Leveraging Wikipedia for PR: What Pros Need to Know
September 17, 2026
Wikipedia. It’s been around for 25+ years.
If you work in PR, you’ve probably been asked by a client about Wikipedia pages. The world’s most popular free online encyclopedia is more important than ever, in the age of AI-driven search (GEO). After all, it’s one of the top sources that AI-driven search engines pull from.
But not every company is a fit for a Wikipedia page. How does the encyclopedia really work? Who qualifies? And why?
We’re digging into Wikipedia on this episode of PR Explored.
My guest Jonathan Rick has been working with clients to develop and maintain their presence on Wikipedia for more than 20 years.
Show summary:
In this episode of PR Explored, host Michelle Garrett, a PR consultant, author, and writer, interviews Wikipedia consultant and ghostwriter Jonathan Rick about how Wikipedia works and why it matters for PR.
Rick explains that Wikipedia reflects what reliable mainstream media has reported, not “truth,” and editors enforce a neutral point of view, rejecting promotional language.
He says the biggest misconception is confusing being accomplished with being “notable,” noting about 80% of prospective clients don’t meet criteria; you can’t buy a page, and the only real path is substantial independent media coverage.
He outlines why Wikipedia is increasingly influential through Google rankings, reuse by platforms like YouTube and voice assistants via Wikidata, and heavy citation by ChatGPT, meaning Wikipedia content can shape AI narratives.
They discuss risks of premature submissions (deletions, public records, and “salting”), weak sources like Forbes contributor content, Authority Magazine and TechCrunch, limited value of most trade media, red flags in service providers (guarantees, claimed editor connections, low fees, whitewashing, non-disclosure), timelines, and the need for ongoing monitoring and COI-compliant proposed edits.
00:00 Welcome and Introductions 00:56 Jonathan’s Wikipedia Work 02:13 Freelance Life and Family 04:05 Why This Wikipedia Episode 05:49 Wikipedia Basics Explained 10:04 Notability Misconceptions 12:07 You Can’t Buy Pages 13:19 Why Wikipedia Matters Now 19:10 How Pages Get Created 23:44 When to Wait and Avoid Deletion 25:59 The Only Path Is Press 28:01 Sources That Don’t Count 33:09 Do Trade Pubs Help 37:08 Audience Q&A Begins 37:29 LLMs and Source Credibility 39:47 Why Weak Press Hurts Wikipedia 41:16 Trade Pub Reliability Signals 47:23 How Many Links Are Enough 49:36 Vetting Wikipedia Consultants 52:46 No Guarantees in Wikipedia 54:33 Cost and Timeline Expectations 58:31 Maintaining Pages and Editing Rules 01:02:11 Disclosure Pitfalls and Scandals 01:06:02 Final Takeaways and Resources
Show notes:
Learn more Jonathan Rick’s Wikipedia services: www.jonathanrick.com/wikipedia
PR Explored: Wikipedia, Notability, and Reputation in the Age of AI with Jonathan Rick
Leveraging Wikipedia for PR_ What Pros Need to Know-1
Michelle Garrett: [00:00:00] Hello, everyone, and welcome to another episode of PR Explored, a video podcast where we delve into trends and topics related to public relations. I’m your host, Michelle Garrett, a PR consultant and writer, and today I have with me a guest that I have known for many years, Jonathan Rick. And I’m so excited you’re here, Jonathan. Welcome.
Jonathan Rick: Oh, it’s a pleasure. Thank you so much for having me, Michelle.
Michelle Garrett: And, we probably… We met somewhere online, on social media, a number of years ago, but, and I’ve always known you as, the Wikipedia expert. that’s, that’s how I know you. But you do a lot of other things as well, and I would love for you to take a couple minutes and just tell us, all about you and what you do and anything you want to share. Sure. And I’ll put a couple notes while you’re doing that.
Jonathan Rick: Fantastic. hello from Washington, DC. [00:01:00] put simply, I’m a ghostwriter. I help people shape and tell their story. I specialize in what I call short form thought leadership, which is to say everything but books. A big part of my work is helping clients establish and strengthen their Wikipedia reputation. For example, some people want to improve a page that already exists. Other people want to create a page, a new page from scratch. Others want to monitor and protect their page on an ongoing basis. Still others want a consultation or training. One of the reasons I love my job is that it allows me to work with interesting people who challenge me. One day I’m helping a Fortune 500 company convince editors that, I don’t know, the, the word indicated is more accurate than the word confirmed. Another day, I’m helping the CEO of a major consulting firm get the phrase, which he denied, into his page. [00:02:00]
Michelle Garrett: Mm- Yeah. That’s, I’m sure every day is a little different.
Jonathan Rick: yeah. it’s the PR, credo. every day is a little different. I think when I, interviewed, many years ago, for Booz Allen Hamilton, and I asked, “What’s a typical day here?” And that was their answer. And I said, “Oh, that’s a little vague, a little coy.” They said, no, but we really mean it. Every day is, different.” And, I, I, I, work for myself. I make my own schedule. and largely, I do what I want, If I don’t want meetings in the afternoon, I don’t schedule them. Sure. It’s not like I have a recurring meeting with my boss.
Michelle Garrett: Yeah …
Jonathan Rick: but, there is some regularity to what I do. I, I check emails for the first hour of the day. I scroll on Instagram for the second hour. I take a nap for the third. go out for lunch for the fourth. I’m just kidding. Yeah. it’s working for yourself- I know
Michelle Garrett: you’re kidding. But yeah, no, I [00:03:00] mean if w- obviously we work for ourselves and we work from home, you never know, and the, that’s the beauty of it. Nobody has to know necessarily as long as the work gets done,
Jonathan Rick: A- and that’s a huge part. like we, we were just talking before the, the session went live-
Michelle Garrett: Yeah …
Jonathan Rick: about, some folks who, who- Experiment with freelancing, but then end up going back, Yeah … to an agency or to on the client side. And I will never, knock on wood, as long as I can make a living doing this, not work for myself. I just, there’s so much unbridled freedom. And, we were also… I, mentioned this earlier, I have, twin girls who are almost three, and, they’re in school five days a week, but it’s only half a day, and that just started, I think, two weeks ago. so I- because I work from home for myself, I get to be with them, and see them. They’re on the other side of this door, and I can just give them what I call the scoop and smooch anytime I want. It’s, And then my [00:04:00] wife is down the hall. she also- works from home, so it’s… we’re very lucky.
Michelle Garrett: Yeah. It’s, really nice, but I’m glad you’re taking time to be here today and talk all about Wikipedia. ‘Cause… And this, came up because I’ve seen a lot of, agencies and consultants even offering, what they call Wikipedia, services to help people get pages and da, and I just feel like a lot of it comes from, I don’t know if I… a place that I trust, you know? So this came up, I had kinda checked in with you about your take on it, and then we just started talking about, doing a whole, hour on this. I… And I, encourage people to ask questions. we’re gonna talk about it and how it fits into a, a strategic PR program, W- who is it a fit for? Who is it not a fit for? And I, again, we’re happy, I’m sure Jonathan would be happy to answer your questions. He loves to talk about this, so [00:05:00] we-
Jonathan Rick: I… Michelle, what w- did we work out a deal? It was, like, 50 bucks a question. Is that right? We’re gonna split that?
