What makes a good source for Wikipedia?

Sourcing is crucial for Wikipedia. It forms the backbone of the site’s content. Sourcing can also be the trickiest aspect for anyone looking to update their organization’s Wikipedia article.

All content within any article should be able to be verified by a “reliable source”. Ideally, every piece of information should have a citation that provides the details of the source. 

The best sources for Wikipedia are secondary and tertiary sources. 

Wikipedia articles should not include any original information—no new theories or interpretations—and should not seek to summarize primary sources. Editors don’t want to insert bias by trying to determine for themselves what information is important in a summary. Instead, they “outsource” their editorial judgment to the authors of secondary sources such as journalists and peer-reviewed researchers. 

For organizations, the rules around sourcing are much stricter. As the site’s volunteer community of editors are cautious about potential bias or including promotional details, they want to see very high-quality sources from major publications. 

Good sources for organizations are: 

✅ Journalistic coverage written by a staff writer in a major, well-known publication. 

✅ Large regional publications or national publications are best. (Unfortunately, local coverage is taken less seriously by Wikipedia’s community.)

The sources for organizations to avoid are anything that might have been written by or heavily influenced by the organization. 

❌ No press releases. 

❌ No contributor pieces or op-eds. 

❌ No company websites. At most, you may be able to use your company website to validate details like headcount.  

Like most things related to Wikipedia, sourcing has a lot of gray areas. Lumino is always happy to discuss specific cases with you. Email shout@luminodigital.com for a free consultation.