WikiPartner:Editorial policy

WikiPartner is an independent collaborative encyclopedia designed to publish accurate, verifiable, neutral, and useful information about people, companies, organizations, places, technologies, products, events, and other subjects.

This editorial policy explains the principles that guide article creation, editing, review, publication, corrections, and other editorial decisions on WikiPartner.

All contributors, editors, and reviewers are expected to follow this policy together with the inclusion guidelines and source guidelines.

Editorial principles

WikiPartner's editorial decisions should be guided by the following principles:

• Accuracy
• Verifiability
• Neutrality
• Editorial independence
• Transparency
• Fair representation
• Appropriate sourcing
• Clear distinction between editorial and promotional material
• Correction of meaningful errors

No individual, company, organization, advertiser, sponsor, contributor, or external partner should be able to purchase or demand a particular editorial conclusion.

Accuracy

Articles should aim to accurately represent the best available information.

Editors should:

• Verify important factual claims
• Use appropriate sources
• Avoid unsupported assumptions
• Correct known factual errors
• Distinguish confirmed facts from allegations, estimates, opinions, and disputed claims
• Avoid presenting outdated information as current

When reliable sources disagree, articles should represent the disagreement fairly where it is relevant.

Verifiability

Important information should be supported by sources that allow editors and readers to verify the claim.

A statement should not be included simply because an editor believes it to be true.

The strength of the source should be appropriate for the significance of the claim.

For detailed sourcing standards, see Source guidelines.

Neutral point of view

WikiPartner articles should describe subjects rather than promote or attack them.

Editors should avoid:

• Advertising language
• Public-relations language
• Unnecessary praise
• Unnecessary criticism
• Personal opinions
• Advocacy presented as fact
• Unsupported rankings or superlatives
• Language intended mainly to improve or damage a subject's reputation

Terms such as leading, best, world-class, revolutionary, renowned, or similar promotional descriptions should generally be avoided unless they are directly relevant, properly attributed, and supported by reliable sources.

Neutrality does not require removing legitimate criticism or controversy. Well-sourced and relevant information may be included even when it is unfavorable to the subject.

Fair representation

Articles should represent significant viewpoints in proportion to the quality and amount of reliable published information available.

Minority or disputed viewpoints should not be presented as universally accepted facts.

Likewise, an article should not give excessive weight to a minor controversy simply because substantial material about it can be found online.

The importance given to a topic within an article should reflect its actual relevance to understanding the subject.

Inclusion decisions

A subject is not automatically entitled to a WikiPartner article.

Editors and reviewers should evaluate proposed subjects using the inclusion guidelines.

Relevant considerations may include:

• Reliable independent coverage
• Public relevance
• Verifiability
• Availability of enough information for a meaningful article
• Historical, professional, cultural, academic, business, technological, geographic, or social significance
• Whether a neutral standalone article can reasonably be written

Having a website, social media presence, registered company, job title, press release, or article on another encyclopedia does not automatically guarantee inclusion.

Likewise, absence from another encyclopedia does not automatically disqualify a subject.

WikiPartner makes its own editorial decisions.

Editorial independence

Editorial decisions should remain separate from commercial considerations.

Payment, sponsorship, advertising, public-relations activity, business relationships, partnerships, or other financial arrangements must not determine:

• Whether a subject qualifies for an article
• Whether criticism is removed
• Whether positive claims are added
• How highly a subject is described
• Whether unreliable claims are accepted
• The outcome of a correction or editorial review

Commercial relationships may exist around WikiPartner, but editorial standards continue to apply.

Paid, sponsored, and commissioned activity

A paid or sponsored relationship does not automatically qualify or disqualify a subject from coverage.

If WikiPartner offers services, partnerships, sponsorship opportunities, expedited review, administrative assistance, or other commercial arrangements, such arrangements must not guarantee a favorable article or editorial outcome.

Where disclosure is appropriate, commercial involvement should be handled transparently.

Paid participation must never provide permission to publish inaccurate, promotional, misleading, or inadequately sourced information.

Conflicts of interest

Editors should exercise additional care when editing subjects with which they have a close personal, professional, financial, or organizational relationship.

Examples may include:

• Editing one's own biography
• Editing one's own company
• Editing a client
• Editing an employer
• Editing a close associate
• Editing an organization in which the contributor has a financial interest

A conflict of interest does not automatically make every contribution invalid, but it increases the risk of promotional or incomplete coverage.

Contributors with significant conflicts should rely heavily on verifiable sources and should avoid removing properly sourced criticism or adding unsupported promotional claims.

Where appropriate, disputed changes should be reviewed by another editor.

Article suggestions

Anyone may suggest an article.

Article suggestions enter WikiPartner's editorial review process and may receive statuses such as:

• Pending review
• Under review
• Approved
• Declined

A submitted suggestion does not guarantee that:

• The subject will be approved
• An article will be written
• Submitted wording will be used
• Submitted sources will be accepted
• Every submitted claim will appear in the final article

Reviewers should independently evaluate the subject under WikiPartner's editorial standards.

Article creation

An approved subject should still be researched before publication.

Editors should:

• Verify the identity of the subject
• Check the quality of available sources
• Confirm important facts
• Remove promotional wording
• Avoid copying source material
• Organize information clearly
• Add appropriate references
• Include relevant context
• Use the appropriate infobox where available
• Add suitable internal links and categories

Article creation should result in an encyclopedia article rather than a company profile, press release, biography supplied by the subject, or marketing page.

Sources

Sources should be evaluated according to WikiPartner's source guidelines.

Independent sources are generally preferred when establishing a subject's significance, reputation, impact, or public relevance.

