Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines
Understanding Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines is essential for successfully navigating the platform. These rules ensure content remains neutral, accurate, and verifiable while maintaining the collaborative spirit that makes Wikipedia a trusted global resource.
What is Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy?
Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy is one of the site's core content principles. It requires that articles be written without bias, presenting information fairly, proportionately, and based on reliable, independent sources. This means avoiding promotional language, unsupported claims, or one-sided narratives.
Neutrality doesn't mean giving all perspectives equal weight. Instead, it means reflecting the prominence of each viewpoint as documented in credible third-party sources. Well-supported positions should receive more attention than fringe or unsupported ones. The goal is not to take a position on the topic, but to accurately summarize how the topic is covered in the wider world.
For more information, please consult our Policy Guide on how to follow NPOV.
How does Wikipedia define a reliable source?
Reliable sources are publications with editorial oversight, a reputation for accuracy, and independence from the subject being covered. This typically includes professionally edited publications such as major newspapers, books from reputable publishers, and well-established news sites on the Web. Peer-reviewed academic journals are considered the gold standard for reliability, but are often not relevant for company- or brand-related topics.
Reliability depends not just on the outlet, but also on the specific article and how it's used. Even a generally trusted publication may not be appropriate if the content is written by a guest contributor, promotionally inclined, or too brief to support a claim.
Sources that lack editorial control—press releases, company blogs, personal websites, and social media posts—are generally not accepted for supporting facts in Wikipedia articles. These may still be cited for limited uses (like verifying employee headcount), but they cannot establish notability or verify claims that require independent validation.
For more information, please consult our Policy Guide on understanding reliable sources.
Why do independent sources matter more than company materials?
You may know your company's materials are accurate, well-written, and fact-checked. From your perspective, the content may be accurate and important. From Wikipedia's perspective, it still reflects your point of view. The platform isn't only judging whether your version is correct; it's also looking for independent, journalistic coverage that shows the topic has attracted genuine public interest sufficient to report on and read about.
Independent sources like news articles, books, or academic publications carry more weight because they show how the broader world sees your company, not just how you present yourself. This outside validation is what Wikipedia relies on to determine what's worth including and how it should be framed. Without it, even accurate content may be excluded for failing to meet standards of neutrality and notability.
For more information, please consult our Policy Guide on independence of sources.
What is "due and undue weight" in Wikipedia articles?
Wikipedia’s due weight principle aims to ensure that topics and viewpoints are covered in proportion to the attention they’ve received in reliable, independent sources. This doesn’t mean every detail gets equal space—coverage should reflect how much a topic matters in the broader public record.
For example, if a company controversy has been widely reported in major news outlets, it will likely be discussed in the article, even if the company considers it minor. On the other hand, positive company news that hasn’t received much third-party coverage likely won't be accepted in the article.
Undue weight occurs when an article gives excessive attention to fringe ideas, marginal perspectives, or isolated incidents that lack support in reputable sources. Wikipedia aims to present a balanced summary of what's been published. It does not want to be a battleground over ideas, reputations, or grievances.
What counts as original research on Wikipedia?
Original research includes any new ideas, interpretations, data analysis, or conclusions that haven't already been published in reliable, independent sources, even if they’re accurate. Wikipedia has a strict policy against original research to maintain verifiability and neutrality across articles.
This means you can’t add your own expert opinion, unpublished insights, internal data, or firsthand knowledge to a Wikipedia page. You also can't combine facts from multiple sources to draw a new conclusion, even if that conclusion seems obvious. Every claim must be backed by a reliable source that makes the same point explicitly.
Wikipedia's role is to summarize what has already been documented elsewhere—not to break news, advance arguments, or publish new scholarship.
What are weasel words and why should I avoid them?
Weasel words are vague or sweeping phrases like "widely regarded," "it is believed," or "many people are saying" that imply consensus or authority without naming a source. These statements can mislead readers by suggesting there is support for a claim when no specific evidence is provided.
On Wikipedia, weasel words are discouraged because they obscure where information is coming from and make it harder to verify. Instead, claims must be attributed to named sources that can be independently checked. For example, rather than saying "many experts agree", an article should cite a published source and actually name more than one expert or organization making the statement.
Using precise language and citing reliable, third-party sources helps ensure Wikipedia articles remain neutral, transparent, and trustworthy.
What is puffery and how does it affect Wikipedia articles?
Puffery, aka Wikipuffery, refers to promotional language that sounds impressive but lacks objective meaning, words like "innovative," "industry-leading," or "world-class." These terms are common in marketing and PR but don’t belong on Wikipedia unless they're clearly supported by reliable, independent sources.
Even if such descriptions feel accurate, they’re considered subjective and non-neutral without external validation. Wikipedia doesn't allow contributors to make value judgments; instead, it expects articles to cite specific accomplishments, awards, rankings, or third-party recognition that justify any claims of excellence or impact. The focus should always be on what has been documented, not on how the subject prefers to be described.
How does Wikipedia handle biographies of living persons differently from other articles?
Wikipedia applies especially strict standards to articles about living individuals, due to the risk of harm to personal reputations—and livelihoods—from inaccurate or misleading information. Content must be based on high-quality, reliable sources, and anything that is unsourced or poorly sourced, flattering or critical, can be removed immediately.
Gossip, speculation, and sensational claims are not allowed, even if they appear elsewhere online. Editors are expected to exercise extra caution, avoid undue weight on controversies, and ensure that the tone remains neutral and respectful. These rules apply across the board, whether the subject is a public figure or a private individual.