Michelle Garrett: People have questions, and they don’t know who to ask always, right? So and I, like I say, I trust Jonathan, and that’s why we are talking to Jonathan about this today. And, so I’m gonna s- I’m gonna ask questions, but again, if, someone has questions, please, feel free. And it looks like, Jared Mead is saying, it’s all about the outcome when you work for yourself from home, I think is what he means. and, and we agree. but so let’s dive in, and then, let’s see, where we, how we do. it,
Wikipedia’s been around for a long time. It’s 25 plus years. I don’t know that everybody fully understands what it is, how it works. Can you [00:06:00] just kinda give us, a brief overview so that people understand?
Overview of Wikipedia: What It Is and How It Works
Jonathan Rick: So first of all, I love the fact that the question is appearing on screen. That is, Michelle, kudos to you for production value. That is fantastic. it’s, I, have it written down on my screen, I heard you say it, and now I can see it too. Or I have my answer, my notes written down. Yeah. to the audience, Michelle is a real pro. this is- … this is how podcasts should run. so we’re here to talk about apples and oranges. No, let’s talk about Wikipedia. Yes. So thank you for the question. here are some of the definitions you’re likely familiar with. Definition number one: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Raise your hand if you’ve heard that, or blink. we can’t see you- … so it’s the same thing. definition number two: Wikipedia is one of the world’s most influential, most trusted websites.
These definitions are both [00:07:00] absolutely accurate, but here’s the way I like to think of Wikipedia. Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia isn’t Dragnet. The website doesn’t reflect just the facts, ma’am. No. Wikipedia reflects what the mainstream media has reported. That’s a critical distinction. Strictly speaking, Wikipedia isn’t concerned with truth, with a capital T, it’s concerned with what reliable news sources say. Indeed, everything in the encyclopedia, at least in theory, must be sourced. Sourced. Many people are surprised that you can’t say you were the founder, not a co-founder, for example- unless the media has reported that fact. How does the encyclopedia work? Above all, Wikipedia editors are concerned with one thing, making sure that everything on the [00:08:00] encycl- I guess in the encyclopedia, making sure that everything in the encyclopedia- is as unbiased as possible.
Jonathan Rick: that reason, it makes sense. for that reason, editors are allergic to press release language, marketing speak, puffery, basically anything that’s even remotely self-promotional. Okay. In- instead they… And Michelle, interrupt me at any, point if there’s something you want me to slow down, speed up, stop talking, talk about Seinfeld instead. so where were we? So editors are allergic to, press release language, basically anything that’s, even remotely self-promotional. Instead, they adhere religiously to what they call NPOV or a neutral point of view.
let’s look at two type of situations. I hinted at them earlier. So situation number one, if you’re creating a page, then your chief concern, I’m gonna throw some [00:09:00] more jargon at you, is the GNG, the General Notability Guideline.
Michelle Garrett: Okay.
Jonathan Rick: You need to demonstrate that you’re notable Situation number two, if you’re editing a page, then your chief concern is RS, or reliable sources. Any, everything you add, remove, or change must be based on a footnote, or if you remove something, the lack thereof.
That’s the bird’s-eye view. Where things get tricky is when you have a conflict of interest. For example, you’re doing something on behalf of a client. In that case, two rules take precedence, and we can talk about them, but Michelle, should I- Yeah … should I pause here?
Michelle Garrett: Maybe, because we’re, I think we’re gonna get into some of these things as we go. that’s, that is helpful because, again, I don’t think everybody know- understands exactly what it is. and so I think now we have a little bit of a, common, [00:10:00] ground at least on, what, we, what it is. and then
What Is the Biggest Misconception Organizations Have About Wikipedia?
what would you say is the biggest misconception that organizations have about Wikipedia?
Jonathan Rick: They conflate accomplished or important with notable. Let me repeat that. They conflate being accomplished with being notable. In other words, about 80% of people who come to me wanting a Wikipedia page don’t currently meet the criteria. It’s not easy to be told you don’t deserve- recognition.
Many of these folks insist otherwise. “What do you mean I’m not quote, unquote, notable?” they ask or they say. just this week, Michelle, a prospective client declared, quote, “I’m worthy of a page” even though- … his media coverage wasn’t even close. Earlier this year, a founder [00:11:00] told me in no uncertain terms that her startup was absolutely 100% Wiki-worthy regardless of Wikipedia’s rules.
Michelle Garrett: Wiki-worthy, that’s cute.
Jonathan Rick: Wiki-worthy. A- and the same is true for organizations. Organizations point to all the awards, they’ve racked up over the years.
That’s awesome, but not super helpful. Or maybe they point- to an appearance by their CEO on Good Morning America or Joe Rogan’s podcast.
Michelle Garrett: Yeah.
Jonathan Rick: Again, congratulations, but those are effectively press releases. A colleague puts the point this way, and I’m, basically stealing their line. what counts for a win in PR doesn’t count for much on Wikipedia.
Michelle Garrett: Okay.
Jonathan Rick: It doesn’t matter how big your organization is, how long you’ve been around, how innovative your products or services are. The only thing that matters is media coverage. Okay. Specifically, do reporters and editors agree [00:12:00] that you’re interesting and important such that they profile you?
Michelle Garrett: Wow. So you can’t buy a Wikipedia page? They’re not for sale.
Jonathan Rick: No. No, and I’m, again, gonna steal, a, a metaphor from a colleague. I don’t think for myself. I rarely, have an original thought. in fact, an old girlfriend broke up with me because she said, “All of the stuff that you know comes from The Sopranos.” And I was like, “That’s a fantastic compliment.” thank you. but a colleague likes to analogize a Wikipedia page to a, a Birkin bag. Can’t buy it even if you want it. Yeah. there are certain painstakingly, punctiliously detailed, criteria that you need to meet, in order to qualify or to be deemed Birkin, worthy. I’m of course referring to Seinfeld here,
Michelle Garrett: Oh, [00:13:00] Birkin’s in the news. it was just on Dancing With the Stars, it’s, if you’re not familiar with the traders and all of that, and you w- it won’t make sense, and we won’t get into that right now, but it made an appearance last night. Anyway, the Birkin bag.
Why Is Wikipedia More Important Than Ever?
so, when we’re talking about, Wikipedia, it’s m- it’s, I’d say it’s m- it’s having a resurgence or it’s really more important than ever, and let’s talk about why.
Jonathan Rick: Yeah, this is gonna be a long answer. Yeah. I’m gonna give you three reasons, Michelle, and I’ll, pause after each one, because this is basically… the nice thing about Wikipedia is it sells itself. you don’t have to go banging down someone’s door and say, “You deserve a Wikipedia page,” or, “Your page could be better.” they al- almost always come to you. give you reason number one: Google. Since Wikipedia is consistently one [00:14:00] of the world’s top 10 most visited websites, when someone Googles you, if you have a Wikipedia page- your page almost always ranks as one of the first three results.
That means that what appears in Wikipedia forms the first impression of your brand for every imaginable audience: donors, members, legislators, regulators, partners, investors- reporters, researchers- employees, p- prospective employees, even judges. They’re all learning about you via the encyclopedia. In short, no other single source of info is so pervasive.
Indeed, there are no real competitors to Wikipedia, not even the ballyhooed Rockpedia, which seems to now be effectively dead.
