Who should be involved in your company's Wikipedia project?

A company Wikipedia project needs a communications lead to coordinate the work, subject-matter experts to check facts, and a leadership sponsor to approve resources and scope. A Wikipedia consultant can assess sources, prepare neutral text and advise on transparent participation. Legal, finance and regional teams should contribute where their expertise is relevant.

The essential distinction is between reviewing information internally and deciding what appears on Wikipedia. Your company can check dates, identify errors and authorize its own participation. Wikipedia’s editorial processes determine whether proposed content is accepted, changed or retained.

This guide sets out a practical division of responsibilities for companies preparing a new English Wikipedia article or requesting changes to an existing one.

Assign a project lead before asking departments to review a draft. Corporate communications is often a practical choice because the team already works across company history, public announcements and external reporting.

The project lead should maintain a single brief covering the article subject, target language, available sources and outstanding questions. That brief should distinguish the company from its brands, subsidiaries and executives so contributors review the same subject.

Give this person responsibility for:

• Collecting published sources and existing article links.
• Assigning specific questions to the relevant experts.
• Consolidating feedback into one review document.
• Recording decisions, unresolved issues and next steps.
• Coordinating communication with the consultant.

An internal review deadline helps keep work moving. It should be a deadline for your team’s contribution, rather than a promised Wikipedia publication date.

The following is a suggested working model, not an official Wikipedia requirement. Smaller companies can combine roles; larger organizations may need additional reviewers.

Independent Wikipedia editors sit outside this company responsibility map. They are not members of your project team or accountable to its deadlines.

Subject-matter experts are particularly useful when an article involves technical products, acquisitions, changing company names or a long operating history.

Give each expert a defined question. “Was this acquisition completed in March or announced in March?” is easier to answer than “Please approve the article.”

Ask reviewers to identify:

• The exact statement they believe is inaccurate.
• The proposed correction.
• A published source supporting that correction.
• Any distinction a general reader could misunderstand.

Internal expertise helps the team recognize problems, but it does not replace published evidence. English Wikipedia’s verifiability policy requires information to be attributable to reliable, published sources. An employee’s recollection or an unpublished internal presentation is not sufficient evidence by itself.

For example, an engineer may know that a product description confuses two technologies. Their most useful contribution is to explain the distinction and locate a suitable published reference that supports a clearer description.

Finance and investor relations teams can resolve errors that are easy to miss during a general communications review.

A revenue figure may refer to a subsidiary rather than the group. An employee count may be an annual average rather than a year-end total. A transaction may have been announced but not completed.

Ask these reviewers to check definitions and dates alongside the figures themselves. A useful review comment explains why a number needs qualification.

Legal or compliance colleagues can help identify confidential information, mistaken entity names or factual issues in the description of a dispute. Keep their review focused by asking them to specify the passage, the concern and relevant public documentation.

These internal checks should happen before material is proposed publicly. A legal review should not be treated as a company veto over independently sourced coverage.

Leadership involvement is most useful at clear decision points.

At the beginning, the sponsor should understand the proposed scope, expected internal workload and uncertainties. After the initial assessment, leadership can decide whether to fund further research, proceed with preparation or pause the project.

Ask the sponsor to approve:

• The budget and people available for the work.
• The company entity and language edition in scope.
• The internal review process.
• Expectations about what the company can and cannot control.

Avoid sending every wording choice to the executive team. That can turn an evidence review into a series of competing preferences about how the business should be presented.

Leadership can authorize the company’s work on a proposal. That authorization does not establish Wikipedia eligibility or secure acceptance of the wording.

A consultant’s scope should make clear who researches sources, prepares text, handles feedback and contributes on Wikipedia.

Before commissioning work, ask how the consultant will document source weaknesses, resolve conflicting internal comments and explain the appropriate route for proposed contributions.

Also establish who will make any on-wiki contributions and how relevant relationships will be disclosed. English Wikipedia’s paid-contribution disclosure policy requires compensated contributors to disclose their employer, client and affiliation. Hiring an external writer does not remove that obligation.

English Wikipedia’s conflict-of-interest guidance strongly discourages directly editing affected articles when a contributor has a conflict. It provides for proposing changes on article talk pages so independent editors can review them.

For companies considering external support, Augusta Atlantic’s guide to finding Wikipedia authors introduces its author support and review process. Use an initial conversation to clarify both the consultant’s deliverables and the input your team will need to provide.

A useful internal review labels comments by what they are asking to change.

Factual correction: “The draft gives the acquisition announcement date as the completion date. This published report confirms completion.”

Source question: “This sentence relies on a company announcement. Is there suitable independent coverage?”

Presentation preference: “We would prefer the article to lead with our newest product.”

These comments require different responses. The first identifies a potentially verifiable error. The second asks for an evidence assessment. The third expresses a communications preference that may have no encyclopedic justification.

Use “internal factual review complete” as a project milestone. Avoid calling it “Wikipedia approval.” Your team has checked its input; it has not approved Wikipedia’s editorial outcome.

The same distinction applies to critical coverage. Reviewers should identify specific inaccuracies or missing context and provide evidence, rather than treating an unfavorable passage as automatically incorrect.

A simple workflow can make responsibilities easier to manage.

1. Prepare the brief and source pack

The communications lead gathers existing article links, previous reviewer feedback, relevant published coverage and basic company details. Experts help identify historical names or terminology that could improve research.

2. Assess the evidence and scope

The consultant evaluates the available material and identifies questions that need answering before drafting. Leadership decides whether the proposed next step is justified.

3. Conduct a focused factual review

Relevant departments review the passages within their expertise. Each requested correction should include a reason and, where available, a supporting published source.

4. Consolidate and resolve comments

The project lead combines feedback into one document. Conflicting comments are resolved internally or recorded as open questions before the proposal moves forward.

5. Prepare transparent contributions and track responses

The designated contributor follows the applicable disclosure and contribution process. The project lead records feedback and assigns any further research required.

6. Hand over ongoing monitoring

Name an internal owner for future changes. Keep a record of useful sources and outstanding issues so a new colleague does not have to reconstruct the project later.

Should the CEO write or approve the Wikipedia article?

The CEO can contribute historical context and approve internal resources. Detailed fact-checking is usually better assigned to the people responsible for the relevant information. Executive approval does not determine what Wikipedia accepts.

Can our existing PR agency manage the project?

It can coordinate sources and internal feedback. Before assigning Wikipedia-specific work, establish who has the relevant experience, who will contribute publicly and how paid relationships will be disclosed. Include these responsibilities in the agreed scope.

Does every department need to review the full draft?

Usually, a targeted review is more useful. Ask finance to check figures, technical experts to review specialist descriptions and communications to consolidate the results. Bring in additional reviewers when a specific question requires them.

What should we prepare before contacting a Wikipedia consultant?

Bring the company name, website, target language, any existing Wikipedia article and the strongest published sources you have found. Identify a communications contact and note any previous drafts, declined submissions or unresolved discussions.

Before commissioning a draft, identify who will coordinate the work, who can verify the relevant facts and who can approve internal resources. A clear division of tasks gives your consultant better input and gives your team a shared understanding of the process.

If you are preparing a new article or reviewing an existing one, explore Augusta Atlantic’s Wikipedia author support. Bring your source material and a short description of the project to discuss the work involved and the responsibilities your team should retain.

‍