First-party sources may be appropriate for straightforward facts such as:

• Official name
• Website
• Headquarters
• Leadership
• Product information
• Organizational structure
• Official announcements

First-party material should not normally be the only evidence for claims about importance, reputation, success, influence, or superiority.

Press releases and promotional material

Press releases, sponsored articles, advertorials, company announcements, paid profiles, and similar materials should not normally be treated as independent editorial coverage.

They may still be useful for verifying limited factual information.

If multiple websites reproduce the same press release or syndicated content, those copies should not automatically be treated as multiple independent sources.

Artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence may be used as an editing or research aid, but AI-generated output is not itself a reliable source.

Editors remain responsible for verifying information before publication.

AI systems, chatbots, search summaries, and generated answers should not be cited as substitutes for reliable underlying sources.

AI-generated content should be reviewed for:

• Fabricated facts
• Fabricated citations
• Incorrect dates
• Misidentified people or organizations
• Promotional language
• Unsupported conclusions
• Outdated information
• Copyright concerns

The final responsibility for published content rests with human editors and reviewers.

Biographies of living people

Articles about living people require particular care.

Editors should use strong sourcing for potentially harmful, controversial, private, or reputation-sensitive claims.

WikiPartner should not publish:

• Unverified allegations
• Rumors
• Unsupported accusations
• Private personal information without legitimate encyclopedic relevance
• Speculation presented as fact

Serious claims involving criminal conduct, fraud, misconduct, corruption, legal disputes, or similar matters should be supported by strong reliable sources and written with precise attribution.

When reliable sourcing is insufficient, potentially harmful material should generally be omitted.

Companies and organizations

Articles about companies and organizations should not function as advertisements.

Routine marketing claims should be removed or rewritten neutrally.

Company-provided figures, achievements, awards, customer counts, revenue claims, market positions, or similar claims should be attributed and independently verified where appropriate.

Relevant controversies, regulatory actions, major disputes, closures, acquisitions, and other significant developments may be included when supported by reliable sources.

Corrections

WikiPartner should correct meaningful factual errors when credible evidence shows that published information is wrong.

Editors may correct straightforward errors directly.

More substantial disputes may be reported through Corrections and complaints.

A correction request does not guarantee that material will be removed or changed.

The decision should depend on:

• Source quality
• Factual accuracy
• Context
• Relevance
• New evidence
• Whether the disputed wording fairly represents the available sources

Corrections should improve accuracy rather than serve reputation management.

Complaints and disputes

Complaints should be reviewed fairly and without assuming that either the complainant or the existing article is automatically correct.

Reviewers should examine the relevant sources and article history where appropriate.

Possible outcomes may include:

• No change
• Minor correction
• Additional clarification
• Better attribution
• Source replacement
• Removal of unsupported material
• Broader editorial review

Threats, pressure, commercial relationships, or demands for favorable coverage should not replace evidence-based editorial review.

Removal of content

Content may be removed when it is:

• Demonstrably inaccurate
• Unsupported
• Irrelevant
• Promotional
• Duplicative
• Misleading
• Improperly sourced
• Unnecessarily invasive
• In violation of applicable law or WikiPartner policy
• Written with undue weight
• Copyright-infringing

Content should not be removed merely because the subject dislikes accurate, relevant, and properly sourced information.

Article deletion

An article may be considered for deletion when:

• The subject does not meet the inclusion guidelines
• Reliable sourcing is insufficient
• The article cannot reasonably be made neutral and verifiable
• The subject cannot be adequately identified
• The page is primarily advertising or spam
• The page duplicates another article
• The article was created through serious abuse
• Legal or copyright issues require removal

Where an article can reasonably be improved instead of deleted, improvement may be preferred.

Copyright and original writing

Editors should write articles in their own words.

Do not copy substantial passages from:

• News articles
• Websites
• Company biographies
• Press releases
• Books
• Other encyclopedias
• Research papers
• Marketing materials

Short quotations may be used where appropriate and legally permitted, with proper attribution.

See Copyright & Reuse for additional information.

Images and media

Images and other media should only be uploaded when WikiPartner is legally permitted to host and use them.

Uploaders are responsible for providing accurate information about:

• Source
• Author
• Copyright status
• License
• Permission where required

Files without sufficient licensing information may be removed.

Article ownership

No person or organization owns a WikiPartner article about themselves.

Once an article is published, it may be edited, expanded, corrected, reorganized, or otherwise modified according to WikiPartner's editorial standards.

Subjects may suggest corrections or provide sources, but they do not have final editorial control over the article.

Editorial review

Reviewers may examine:

• Sources
• Article wording
• Neutrality
• Inclusion requirements
• Copyright concerns
• Conflicts of interest
• Significant disputed claims
• Article structure
• Infobox information
• Categories
• Internal links

Approval of an article does not prevent future edits or corrections.

Transparency

WikiPartner should make its core editorial policies publicly accessible.

Readers should be able to understand the standards used for:

• Inclusion
• Sources
• Editing
• Article suggestions
• Corrections
• Editorial review

Policy changes may occur as WikiPartner develops. Significant changes should aim to improve accuracy, consistency, transparency, and editorial quality.

Editorial discretion

No written policy can anticipate every editorial situation.

Editors and reviewers may exercise reasonable judgment where the policies do not provide a clear answer.

Such discretion should be consistent with WikiPartner's core principles of:

• Accuracy
• Verifiability
• Neutrality
• Fairness
• Independence
• Transparency

Editorial discretion should not be used as a justification for favoritism, promotion, retaliation, or arbitrary decisions.

Related policies and guidance

• Inclusion guidelines
• Source guidelines
• Suggest an article
• Corrections and complaints
• Copyright & Reuse
• Editing help