( Mallorca I’ll go ahead and give you, the, big answer. number three, I’m gonna call this apps, and we’re gonna dwell on the third. so reason number three is what I call apps. Beyond Google, Wikipedia is an indispensable source for many of the Internet’s other top sites and apps. These include social media. Here’s a fun fact: since 2018, YouTube has drawn on Wikipedia to counter misinformation. Then we have virtual assistants. Here’s a fun fact: when you [00:17:00] ask Siri or Alexa a question, chances are they’ll recycle what’s in Wikidata- Oh … which is the knowledge graph that powers Wikipedia. And then Michelle, wait for it, I know this is what you wanted to talk about- … they’re large language models. See, you have to build suspense, large language models, here’s the fun fact. Of the websites that ChatGPT pulls from the most-
Wikipedia is the second most cited source.
Michelle Garrett: Oh, wow.
Jonathan Rick: So in short, and I’ll, elaborate on this, Wikipedia is the top choice for anyone trying to learn more about your brand, even if they never visit the Wikipedia website.
Now, this last point is particularly important, so let me elaborate. What happens on Wikipedia no longer stays on Wikipedia. Instead, any bias in the encyclopedia [00:18:00] is absorbed into an AI system, thus amplifying and perpetuating the problem. Put another way, in the age of AI, Wikipedia increasingly shapes how the internet talks about your brand. That means outdated or inaccurate info threatens your reputation The bottom line, if your Wikipedia page is misleading or incomplete, it can do great damage to your good name. By contrast, brands whose Wikipedia pages are, CAP, that’s what I call current, accurate, and positive- benefit from elevated trust.
Michelle Garrett: Okay. We need to get a list of acronyms for …
Jonathan Rick: Do you have a quick list? Yeah, I’m nothing if not acronym happy.
Michelle Garrett: I was writing down a couple and then I gave up.
Jonathan Rick: Yeah. Yeah. Well- We’ll just do the quiz, afterward. GEO-
Michelle Garrett: Maybe I can pull those out into a list. yes. the GEO, people call it all kinds of things. I call it AI-driven search, but GEO, AEO. That, [00:19:00] and that is, I think, often now why if people didn’t think having a page on Wikipedia was important before, now they think they need that or they want that. But that kind of leads us to the next question, because, not everybody, i- how do people…
How Can a Company or Individual Be Added to Wikipedia?
We, I think you talked about this a little bit, but, tell us a little bit more about this. We know we can’t buy our way in. Media coverage is the way in. Maybe a l- tell us a little more.
Jonathan Rick: Absolutely. So there, there are two ways. way number one, if they’re added organically, that means that an editor researched a given entity then published his findings. This is how most of Wikipedia was built, by geeks who volunteer. Why would someone spend so much time on this kind of project for free? as with other user-generated sites such as Reddit and Quora, [00:20:00] some people are driven by the desire to spread information, others do it for pride of authorship Way number two, if a company or individual is added by folks like you and me- paid consultants-
the process is distinctly different. Basically, instead of clicking publish, we click submit. That is, we propose the page for consideration by the community. It doesn’t appear until an independent editor approves it.
Michelle Garrett: Okay.
Jonathan Rick: Did that answer your question?
Michelle Garrett: I think so. Yeah, because, again, if you can’t buy your way, and not everyone is qualified, it’s, it’s one of those things that I just think, it, it’s kind… And you said, what was the percentage you said how many p- entities do not qualify? 80%
Jonathan Rick: I- I… in the world, yeah, it’s probably, 99.9, but I- Oh, okay … I think that just as a, [00:21:00] a rough back of the envelope estimate, I would say that 80% of people who come to me wa- who want a page- Yeah … and I wanna be careful of how I say this, don’t currently meet the eligibility.
Michelle Garrett: Okay.
Jonathan Rick: or, excuse me, don’t currently meet the c- criteria. They aren’t- currently eligible. the- Yeah … and Wikipedia is very upfront about this. They say a vanishingly small number of people, are, they don’t say Wiki-worthy, but they say with something, are notable. I’m gonna, you know- Yeah … translate that into something that, that’s less harsh. But, there have been studies- Yeah … in fact, there was a study released earlier this year that, that shows, just how, what a small percentage of pages submitted for a creation make it, make it through that gauntlet. Okay. It’s tough. and to be honest, this is a good thing. It should be tough. Yeah. Michelle- Yeah … have you seen the, A League of… No, it’s actually, this comes from The West Wing. Do you remember w- [00:22:00] with the Aaron Sorkin episodes of The West Wing?
Michelle Garrett: Yes
Jonathan Rick: So there’s a great scene where Toby is talking to a guy named Matt in a bar in, I think, in New Hampshire, and the guy, a voter, says, times are tough. It used to be, used- it’s a man’s job to put his kid through college.” Yeah. support your family. it, it- it should be tough. It, should be hard. It shouldn’t be easy, but it should be just a little easier. And I love that line, ’cause I think of that when I think of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be tough. you’re basically- Yeah … making a case for inclusion in a global encyclopedia. it’s one of the world’s most trusted, most influential sites. If they let in anyone, the site would cease to function, as, as we all know it.
Michelle Garrett: I’m some- s- I, sometimes I’m surprised at things that do have a page. I’ve, been researching something like, wow, there’s a, a Wikipedia page on this. So y- yes, it’s difficult, but sometimes, it, there are pages there [00:23:00] that you wouldn’t maybe expect. but- Oh,
Jonathan Rick: yeah …
Michelle Garrett: I like that it is one of those things, because I think we live in a world where people think they can just buy their way and get their way and have their… it’s, there’s no i- it’s no patience, no hard work, no… Th- often that is devalued because we just want it now. We want what we want, and we wanna pay for it and just get… So often in PR, I think, with clients, a lot of them understand that it doesn’t work that way. But, sometimes it, there are situations where it’s not necessarily the right time, for, them to do certain things.
When Should a Company or Its PR Team Pursue a Wikipedia Page?
And so that’s the next question, is really, when should a company or its PR team pur- not pursue a p- a Wikipedia page? Are there situations where you would advise waiting? And then we’ll talk about- What to [00:24:00] do, if you’re not to that point yet maybe,
Jonathan Rick: For sure. yeah, I, tell prospective clients that with Wikipedia, being patient beats being premature. That is, if your media coverage doesn’t meet the criteria yet, then you’re better off pursuing more press rather than, as Donald Rumsfeld might say, lacing up for a ball game with the loafers you’re currently wearing. I hope that reference makes sense. unfortunately, many people come to me after they’ve hired a slick salesman on the cheap, maybe from a site like Upworthy, who overpromised and under-delivered. Yeah. As a result, their page got taken down. Here’s what I tell these folks. Declined drafts and repeated resubmissions not only create a record, excuse me, a public record of dispute- Yeah … they also draw more skepticism and scrutiny, making any sub- s- [00:25:00] submissions you make in the future that much harder. What’s more, if deletion happens multiple times, an administrator, that’s one of the 800 editors who are elected to run Wikipedia-
may restrict resubmission.
That action … Yeah, is right. That action is called salting, and it’s something you want to avoid at all costs.
Oh,
the, bottom line, to leave you with a little good news, eh, when should you not pursue a Wikipedia page? Ask me for a free consultation. It’s, tough to be objective when you’re an employee, and I’ll level with you about whether you’re Wiki ready.
