The principle travels; the mechanics do not. With only partial exceptions, the right model everywhere is the same one that works in English: suggest changes openly, say who you work for, verify your claims with news sources, and let that language's volunteers decide. But what that engagement looks like, and what can be achieved, may differ significantly across language editions.
For updating existing articles, the method itself varies. Some language versions tolerate openly disclosed corrections made directly, at least for uncontroversial facts. Chinese Wikipedia requires paid editors to submit every change for volunteer review. German Wikipedia adds an identity verification step before a company account can work at all. For new articles, the bar moves even higher: German Wikipedia judges whether a company deserves an article using fixed numerical tests, things like employee count and revenue, that better press coverage cannot override. French Wikipedia requires the news sources proving a company matters to span at least two years, so a company covered heavily but only recently usually fails there while meeting requirements elsewhere. Korean Wikipedia uses a translated version of English Wikipedia's strict corporate standard. The same company, with the same coverage, can be a viable article in one language and a surefire deletion in the next.
Three rules of thumb hold everywhere:
Work in the language, with a fluent writer, because machine-translated requests are easily recognized by native speakers.
Where they exist, use news sources in that language.
Review the actual rules before promising any outcomes.
This is also one area of Wikipedia work where specialist help can be most helpful. You probably don't have time to learn each language's rules—if you can even find them, let alone read them. If your Wikipedia footprint spans more than one language, talk to us.
Last updated September 27, 2026.
