier's evidence pack.
| Source | Assessment | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Substantial reported feature | Potential support | Independent analysis of the firm, if the publisher is reliable |
| Routine funding brief | Insufficient depth | Only announces a transaction |
| Syndicated press release | Exclude from notability evidence | Repeats the company's announcement |
| Sponsored profile | Exclude from notability evidence | Paid coverage lacks independence |
| Owned About page | Identity reference only | The firm describes itself |
One promising feature leaves further qualifying evidence to assess. Ask for the complete dossier before approving drafting fees. If public records contradict each other, the third-party business signal audit handles that broader inventory and correction work.
Assess Wikidata under its own inclusion criteria
The Wikidata notability policy sets out three routes. One concerns a qualifying sitelink to an eligible Wikimedia page, subject to exclusions. A draft or redirect doesn't establish eligibility through that route. Another concerns a clearly identifiable entity describable through serious, publicly available references. The third concerns structural need, such as making statements in other items more useful.
For the identifiable-entity route, ask which references distinguish this business from similarly named organisations and support its description. Record the relevant passages. For structural need, ask which existing statements genuinely need the entity. That need must arise from genuine relationships, rather than items created to justify inclusion.
Assess Wikidata eligibility separately against the applicable criterion. The policy explicitly leaves final decisions to the community and still flags a reform discussion at this article's review date. If the interpretation is uncertain, use Requests for new items to ask for advice with the evidence attached. Recheck the operative policy before contributing or commissioning work.
Evaluate the paid editing proposal
English Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guideline strongly discourages connected editors from editing affected articles directly. It recommends Articles for Creation for new articles and talk-page requests for changes to existing ones. Ask the supplier which route it intends to use and how it will disclose its connection.
That guideline also explains that nobody controls an article. Other editors may add well-sourced material the subject dislikes, and an article may be deleted. The business must accept that editorial independence. Include that consideration in the purchasing decision, especially if the proposal promises reputation management.
Mandatory disclosure has a separate basis. Section 4 of the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use requires paid contributors to disclose their employer, client, intended beneficiary and affiliation, subject to applicable project rules and any adopted alternative disclosure policy. Further project requirements can apply. Disclosure doesn't establish eligibility or secure editorial approval.
Ask the supplier these purchasing questions.
- Which source passages support eligibility, and why does each source qualify?
- Who will contribute, which accounts will they use, and where will the required paid-contribution and conflict disclosures appear?
- Which review route and current project rules will guide the work?
- What do the fees cover, including research, drafting, revisions and responses to reviewers?
- What happens to the work and fees if a draft is declined or a record is later deleted?
- Which outcomes depend on community or Google decisions, and how does the contract acknowledge those limits?
A source assessment, draft or documented review request can be a contractual deliverable. Acceptance, retention and search visibility remain outside the supplier's control. If those distinctions are missing, ask for a revised scope before committing budget.
Record the decision and the next useful investment
Use this Off Piste decision sequence to record the evidence and unresolved questions for whoever approves expenditure.
- Record the objective and link any existing articles, items or Google records. Confirm which organisation each record represents.
- Save the source URLs and relevant passages. Write separate Wikipedia and Wikidata assessments, including the criterion being considered and any unresolved questions.
- Choose further community review where evidence supports it, community advice where interpretation is uncertain, or deferral where evidence is insufficient. Name the person responsible for the next action.
- Set a review trigger. Use receipt of a community response, a material policy change or newly identified qualifying evidence, and assign a date to check whether that trigger has occurred.
If the business's own account is unclear, improve the About page. Google's Organization structured-data guidance explains how markup can help disambiguate an organisation. The organisation schema guide covers implementation. Neither task establishes Wikimedia eligibility.
Where the constraint is broader independent recognition, use the brand mentions and backlinks guide to evaluate audience value and referral opportunities. Commission useful research or expert contributions because readers need them. Let audience value guide that work. Publishers decide what merits coverage.
If the diagnosed need spans owned identity, external evidence and search measurement, a scoped SEO plan can help set those priorities. Keep that investment tied to the business problem you've recorded.
The fictional advisory firm's owner can defer Wikipedia work pending the supplier's full source rationale and seek separate Wikidata advice if a criterion appears relevant. Record the decision and schedule a check for a community response or newly identified qualifying evidence.