Michelle Garrett: Yeah. Yeah, ’cause I’m sure that you have, things that you could do to, find out, before. Because honestly, you only wanna work with people that you can help, so I, yeah, it makes sense, so.
What’s the Best Approach to Qualify for a Wikipedia Page?
if, [00:26:00] somebody wants a Wikipedia page, a company, individual, what’s the best approach to qualify for one?
Jonathan Rick: There’s really only one road to Wikipedia, and it’s media coverage. I recently wrote a post on LinkedIn about this very question, so here’s the gist. Many people think Wikipedia is mysterious. Other regard it, others regard it as political. Some say it’s just arbitrary. In reality, Wikipedia is often more mechanical than its critics realize. The site’s editors constantly ask variations of one question: What do reporters say? Not what does the subject say, not what does the publicist say, what do reporters say? For anyone seeking a Wikipedia page, this insight carries a do or die lesson. Stop obsessing over Wikipedia. Start obsessing over earning media coverage.
The [00:27:00] people and organizations that succeed on Wikipedia succeed long before they ever visit the encyclopedia.
They produce noteworthy work, journalists notice, full length features appear in top tier news outlets. Only then does a Wikipedia page become possible.
Michelle Garrett: Yeah. And to do that, often you need help from a PR consultant, so yeah, that’s, what, I help clients with, but, but yeah. So i- sometimes people are not, qualified, and they’re, they, the only thing they can do is work on upping their, media coverage, which will help them in a number of ways, not only to qualify for Wikipedia, but will also help them show up in Google search, and AI driven search, and it will help, build their reputation, and it’s just, it’s, yeah. It’s a good thing. It’s a positive thing,
Jonathan Rick: yeah. [00:28:00]
What Sources Don’t Count When Trying to Qualify for a Wikipedia Page?
Michelle Garrett: So what sources do clients, sometimes assume count, but they, but generally do not count? When you say media coverage, let’s talk a little bit more specifically.
Jonathan Rick: Great question. I’ll name check three publications. I’ll, pause after each one. publication number one, gotta start with Forbes. In 2010, Forbes made a decision that would decimate its reputation. It let people pay to run articles on its website. These were technically ads, but they were deliberately formatted to look the same as articles written by staffers, and oh yeah, they brought in a lot of money. Ultimately, this contributor network so egregiously violated journalism, church, journalism’s church state separation- between the newsroom and the business room- that Wikipedia created a special policy for Forbes. Anything that appears in one of [00:29:00] its pay to play so called councils is strictly verboten
Michelle Garrett: Yeah
Jonathan Rick: Indeed. The policy’s pretty strict because- Yay … it, actually goes on to say that anything anywhere in Forbes that’s written by an outside contributor is immediately suspect. The only thing Forbes is good for, at least on Mount Wikipedia- is content written by a staff writer. Got that, Michelle? Staff writer good, anyone else bad. Isn’t Wikipedia fun?
Michelle Garrett: Forbes, I, I’m applauding this because to me, Forbes has lost, a lot of credibility be- because people who know, But I feel like it’s still w- p- a lot, there are companies who will, get in touch and they wanna be in Forbes, and you can really just pay for that, but, what is it really worth? so that’s, I think this is an important point, and I love that, Wikipedia is strict about [00:30:00] this, so good for them.
Jonathan Rick: Wikipedians are nothing if not strict. and I can tell you some fun stories, that will, make your eyebrows, will arch your eyebrows and, make a lump appear in your throat. it’s in a bad way. but, sh- let me tell you about publication number two. This is, Authority Magazine. This is a quick one. Prospective clients like to send me cute… Have you heard of this, Michelle?
Michelle Garrett: I think I have Because anybody can get in there, right?
Jonathan Rick: Exactly. Exactly.
Michelle Garrett: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah
Jonathan Rick: prospective clients like to send me Q&As from an online publication called Authority Magazine, and here’s the way I’m gonna, politely summarize it. this is y- Authority. These interviews from a little-known website with no [00:31:00] editorial standards aren’t worth the bytes they’re printed on.
Michelle Garrett: Yeah.
Jonathan Rick: I’m, glad you’ve seen Authority Magazine.
Michelle Garrett: I had another, PR consultant tell me once, “Oh, I can get them in Authority. I could get anyone in Authority.” And I’m like, “Okay, is that, a good thing?” is that… d- I guess if the client thinks it’s good, then it’s good for the consultant. But in my opinion, yeah- I wouldn’t really, I wouldn’t really count. It would almost be like issuing a press release on a wire service and saying because it was picked up, by Yahoo, that’s a media… No. It’s not a media- Exactly … it’s not the same, it’s not coverage. It’s, you paid for that. So anyway, not just you’re paying for Authority, but I, that made me laugh when you brought that one up, ’cause I do know about that one.
Jonathan Rick: And I bet you’ve heard of the third example. you’ve heard of TechCrunch.
Michelle Garrett: Yes.
Jonathan Rick: So TechCrunch is interesting. I’m gonna give you a, a sort of, I’m gonna delve into the weeds a little bit. [00:32:00] So for startups, especially tech ones raising money, TechCrunch is the gold standard. Yet Wikipedia editors look skeptically upon this outlet. They eva- evaluate articles here on a case by case basis, taking into account something that most flacks wouldn’t even think of. Quote, “To what extent the writer relies on public relations material from their subject.” End quote. Michelle, that’s a little confusing and a lot subjective, so let me translate it. TechCrunch writers aren’t known for their hard-hitting investigative journalism. Instead, they sometimes rewrite press releases, statements, and pitch decks.
Michelle Garrett: I see.
Jonathan Rick: Also, its writers sometimes get a little too c- cozy with their subjects. So when looking at a TechCrunch piece, Wikipedia editors want to see evidence that the writer has conducted original reporting. [00:33:00]
Michelle Garrett: Okay.
Jonathan Rick: So we have, Forbes, Authority, and TechCrunch. Those are, three publications that people often misunderstand.
Michelle Garrett: And two of three of those, I cannot tell you how many times people have come and that’s what they, TechCrunch and Forbes, that’s what they want, so it’s interesting ’cause yeah, I don’t know that’s always where, e- even for PR purposes, I don’t know if that’s where their audience is gonna be spending time and that’s what’s really gonna move the needle, which brings me to the next question because,
Does Trade Media Help a Company Earn a Wikipedia Page?
I wanna know if trade media coverage helps establish, a subject significance for Wikipedia, and if so, is one source stronger than another source?
Jonathan Rick: I know this is a subject near and dear to your heart. not really.
Michelle Garrett: Okay.
Jonathan Rick: I’ll, [00:34:00] give you- That’s okay … a bottom line up front, It’s
Michelle Garrett: all right.
Jonathan Rick: As I say in my white paper about Wikipedia, to be notable, your media coverage must transcend your industry.
Michelle Garrett: Okay.
Jonathan Rick: In other words, trade pubs don’t carry much weight among the Wiki watchers.
I’ll give you the two big, the two big reasons why, Michelle. I’ll pause after reason number one. reason number one, the mainstream media are bureaucratic. To get an article from pitch to publication requires that it pass scrutiny from editors, copy editors, fact-checkers, lawyers, designers, and more editors.
