Wikipedia ‘police’

Harumph… I’ve twice put a link to this blog on the ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ page on Wikipedia… clearly linked as an academic (non-profit) source… but it gets deleted  by someone who labels it as ‘spam’. I thought Wikipedia was ‘open source’ (and in need of some academic rigour), so who are these (nameless) people who think they know what’s best to be on Wikipedia? The link generated quite a bit of traffic to this blog which has now been stopped 😦  I think I’ll persevere and put it back on there… anyone else had any similar experiences?


2 Responses to Wikipedia ‘police’

  1. Nihiltres says:

    The trick with Wikipedia and external links is that they should only be included where they significantly add to the article regardless of the article’s content – that is, includes things that Wikipedia cannot or may not include even if the article were otherwise excellent.

    While your blog might be relevant, it’s doubtful that your blog is the de facto ultimate reference on the subject, and probably in that case doesn’t qualify for inclusion based on Wikipedia’s style guidelines, even if it isn’t spam. The issue is, in this sense “what would someone looking for information on CSR appreciate beyond Wikipedia even if Wikipedia’s article on the subject was of the highest quality?” That it is a blog doesn’t help either; bloggers are known as ruthless self-promoters ;).

    What it is, however, is a conflict of interest – that *you* are adding a reference to *your* blog is ethically dubious. Instead, you might do better by simply adding a new section on the discussion page for the article with a suggestion that the blog be added and an explanation that you are personally involved with it. Such transparency helps greatly. Also, re-adding the link repeatedly will only serve to get your address blacklisted. Please think twice, and discuss the issue with those who have removed the link (look in the page history.)

    I hope that this explanation is enlightening; I won’t comment on “in need of academic rigour” except to point you to , where you may read the reviews that “featured” articles undergo.

  2. Anonymous says:


    “Open source” is not the same as “anyone can add whatever they want”.

    Many software projects are open source, but commit access is restricted to a handful of individuals, and while anyone can submit patches, they have the final say over what makes it into the final version.

    With tens of thousands of regular contributors, and no overriding authority on the content other than the Wikimedia Foundation — which generally intervenes only for legal reasons — Wikipedia is very, very open compared to many other “open” things.

    The people who removed your link do indeed think they know what’s best for Wikipedia. Consider your own reasons — are you also adding the link because you think that that is what’s best for Wikipedia? If so, then you and those who remove the link both have the interests of Wikipedia in mind.

    External links in Wikipedia articles serve as sources. To maximise the reliability of its content, Wikipedia insists on reliable sources; blogs are not, in general, considered to be reliable sources, for obvious reasons.

    If you wish to use material that you have authored as a source in a Wikipedia article, it is best to have it published, for example in a peer-reviewed journal.

    If, on the other hand, your motive is primarily to increase traffic to this site, please understand that promotion of your blog is not one of
    Wikipedia’s goals.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: