At minimum, it should state that Wikipedia work is part of the engagement and that all of it will follow Wikipedia's terms of use, including the requirement to publicly disclose who is working for whom. Most agency agreements don't mention Wikipedia at all. So when a junior staffer makes a well-meant edit, it becomes a problem for both companies, and there is no contract language to point to.
Three clauses cover most of what matters. A compliance clause: any Wikipedia activity on the client's behalf follows Wikipedia's paid-editing disclosure rules, without exception. A clause assigning responsibility: which side maintains the disclosed account, who approves suggested changes before they are submitted, and who keeps the record of what was requested and when. And a clause ruling out shortcuts: no undisclosed editing of the client's articles by anyone, including subcontractors, not even once.
If your agency brings in a Wikipedia specialist, the same requirements should be written into that arrangement too. The point of the contract isn't that anyone plans to break the rules. It's that eighteen months from now, nobody has to reconstruct from memory who was responsible for what.
Last updated August 30, 2026.