Here are two fun facts. Fun fact number one, before journalism is released at NPR, it must be reviewed by the backstop, a group of six senior editors. Fun fact number two, CNN has a system called the triad, which is a three-pronged internal [00:35:00] review that includes close, legal scrutiny. Trade pubs simply don’t have the resources to invest in this kind of editorial review.
So that’s reason number one. I’ll give you reason number two, unless you have a question.
Michelle Garrett: No, I’m just sad.
Jonathan Rick: This is … I’m, very popular because my job is basically to tell people that what they wanna do, they can’t do. it’s … Being a Wikipedia consultant is, makes you, the most invited guest at cocktail parties. reason number two, trade pubs tend to be mouthpieces for their industry. They shy away from articles that criticize the readers. They rarely run exposés. Indeed, trade pubs are known more for their events than they are for original reporting. Here’s a fun fact. For a single-sentence quote in The New York Times, [00:36:00] I spoke with a reporter for an hour. An hour. That would never happen in, I don’t know, PR Daily. Now, listen, I like PR Daily. I used to write for PR Daily, but PR Daily doesn’t have the same resources or appetite for deep investigative work that The New York Times does. All this said-
not all trade publications are created equal.
Wikipedia editors distinguish between outlets known for original reporting, there’s that phrase again, original reporting. The Hollywood Reporter, Ars Technica, might be mispronouncing that. and, Burke’s Peerage. Did you ever hear of Burke’s
Michelle Garrett: Peerage? I don’t think so.
Jonathan Rick: Me neither. so they distinguish, Wikipedia editors distinguish between those, original reporting, trades and- everything else.
So let’s talk about your second question. what makes one [00:37:00] trade pub stronger than another?
and we’re gonna delve into the weeds. This is a little bit of a long answer, We
Michelle Garrett: have a question too, so when we- Oh,
Jonathan Rick: okay … when we can, yeah. What’s, what’s the question?
Michelle Garrett: okay, so Kristen, who, whom, you know, I believe, she said- Ah, Kristen.
Jonathan Rick: Hi there.
Michelle Garrett: I’ll put it- Yes, I’ll see if I can put it on the screen. There it is. Okay. So she agrees- Great … with authority. We all know about that. a lot of us in PR know. but with the LLMs, isn’t it somewhat helpful to have for AEO building, particularly, bleh, particularly if someone is just starting to put themselves out there?
that’s more of a PR question probably. I don’t know. answer it w- for Wikipedia then.
Jonathan Rick: Yeah. Yeah. listen, I, think Wikipedia is similar to LLMs in that, they don’t value all content equally. I can put up a blog [00:38:00] before this conversation is, done- and, have ChatGPT generate, gigabytes of content, but Wikipedia, is not gonna care about it, nor will Google, nor will ChatGPT. not all sources are created equal. And so on one, on the one hand, you may s- you may think, it’s… Listen, Authority Magazine, at least it’s got some SEO juice. It’s got, some credibility, some establishment. Surely something is better than nothing. I’m not gonna argue with that. especially since Kristen wrote it’s somewhat helpful. She didn’t say it’s, enormously helpful. Somewhat helpful. Yeah, if you wanna stroke a client’s ego, if you wanna, start out small with a little bit of press, if you wanna use this as a training, as, as training ground- for the big boys, for the big leagues- I have no objection to that. however, I, do… I, I, while I’m not an expert in LLMs, I suspect that like Wikipedia, they’re not going to [00:39:00] value, a Q&A from Authority Magazine the way they would a profile, that lands you on the cover of Time magazine. they’re… the nice thing about LLMs is they always provide their sources, at least if you ask. and so you m- the, the enterprising, user will click on the source and say, “Hey, wait. So you’re telling me that Bob calls himself a millionaire? But…” Or excuse me, “Bob calls himself a billionaire, but he’s not on Forbes bill- list of billionaires?” people, I would hope, can connect the dots and say, “Isn’t this just a Q&A where someone’s saying whatever he wants with no pushback-” or scrutiny or fact-checking?”
is it somewhat helpful? Sure. I have no problems, saying that. Yeah. But with Wikipedia, it is, No … and in fact, it’s… I’d go s- one step further. I’d say not only is Authority Magazine is, A- and, its ilk are not only [00:40:00] unhelpful, they are actually damaging. Ooh. Because what happens is inevitably someone will try to cite Authority Magazine, and, an obnoxious editor who’s a stickler for the, the rules will say, this calls into judge- this calls into question your entire judgment, and have you read our rules? And why can’t you read? And this is a press release
Michelle Garrett: Yikes. Okay
Three
Jonathan Rick: good
Michelle Garrett: questions …
Jonathan Rick: hey, someone knows Burke’s Peerage. We got another question, or a comment.
Michelle Garrett: Yes.
Jonathan Rick: Someone knows what Burke’s Peerage is. it’s a pretty- No … popular, well-known publication.
Michelle Garrett: I just, I wasn’t familiar, so now this made, me feel … Jared actually helped me feel a little better that I didn’t know what it was, so Yeah. there you have it. So yeah, so that, so thanks for answering that. And then, of course we’re h- it, I’m sure Jonathan’s happy to answer questions, so please ask. thank you for asking [00:41:00] and, Kristen. So, the next question- Should we, talk about what makes- W- we were talking about trade. Were you done with that? Y- Are you-
Jonathan Rick: no, I wa- yeah, I wanted to talk about the second question. Okay. Go back. What makes one trade-
Michelle Garrett: Sorry …
Jonathan Rick: r- no, not, no problem at all. no. this is, actually a critical one, ’cause it answers- Okay … it’s a window into so, much of how Wikipedia works. it’s a little weedy, a- but the language that I’m gonna use is precise.
Michelle Garrett: Okay.
What Makes One Trade Publication Stronger Than Another?
Jonathan Rick: So what makes one trade pub stronger than another? To be reliable, a media outlet must have a reputation for two principles. Principle number one, fact-checking. Principle number two, accuracy. Michelle, I know what you’re thinking. These things are awfully broad. good news, Wikipedia provides several signals that you can cite. And here I’ll quote the owner’s [00:42:00] manual. quote, “In general, the more people who are engaged in the following three activities, the more that readers can trust that publication. Activity number one, checking facts. Activity number two, analyzing legal issues. Activity number three, scrutinizing the writing.” End quote. What all this means is there needs to be editorial oversight, a formal system of checks and balances. Yeah. How can you prove a publication’s bona fides? Here are the questions that Wikipedians will ask. Question number one, does the publication employ editors? There are different types of editors, fact-checkers, copy editors, line editors, development editors. So your job is to show that an outlet uses at least some of them.
Question number, two, does the publication disclose conflicts of interest? Typically, this means making its standards and practices public. [00:43:00] Question number three, does the publication issue corrections when it makes a mistake? For this, you’ll want to point to specific corrections and/or a page that explains the process to submit one. Okay. So you asked, what makes one trade better than the other. Wikipedia has a built-in answer for this.
Michelle Garrett: Okay. I am curious, and this question was not on my original list, but I am curious, Don- Oh, no … about what you’re saying.
