Wikipedia & WeALL: Suggestion for main web page

Been talking to @KatePetriw about finding editors to get entries for WeAll and Centre for Thriving Places into wikipedia. The difficulty is the very strict rules about conflicts of interest, meaning we can’t write about ourselves, nor make entries about others where we have connections that may introduce bias.
So how about inviting members to draft the entries they’d like to see on wikipedia if they had them (following a template structure) and then including them as individual pages, reached via the members page.
So for those who opt in, a click on a members logo could lead to their own wikipedia-ready info. It could still have their website as a big headline link front and centre, but all the ‘notable’ details/facts and figures could sit there, available for any wikipedia editor who felt moved to create entries on our behalves.

3 Likes

Hi Mike,

Would be great to chat about this a little more (so I can better understand :sweat_smile:)

But sounds like a great idea- after a quick chat and more understanding and I can chat to the team and also mobilise members too!

Hi Thobile, just scheduled for 19 Feb at 11:30 :slight_smile:

1 Like

(I’ve had to strip the links from this post because I’m under new user restrictions. You can search for the “WP:” terms in the Wikipedia search box and they’ll get you to the relevant policies.)

Hi, I thought I’d chime in here since I have a little knowledge of Wikipedia (I’ve been somewhat immersed in their policy documents for a few months now).

I suggest anyone interested in this idea read WP:PROMOTION, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTE, WP:AfC, WP:RS, and WP:COI.

If the idea is rather to be able to avoid digging into how Wikipedia works, I will provide a summary: yes, conflicts of interest are taken seriously. Article creation is subject to peer review. Subjects must be significantly notable (significant coverage from reliable, independent, secondary, high-quality sources). Articles cannot be written like promotional/puff pieces.

But, yes, you need to learn Wikipedia policy to edit Wikipedia.

Wikipedia sees an endless tide of people and organisations who think “oh, we should have our own Wikipedia page!” and it has fairly elaborate protections against people taking easy routes to that end. Ultimately, if the subject is notable, it should be on Wikipedia. Notability is subject to the requirements I’ve described above, and then community consensus. I would guess that WeAll/CfTP probably don’t pass notability requirements right now, but I’m new to WP policy myself so I’m not entirely sure.

A first step might be to ask at something like the teahouse (WP:TEAHOUSE) if someone experienced could provide a notability evaluation. Beware the fierce constraints around promotional usernames (WP:ORGNAME) and single-purpose accounts (WP:SPA). But before doing so, I really strongly urge you (or whoever is thinking of taking up this torch) to read WP:PROMOTION, take it to heart, and ask yourself about the real reason for wanting a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not an ad host.

Finally, I don’t really follow what you’re suggesting in paragraphs 2 and 3 of your first post, MikeZ. Are you suggesting placing these drafts in Wikipedia userspace? When you say “individual pages” do you mean normally published Wikipedia pages? What’s “a member’s logo”? Depending on what you mean, some of these might run dramatically afoul of Wikipedia policy.

All the best
Andrew

Hi Andrew - thanks for the note - yes I’m clear on the policies and both understand/support their enforcement. The point I’m making here is to self publish factual, peer reviewed, cited evidence which we think demonstratges notability etc. These pages can then be used by editors to discover more about the topic of wellbeing econoimics, which is under-served by wikipedia.
Funnily enough, your note came in just before I had a very helpful meeting with the Wikimedian in residence at Bristol University. He strongly endorsed the approach, agreeing that the absense of research and knowledge which raises powerful questions about mainstream conventions is an issue well worth addressing.
He also pointed out that any entries prompted by the improved visibility of evidence would still require original text by the editor posting the new entries - so it’s not like we’re asking or expecting anyone to simply lift and mirror - but we CAN make it much easier for people to find out a lot of rich (facutal) detail about the wellbeing economy movement.
Having spoken to him about his residency I think it would be worth the WeAll community considering the creation of a Wikipedia Residency for the movement as a whole.
Currently, anyone referencing English wikipedia will not find Wellbeing Economics on the Economics Page, nor even on the linked Happiness Economics page…