This is an essay on the promotion policy, spam guideline, and the speedy deletion criterion G11. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This essay is in development. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion, especially since this page is still under construction. |
This is intended as a guide to identifying content that is likely to be PR, most often undeclared paid editing. But that doesn't mean it always comes from paid editing--many good faith editors write the same way, partly because they see so much of it already in Wikipedia, so they copy it thinking it's what we want, and partly because the wide penetration of PR in our society leads to everyone using that style. Some of the indications are article formatting and development, others are key phrases or a word. Particularly with key words, they are as often an indication of plagiarism or copyvio as of direct PR--someone copied the material from a PR source. And some of it is just bad writing. Attention should also be paid to copyright issues. Firms will often recycle content that is posted elsewhere on the internet. If an article appears to be PR, a copyright check should also be conducted.
For other approaches to this problem, see WP:PEACOCK.
That an article contains PR does not always imply that the article must be deleted--sometimes the PR can be removed without extensive rewriting. But if extensive rewriting is needed, then it almost always does indicate paid or other COI editing. Opinion varies on whether undeclared paid editing must always be deleted, but recent trends at WP:AfD and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard indicate that it usually will be. One of the reasons is that such editors are almost always sockpuppets, and the material will be subject to deletion on those grounds, even if we have not yet identified the master. The main exception is when some known good faith editor is willing to adopt the article, especially if the subject is so important that removing it entirely would be a disservice to the readers.
Excessive intricate sectioning giving detail about business operations is a PR indicator. Examples include:
A section similar to the typical "In the news" page on a corporate website, simply listing articles, blogs, etc that mention the company, product, or person.
This is not encyclopedic content. The sources here might be useful to generate encyclopedic content, however.
Further information: WP:ORGAWARDS |
Also similar to a corporate website, listing awards. If there are sources, they are often only press releases, or the website of the winner or the awarder. May be found in sections with titles like "Awards and recognition" or "Industry recognition".
There may also be a "Philanthropy" (or, even worse Corporate social responsibility) section.
There will often be a section explaining the problem being addressed by a product, which will lead the reader to understand that the problem is sizable, and there was no good solution for the problem until this organization produced its innovation; if competitors are mentioned, shortcoming of their products will often be identified. The sources will not mention the specific subject of the article.
These sections are WP:SYN in Wikipedia.
Often a brochure-like recitation of corporate product or service offerings that violates WP:NOTCATALOG. Other section titles include "Offerings", "Features", "Uses" and similar.
Corporate buzzwords are a reliable sign of PR writing.
Source padding burnishes a brand and creates comfort and familiarity in the reader's mind for marketing purposes. Press releases are frequently cited by PR-driven articles, likewise churnalism pieces – often multiple versions of the same press release in different seemingly independent sources. Also non-RS blogs (note that experts' blogs may be reliable), interviews of the subject, repeated citations of routine business directories. Note especially WP:NEWSORG which explains how some bona fide publications host non-RS blogs under their domain name.
Sourcing to indexes of the author's contributions to publications, instead of to individual contributions, can indicate PR. (Note however that this is the accepted technique in some other language Wikipedias.)
Sourcing to industry regulations or ministries that ostensibly govern a business's operations, but which do not mention the business specifically, can indicate either reference padding or PR attempting to show it is a "safe" investment, medical device or procedure, etc.
Use of fake news sites and sites with misleadingly similar names to actual news sites has been discovered on WP.
In some regions, local entertainment entities and other businesses may be offered preferential treatment in national media that are otherwise often reliable. Conversely, restrictive libel laws may prevent local media from reporting negative information on otherwise notable companies and individuals.
many of the things here need to be distinguished from puffery by the person or their children writing the article themselves
Some promotional (or naïve) practices are particularly found in school or university articles. Editors here are as likely to be enthusiastic students as PR – it's still COI, but does not necessarily indicate deliberate promotionalism.
False attribution indicates that an article was composed offline by another editor and uploaded on their behalf, i.e. meatpuppetry. This constitutes a copyright/licensing issue as well as a potential conflict of interest/advocacy issue.
see the list at WP:PEACOCK