Jonathan Rick: Can we do that next time? ‘Cause I have it in an answer. I have… No, I’m just kidding. I’m just kidding. I’m gonna have to add
Michelle Garrett: this. I’m just curious ’cause as we see media, down, editors and copy- your editorial staff- All right, Michelle- I just wonder- The
Michelle Garrett: okay. [00:44:00] So yeah, so I’m wondering about, as media lay off staff, copy editors, of all, in, in all categories, how this is gonna work out, for, Wikipedia. ‘Cause I think, we could all agree that publications, the standards and maybe, they’re just, they’re, they’re, struggling, and so they lay people off. are these standards the same as they once were, I don’t know.
Jonathan Rick: Excellent question. The, the… You’re absolutely right. No, I think the Washington Post laid off, I don’t know, virtually all of its, copy editors. but they probably still have fact-checkers, and certainly they still have a masthead with a lot of editors, and that’s the chief concern that Wikipedia editors are, posing here. they don’t want to see stuff that I self-published, that I wrote and clicked without any, layer of scrutiny. Yes. that’s one of s- many reasons that the [00:45:00] world’s most popular podcast, Joe Rogan’s- Doesn’t, isn’t considered, is not con- is considered to be unreliable by Wikipedia editors- ’cause there’s no s- there’s no editorial review. and that’s what editors are concerned with, and they’re not saying that a publication to be reliable must meet all these criteria. They’re giving you various ways to judge whether a publication- is reliable. And if you can, y- there’s no sort of black and white rule that says if you can point to 1.75 of these things, then you have made a case. Wikipedia looks at thing- Wikipedia editors look at things holistically. they are people interpreting rules, that are often open to interpretation. and so- it’s our job if we feel strongly about something to say, no, PR Daily actually, is subject to editorial review.” They have, an editor in chief, a deputy editor, a business editor, a, a Washington editor. I’m just [00:46:00] making stuff up. they, if you click on, the page that says contact us, they have a dedicated email address for corrections. listen, I think one of the first articles I wrote at my first job was for PR Week. it was called, if I recall correctly it was called, it’s called Social Networking For A Reason. my, my thesis was that, n- networking, the media part of the apps was more, was less important than the social part. if you knew how to, if you know how to make conversation, if can chat up a stranger at a bar, you can do social media because I can teach you the difference between a Facebook Group and a Facebook Page. That’s learnable. That’s the easy stuff. The hard part is knowing how to communicate, so it’s called social media or social networking for a reason. And, I made an error. In, the first thing I wrote, I made an error. And a- as I recall, don’t, quote me on this, PR Week [00:47:00] corrected the article but didn’t issue a correction at the bottom.
I, no, no, judgment against PR Week. I think it’s a, a, fine, a publication that does excellent work, but- If this were, Bloomberg, they would follow a different, process for transparency.
Michelle Garrett: Sure. we got another question, and we also are down to about 10 minutes, so we’re gonna, we’re gonna be skipping over a couple of my questions to get to the ones that I think are really important.
How Much Coverage Does It Take?
But, anyway, Jared is asking: Is there a set number of publications that client should have coverage in before seeking a Wiki page, or is it just that it needs to be a well-regarded publication?
Jonathan Rick: Great question. so when a prospective client comes to me, I always say, “Send me your six best links.” And I send them back an email that refers them to my white paper and they c- I explain it more in the email and I say, “Send me your [00:48:00] six best links and I’ll give you a free review.” And I, it doesn’t take me a lot of time. at this point I can, like any consultant or editor, I can get a pretty good sense of where things stand based on- those six links. And no one’s gonna have … It’s rare for someone to have six, profiles that each of which meets the cr- Wikipedia’s criteria. but I can tell if you’re sending me press releases in Authority Magazine that you don’t got it. As to whether there’s a specific number, there is not. However, in the course of, my, my 20 years of doing this, what Wikipedia editors will do if they’re curious or there’s a debate, they’re on the fence, they’ll say, “Send me your, two or three best links.” You don’t need six. You don’t need two. this … it’s a gray area. if you were featured in, on the Sunday Times or on, there was a, a long lead, [00:49:00] article about you, in Vanity Fair that took six months to write and came clocked in at 6,000 words, that’s gonna count for a lot. Yeah … whereas even, a, a 1,500-word, feature about you in a trade pub, not gonna count for a lot. so they will … There’s no set number, there’s no magic number. A lot of these rules, even though they’re hard and fast- Okay … have, have gray areas in them.
Michelle Garrett: Okay. Great
Jonathan Rick: question.
Michelle Garrett: Yeah. No, thanks, Jared. I appreciate that. I know people have a lot of questions. They might not be asking, but I know.
Finding a Reputable Wikipedia Consultant to Help You
this question is so long I cut off the last word, but here, this is what started this really is, there’s, I’m getting, and I know other people are also receiving email about, consultants and agencies trying to sell services, to help your clients or you get a Wikipedia page. and I feel that they’re maybe not [00:50:00] really legitimate. Maybe they don’t have the experience, the knowledge. So when we talk about choosing, a reputable provider, maybe give us some, red flags, green flags, some advice on that.
Jonathan Rick: I love this question because as a homeowner and father, I’m often the customer vetting the vendor. So here are the five questions I’d ask, I’d encourage clients to be, to ask. Question number one, do you guarantee success? If they say yes, that’s your cue to exit stage left. I think that was one of your other questions. We can- That’s okay … discuss that in more detail. Question number two, do you have connections to editors or administrators? If they say yes, that’s the second clearest sign you’re dealing with a con artist. Question number three, are your rates, that is your fees, are they in the low five digits or the high [00:51:00] five digits? If they quote you a thousand bucks, they’re churning and burning clients rather than providing high touch service.
Question number four, and this is something you asked as well, and I’d love to discuss it in more detail. can you help me, spin or shade the facts? If they promise to whitewash your history, they’re selling you snake oil. Question number five: What’s your approach to disclosing conflicts of interest? If they don’t disclose, then hiring them jeopardizes your own reputation. I keep a running list of companies and people who hired a black hat consultant, then were caught red-handed by a media outlet that was all too happy to trumpet its exclusive.
Michelle Garrett: Yeah. Yeah. I feel as we’ve discussed this today, there are a lot of similarities between, people that try to sell PR services and people that so- try to sell Wikipedia services, ’cause often I feel [00:52:00] like, you can’t guarantee media coverage, right? And we can’t guarantee that you’re gonna get a Wikipedia page if you hire and work with someone. But, there are definitely things to look for, and again, somebody that’s been doing it as long as Jonathan is, that’s, a green flag. so yeah. just, I, like I said, I think this- That is a
Jonathan Rick: question about guarantees. I love that question. It’s an important one.
Michelle Garrett: Oh, you want me to ask the question?
Jonathan Rick: Yeah. Oh. Yeah, it’s one that I think that every- everyone, before they sign on the line that’s dotted, you know-
Michelle Garrett: Yeah …
Jonathan Rick: says, “Hey, I notice your contract says best professional effort.”
Michelle Garrett: All right. we’ll stick that in here. I’m going out of order. You
Jonathan Rick: don’t have to. Michelle, don’t let me, don’t let me tell you what to ask. By all mean, no, I was just kidding.
