Our client's Wikipedia page was rife with the following problems:
Sometimes Wikipedia editors go bad. On top of the above-named issues, the editors that had been controlling the page were extremely experienced -- in some cases, even Master Level Wikipedia editors. This made the challenge that much harder.
Edits Over Time
Year Old Page
Month Project Duration
"Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source."
- Source: Wikipedia
In many instances, previous editors had quoted hearsay and opinion rather than fact from a reputable source when they cherry-picked what information to base the page upon. Since most people don't research the source of Wikipedia edits thoroughly, it was not noticed.
Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view. Aggressors had chosen only the worst and most damaging content to post. A good Wikipedia article presents both sides of an argument in a neutral way for the reader to interpret. This hadn't been the case for our client's page.
In a perfect world, Wikipedia editors provide references for every salient statement. In the case of our client's, page statements had been doubled up in a sentence with a reference pertaining to only one part of the statement. For example, the statement "Dogs have four legs and that makes them bad" is only partially true. A statement to a page supporting the statement that dogs have four legs would be used, while the second part of the statement, that dogs are bad, would not be included in the reference.
Detractors that had manipulated our client's Wikipedia page had purposefully taken statements out of context to support their agenda.
Our client's Wikipedia page featured out of date information, and when new up-to-date information had been provided to replace it, activist Wikipedia editors had reversed the edits because the new information was positive.
Below are the steps we took to repair our client's Wikipedia page.
Our first step was to carefully research the facts in order to identify what was true and what wasn't. We identified falsehoods and misrepresentations in the referenced material. We then identified the most accurate content to support a neutral point of view.
The Wikipedia page had been defaced by multiple editors over many years. Entire sections of the page appeared to have been developed solely to attack the company.
We then created a draft to reflect what a better Wikipedia article would look like. The draft was not advertorial in nature, nor was it entirely positive. Doing so would have caused the changes to be reversed. But the draft was far more balanced, and therefore more positive, than the existing page.
In order for a statement on a Wikipedia page to be valid, it must have a trustworthy third-party reference. Our client's online profile had holes in reference-able content. While the content existed on their main website, it could not be used because Wikipedia rules state that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. "
This meant that reliable third-party sources had to be created. We performed publisher outreach in order to identify the best publications on which to have content placed. We then began the process to get content creators to include our target facts in their publications. This would later lead to Wikipedia material that could be legitimately referenced.
We don't take our own word for it. We ask highly experienced Wikipedia editors to check our work before publication and edit the draft based on their recommendations. By including this step in our process, Reputation X has a much higher probability of publishing changes that stick.
At this point, we began testing our changes to see how the existing editors would react. We asked editors we have relationships with to make small changes to certain areas of the page to see if they'd be reversed. This also informed us as to how active the existing editors were. Small changes were not reversed, nor should they have been as they improved the quality of the Wikipedia article.
The page was a mess. Our first step was to change the non-neutral section headings to a neutral point of view. At the same time, we moved information into their correct sections and removed duplication. We noted our changes clearly so other editors could see how the page had changed and why. We didn't delete anything unless it was duplicative. Then, we waited to see what would happen.
The next step was to update neutrality problems within the body of the article. In most cases, this did not change the character count significantly and was done very slowly. Most of the edits were not challenged.
By now the third-party supporting references we'd begun months before were being published in reputable publications. Since we needed referenceable third-party publications to reference this took time. Once we could reference balancing content, we began to make these edits as well. Because the statements were well-referenced and adhered to Wikipedia guidelines, the vast majority of them stuck.
The entire process took nine months. During and after the edits, we monitored the page for changes and defended our changes when necessary.
90% of the changes we made continue to exist to this day. The page isn't a gleaming advertisement as to the perfection of our client - it isn't meant to be. But it's far more balanced. The negative information that was true remains but is much further down the page and far less visible. In addition, negative information that Google had been pulling from the Wikipedia page and placing it in our client's Knowledge Panel was replaced by positive content. The search results for their brand are no longer haunted by the past.