User:Lexein/Avoiding promo sources

This is an essay on the Verifiability policy, and the Identifying Reliable Sources and General Notability guidelines.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

In progress

A long-term normal marketing & PR push can trigger news-like articles over a long period of time, which as a group would seem to meet the General Notability Guideline's requirement for independent reliable source coverage over time. When those sources resemble the PR and go no further, and when an article cites only such sources, the article cannot help but be promotional and biased. When done deliberately, by someone who knows better, this is bad-faith gaming of WP:GNG.

This essay is intended to help editors keep articles neutral, factual, and reliable, and to avoid damaging Wikipedia's credibility, by using only truly independent reliable sources over time, against a tide of marketing and PR. There are two ways public relations professionals affect Wikipedia articles.

The first way is by editing, directly or indirectly (via talk). Much WP:COI editing by registered, self-declared marketing or PR representatives can be appropriate and helpful to the encyclopedia if the guideline is respected.^[1]
The second way is doubly indirect, via previously published news-like sources which were placed or influenced by marketing or PR, which are then (unknowingly or not) used as cited sources in a Wikipedia article. This essay focuses on those sources, and their shared characteristics which make them inappropriate for use as the sole sources of citations in Wikipedia articles.

For articles which seem like WP:PROMO, there's a good chance they are. Wikipedia articles which appear to be well-sourced can, in some cases, be the product of two things: an effective long-term public relations and marketing campaign, and an editor who cites the results of that campaign as sources. Such articles may cite too many WP:primary sources such as press releases, which is one problem. They may also cite a large number of sources which appear at first to be genuine, spontaneous, "organic" journalism, when in fact they are the result of normal, and long term public-relations work to increase the profile of a product or business. I want to be very clear: such sources are individually harmless, but when they constitute the totality of sources used in a Wikipedia article, it becomes promo, literally by reference.^[2]

This normal PR work can be done by the business itself, or be done by a PR or marketing agent or agency. Such campaigns can take place over months or years. The result is the appearance of a series of news-like articles, op-ed pieces, and human interest stories, over time. These may seem to help the article satisfy the General Notability guideline, but if these sources share the following characteristics, they should not be cited in an attempt to build notability:

Sources that do not appear to have editorial independence from press materials released by the company,
Sources that republish press releases without substanially modifying the text, and
Sources where the author has a clear conflict of financial interest in writing the article.

If a Wikipedia article uses sources which share several, or all of, the above traits, in my sincere opinion, only one of them should be used - the best of a bad bunch.

So?

The responsibility of a Wikipedia editor does not end after finding a source which appears to be good. The source itself should be vetted for quality. Editors should examine sources for the shared traits listed above.

A published source which only encapsulates a subject's marketing, without analysis, serves only as promo, and should not be cited. If no better sources exist, then the article shouldn't exist in mainspace yet, but should wait in the user's sandbox or subpage.

COI editors like PR professionals and company workers should be especially vigilant, and avoid repetitively citing language from their work product, or sources which say the same thing as their work product, as if it were an independent reliable source, in an attempt to satisfy the GNG. Such sources are, ultimately, primary. Wikipedia articles should be secondarily sourced, in truly independent, reliable sources which don't just spew the party line. Scrupulous avoidance, and cleaning out, of what I'm calling "GNG-stuffing" is a sign of professionalism and acting in good faith.

Notes

^ Although on-policy COI editing can be good, I still sincerely feel that COI article creation should only be done through the WP:AFC process, to guarantee maximum eyes on, even for long term declared COI editors. Once past AfC, life goes on.
^ For an independent Wikipedia editor to use such sources causes simple, addressable problems; for a COI editor to use such sources, knowing or reasonably expecting that those sources were PR-driven, is, in my opinion, acting in bad faith, and makes those problems much worse.

[1] Although on-policy COI editing can be good, I still sincerely feel that COI article creation should only be done through the WP:AFC process, to guarantee maximum eyes on, even for long term declared COI editors. Once past AfC, life goes on.

[2] For an independent Wikipedia editor to use such sources causes simple, addressable problems; for a COI editor to use such sources, knowing or reasonably expecting that those sources were PR-driven, is, in my opinion, acting in bad faith, and makes those problems much worse.

[1]

[2]