Understanding Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest Guidelines

Imagine this.

You’re the founder of a promising health-tech startup. After years of building prototypes, pitching to investors, and finally bringing your product to market, you’ve just been named in a major healthcare innovation list. Media coverage is starting to trickle in. You’ve raised a respectable Series A. And most exciting of all, you find that someone has mentioned your company on Wikipedia.

But when you check the article, it’s a stub. Just two sentences. Outdated facts. A broken link.

You think: “I’ll just fix it myself.” You log into Wikipedia, make a few edits, clean up the grammar, and add in the new award you just received from a regional industry journal.

By the next day, your edits are gone. Worse, you’re now being warned by another editor about “conflict of interest” editing.

You’re stunned. You were only trying to help. Wasn’t Wikipedia built by volunteers?

Yes and no.

Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world, and with that status comes responsibility. The platform is built on the idea of neutral, verifiable, and independent information. It isn’t a place to promote your business, tweak your bio, or polish your public image.

That’s why Wikipedia has strict Conflict of Interest (COI) guidelines.

A conflict of interest on Wikipedia occurs when someone closely associated with the subject of an article, whether it’s a person, company, product, or political cause, writes or edits that article directly. Even if the edits are factual and well-intentioned, the potential for bias is considered too great.

Wikipedia doesn’t assume you’ll lie. It assumes you care, and that emotional or reputational investment makes it hard to remain neutral.

To make this clearer, let’s meet David. He’s a published author and a respected entrepreneur in the sustainability space. After giving a TEDx talk and being featured in Fast Company, he assumes it’s time he gets a Wikipedia article.

He spends the weekend putting one together, writes his own early bio, details the founding story of his startup, and copies a few quotes from his media kit.

He clicks publish.

Two hours later, the article is flagged for speedy deletion. He’s confused. It was neutral. He added citations. And everything he wrote was true.

But here’s what went wrong: David didn’t just write about himself. He sourced most of the article from his press kit and company website (both considered “primary” sources), and the language he used, though subtle, leaned promotional. Phrases like “industry-leading” or “influential figure” are red flags, even if backed by independent publications.

Even more telling was the presence of information that couldn't be verified anywhere else, like details about early funding rounds that were never publicly disclosed, or internal company milestones that only an insider would know. This kind of exclusive knowledge often signals to Wikipedia editors that the person writing the article is closely tied to the subject, and that’s an even bigger red flag.

Even if the tone feels neutral to you, if you’re too close to the subject, the article may be scrutinized more heavily.

Wikipedia doesn't ban people from writing about themselves or their companies, but it discourages it. Instead, they recommend a more transparent route:

Wikipedia’s strength lies in trust. Millions of people rely on it to find facts, not opinions, not marketing copy, not curated personal stories. That’s why the platform is so protective of its content, especially when there’s a potential conflict of interest (COI) involved.

If an article is written by someone too close to the subject, like a founder, employee, or PR team, it will often attract extra scrutiny. Even if the article meets the basic requirements, it may be flagged with a special tag: {{COI}}.

This tag doesn’t just sit there quietly. It sends a signal to other editors: this article may not be neutral, please fix it. And that’s exactly what happens. You might find that within hours, large portions of the article are removed, rewritten, or challenged, even sections that had solid sources, because they’re seen as possibly biased or overly flattering.

In some cases, the page won’t survive at all. COI-tagged articles are more likely to be nominated for deletion, especially if the sourcing is weak or the subject's notability isn’t firmly established.

That doesn’t mean your company or story doesn’t deserve to be on Wikipedia, it just means it needs to be handled with care, transparency, and experience. That’s where working with knowledgeable, ethical editors (like us) can make all the difference. They know how to structure an article to meet Wikipedia’s standards while respecting the boundaries of neutrality.

Conflict of interest isn’t just about intention, it’s about perception. That’s why it helps to approach Wikipedia with care, context, and yes, often with professional guidance.

Maybe your company has been covered by Forbes, TechCrunch, and Bloomberg, but still had its article deleted because it was written by someone too close to the subject. Maybe you’ve won prestigious awards, but the article was flagged because you used a brand voice or copied from your own site.

Wikipedia requires more than just good press. It requires experience with its rules, its culture, and its community expectations.

That’s why, just like you wouldn’t represent yourself in court or file your own patent, many people choose to leave Wikipedia work to those who know it inside out.