Michelle Garrett: No. Ask me whatever you- No, we can answer it … you know Because it will be in the transcript and it’ll be in the replay, and we want people to know,
If Someone Guarantees That a Wikipedia Page Will Be Approved – Run
that if someone selling you Wikipedia services, a consultant or agency guarantees that a [00:53:00] page will be approved, what about that? What do you have to say about
Jonathan Rick: that? Here’s the deal, and Michelle, this will come as no surprise to you. You, probably could have written this answer yourself. Wikipedia is similar to public relations generally, and earned media specifically-
in that there are no guarantees, and any consultant who guarantees a result is grossly misrepresenting both their services and the way the encyclopedia works. In fact, since we’re among friends- … let’s call a spade right? These people are flat out liars. so that’s the bad news. Here’s the good news, which is what I tell prospects. I’ve been doing Wikipedia work for almost 20 years, and I only work with clients I’m confident I can help. In hiring me, you get an advocate who will make a case that’s cogent, clear, and comprehensive. I’ll balance your requests against Wikipedia’s rules, and I’ll use my experience and [00:54:00] judgment to best position and advance your story.
Michelle Garrett: Yeah.
Jonathan Rick: can we quote this Kristen comment? Yeah. can we just end it here and, you know-
Michelle Garrett: I told you … And, I don’t get asked that much, in all honesty. Thank you. Yeah, that’s so nice, right? you can’t, you can’t buy that, right? But thank you, Kristen, ’cause, I also, when I hear anybody talk about Wikipedia, I automatically think of Jonathan and I would bring up Jonathan. I bring him into the conversation, because yeah, he knows what he’s doing and I trust him. yeah. Thank you. Thank you … Maria, we are gonna run out of time, but I have two very quick questions, but we do have one more, another question, and I love the questions actually from, listeners and watchers. can you reiterate what a reasonable cost is- Oh, yeah Could you talk about that a little bit? Yeah.
What Is the Typical Cost to Hire A Consultant to Help with Wikipedia?
Jonathan Rick: Sure, sure. So I’m, I address this on my website and what I say there, and, I’m sorry, this is Maria. [00:55:00] I’m gonna be in- frustratingly vague here. I’m gonna, I’m gonna give you a non-answer. so I’d say because each page is unique, different levels of research, different levels of text, different potential for pushback, I don’t use set rates, nor do I bill hourly. Instead, after evaluating your media coverage, if you wanna create a page or your list of changes if you want to improve a page, I offer a custom quote, a quote that’s tied to the workload.
Michelle Garrett: Yeah.
Jonathan Rick: I know that didn’t answer your question. so I- Yeah … I apologize in advance for actually-
Michelle Garrett: But it’s hard, just to spit out numbers ’cause some… Yeah, I, we face the same thing sometimes. okay. So quickly, and I know you probably have to go, but I’m gonna- No … if you have two minutes. Okay. I’m happy
Jonathan Rick: to keep chatting.
Michelle Garrett: All
Jonathan Rick: right. I got, two minutes.
Michelle Garrett: All right. We started a couple minutes late, too, in all fairness, so we can, go a couple minutes over if that’s, as long as it’s okay. [00:56:00] so I wanna know,
How Long Does the Process of Getting a Wikipedia Page Take?
if somebody’s interested in this process, how long, like just ballpark, how long does it take to get a page?
Jonathan Rick: Yeah, that’s a, a, a great question. The best advice I can offer is, again, admittedly vague. sorry. be patient.
Michelle Garrett: Yeah.
Jonathan Rick: AI slop is expanding backlogs to unprecedented levels. Meanwhile, editors are increasingly outnumbered. So I tell clients to exercise maximum patience. Their submission could get picked up in a few days, or it could take a few months. We’re at the mercy of volunteers, and there’s nothing worse than following up with someone who’s working for free while you’re being paid.
Michelle Garrett: Yeah.
Jonathan Rick: To be sure, there are best practices you can follow to make sure your submission gets seen. You can post in the pertinent group and tag the, or, tag the pertinent [00:57:00] editor. You can format your request in a way that’s easy to read. You can adhere to Wikipedia’s manual of style. But ultimately, once, a page is in the queue, you gotta be patient.
Michelle Garrett: Yeah. Yep. yeah, I was curious if it took years, months, da- obviously I
Jonathan Rick: would say- Not years …
Michelle Garrett: months.
Jonathan Rick: Yeah, please Not days. You want a general sort of yardstick, to create a new page, 30 to 60… Or, sorry, once the page is in the queue, 30 to 60 days, and, probably even longer for edits. But I… See, I’m, even after I said that, I sort of wanna retract that immediately because everything is different. Let’s say, you’re creating a page for Elon Musk. his profile is gonna be far different than, the CEO of this AI company. same thing is true for edits. if you wanna tweak one sentence, [00:58:00] one word, that’s different from rewriting an entire section or removing an entire section. so every… And that’s the, the, just to, elaborate, that, that’s why I charge by the workload. I don’t, offer sort of a rate sheet. Everybody’s different. Some clients say, “Hey, can you swap out my headshot for a newer one?” Other clients say, “I wasn’t born in 1957. I was born in 1993.”
Michelle Garrett: Oh, yeah …
Jonathan Rick: anyway.
Michelle Garrett: So, the, the last question that I’m gonna ask is, once you have the page,
Advice to Maintain Your Wikipedia Page Once You Have It
do you have advice about maintaining the page once it’s published? Can, anyone go in there and make changes? I feel like that’s a myth, or is that true? I don’t know.
Jonathan Rick: I’ll tackle your second question, second. Okay. Let me, go for the, first one. yeah, after their pages are live, many clients want to ensure that they stay that way.
Michelle Garrett: Okay.
Jonathan Rick: Specifically [00:59:00] that the text remains CAP. Does anyone remember what CAP stands for? It was way back in the beginning of the conversation. C-A-P.
Michelle Garrett: I…
Jonathan Rick: Current.
Michelle Garrett: Okay.
Jonathan Rick: Accurate and positive. the best way to do that, let’s listen, it’s to monitor the page every single day.
Michelle Garrett: Whoa.
Jonathan Rick: That’s a tall task, and everyone doesn’t have the software to do it, the time to do it, the knowledge to parse what was changed, or the experience to discern the best result In my experience, the best strategy is to hire a specialist who can take these responsibilities off your plate.
And yes, that’s a subtle pitch to hire me, that gets into your second question, Michelle. Yeah. can anyone do it? yes, technically anyone can. Realistically, very few understand how Wikipedia works. There are rules upon rules, caveats for caveats, [01:00:00] and chances are you’ll run into a hidden tripwire sooner if not later. and Wikipedia editors are unforgiving. They’re curt, they’re harsh. there’s actually a policy called don’t bite the newbies. Wikipedias are nothing if not snarky. And the way I learned is basically the way all my colleagues learned, which is we rolled up our sleeves and got bitten. to mix metaphors, but we, learned b- by through trial and lots of error. I wouldn’t encourage that if you’re doing this for your brand. if you wanna, do, try this yourself. Michelle, what’s your hobby outside of work?
Michelle Garrett: Oh, gosh. Oh, you asked me too fast. I don’t know.
Jonathan Rick: Gardening,
Michelle Garrett: Taking walks in nature. Let’s just- Okay … we’ll say that, okay.
Jonathan Rick: So I’m gonna extend that a little bit ’cause I don’t know much about that, but let’s say you like running. [01:01:00] Sheria, I forget her name. The, sprinter. Sheria John, Johnson, Richardson. So Michael Jordan, the sprinter. Who’s an- oh, Usain Bolt. See I had to think- Yeah … about this for a while. Yeah. we know who Usain Bolt is. if you’re interested in running, and apologies I transferred hiking, walking in nature to running, but, if you’re interested in that, try editing pages for some of your, favorite runners. Stuff, subjects in which you do not have a conflict of interest. And start small, but do this at a personal level. Figure out, how things work. do a little reading. And this is gonna take you some time. I would say maybe a year, until you’re in, until you have a, a sufficient s- level of knowledge to take it to a professional level, to disclose your conflict of interest and start doing it on behalf of your, employer or clients. it’s perfectly possible to learn this stuff. It’s, rocket science this is not. But it’s so [01:02:00] specialized and so esoteric, and you’re playing with live ammunition, that I- Yeah … have yet to encounter a non-specialist who, who can do it successfully.
Michelle Garrett: I feel like I remember, a company that got into trouble, or somebody, I wanna say it was like Patagonia or some-
Jonathan Rick: Yeah, North Face …
Michelle Garrett: yeah, that got in trouble. Oh, yeah. There’s, I don’t know, there was something with the Wikipedia page and I remember that, and I don’t remember exactly what it was, but-
Jonathan Rick: I’m gonna put the link in the ch- Yeah … can I comment in this chat thing? Join ch- I have to connect my YouTube to join the live
Michelle Garrett: chat? you can put it in private and I can bring it over for you.
Jonathan Rick: Okay. I’m gonna send that to- I just put the link in there.
Michelle Garrett: All right.
Jonathan Rick: Check that out. It is North Face, back in 2019. Okay.
Michelle Garrett: Yeah, okay.
Jonathan Rick: and there, listen- I can’t believe
Michelle Garrett: it’s been that long ago, but yeah.
Jonathan Rick: It, listen, this happens every year. I keep a running list. I’d be happy to share it with any… If, you sign up for my workshop, it’s [01:03:00] one of the slides that I go through because I am a stickler for disclosure. this is how I make a living, so I obviously follow the rules. It’s not only in, but it’s not only in my interest, it’s also in yours, and we can talk about that- Yeah … at length. Yeah … Jeffrey Epstein tried to- Ooh … there’s a huge, expose the New York Times ran how he hired, high-priced consultants to whitewash his Wikipedia page. And, everybody from Congress to the NYPD to Jay-Z to, Naomi Campbell to, everyone at some point, has- Yeah … not everybody, but a lot of people have tried to do this, on the down low. And not only does it not work, it also backfires.
Michelle Garrett: Yes. And that’s what I don’t think people always understand. There’s so- often consequences and sometimes people don’t get caught. But I would say Wikipedia is not the, time, not the place to take a chance,
Jonathan Rick: a- as a point of interest, I’m helping a, a friend. [01:04:00] and, I, have to be careful about divulging too many details, but, they are interested in updating a Wikipedia page. Now, I am doing this as a friend. I’m not, of course, charging. and I, had to say to him, “Listen, the, you can go in and do this yourself and make the edits directly. I would not encourage you to do that because that violates the rules. and I’m certainly not gonna do it that way. what I will tell you is, why it’s in your self-interest to follow the rules and disclose because if you come up for, I don’t know, like tenure, and they do a deep dive into your research and background, which of course starts with googling you, and they happen to stumble upon this corner of Wikipedia where you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar, that’s not gonna be good for your career.”
Michelle Garrett: No. No, like I said, I think, it’s more important than ever to remember that there can be consequences and to really think, be careful, and think through, [01:05:00] what you’re doing and, especially if you’re trying to cut corners or, yeah.
Jonathan Rick: Yeah. Yeah. This is, it’s nice because most clients get it when you explain it to them and, frankly, if they’re, looking to cut corners, and do things on, by violating the rules, by lying and cheating- Yeah … they’re gonna go to a site like Upwork and pay 500 bucks.
Michelle Garrett: No
Jonathan Rick: And then come to me and have to pay 5,000. it’s just-
Michelle Garrett: Yeah …
Jonathan Rick: but, Yeah. … it’s, Wikipedia is, Wikipedia editors are, very sensitive to the, conflict of interest rules, which are very clear. It is perfectly okay to, address a page in which- you have a conflict. You just can’t make direct edits. You have to propose your edits for community review. Big distinction.
Michelle Garrett: Yeah. Yes, that’s the [01:06:00] point, I think that… Yes. that could be a great note to leave this on, but if, is there anything else that you wanna share before we go? If there’s one thing you wanna leave us with, is there, what else would it be? Anything else?
Jonathan Rick: Sure. I, would just say this, and thank you for the opportunity, Michelle. I, I suppose my biggest takeaway is a plea to read my white paper, which is available for free and without forking over your email address at jonathanrick.com/wikipedia. That’s-
Michelle Garrett: Okay …
Jonathan Rick: J-O-N-A-T-H-A-N R, as in Roger, I-C-K.com/wikipedia. It’s long, but it reflects the hard-won wisdom I’ve accumulated over 20 years.
Michelle Garrett: Okay.
Jonathan Rick: And of course, if anyone has a question, as I mentioned, I’m always available for a courtesy review via email.
Michelle Garrett: Yes, and ag- again, Jonathan loves to talk about this, and he does, a lot of other, things too. you be sure and check out Jonathan’s, [01:07:00] site and his white paper. Is that what you, is that what you call it? A white… It’s a white paper, right?
Jonathan Rick: Yeah, it’s, what the hell is a white paper? It’s a long document. It’s just something that we PR people have oh, let’s not call it an article. Let’s, complexify it and,
Michelle Garrett: Yeah …
Jonathan Rick: it’s like thought leadership. you’re right, you wrote an op-ed. and this is how I make a living, so I realize I’m criticizing myself, but, yeah, Michelle, it’s a white paper.
Michelle Garrett: definitely check out Jonathan’s site. There is a well of infor- in- information there and, I’m sure you know you can follow him on social media as well. And, I just wanna thank you so much for being here, Jonathan. I think this was a very enlightening conversation, and I appreciate you sharing, your knowledge with us today.
Jonathan Rick: The pleasure was all mine. Thank you for being such a, a spectacular host, really, from the production to the questions, and I really do mean this, guys. Michelle asks excellent questions. These really got to the, [01:08:00] gist. they cut to the chase of what I do.
Michelle Garrett: I appreciate you saying that. Thank you so much. And, I hope to see everybody back. I’ll be back on the 30th, and I’ll be announcing my, upcoming guests, short- shortly. So thanks so much. Bye.
Jonathan Rick: Bye.
About the host: Michelle Garrett is a B2B PR consultant, media relations consultant, writer and author of B2B PR That Gets Results, an Amazon Best Seller. She helps companies create content, earn media coverage, and position themselves as thought leaders in their industry. Michelle’s articles have been featured by Entrepreneur, Content Marketing Institute, Muck Rack, and Ragan’s PR Daily, among others. She’s a frequent speaker on public relations, marketing and content. Michelle has been repeatedly ranked among the top ten most influential PR professionals.
Learn more about Michelle’s freelance PR consulting services here.Book a no-obligation call to talk about your needs here.Buy Michelle’s book here.
