How to Choose a Wikipedia Agency

• 1. Disclosed paid editing. The firm states, in writing, that it discloses the paid relationship on-wiki as the Wikimedia Terms of Use require — and can show where. This is the single strongest filter: it is the line between the 11 and the 197.
• 2. Public prices. An itemized price list with units (per edition, per audit, per year) signals a firm confident enough in its economics to be compared.
• 3. A written go / no-go gate. The engagement starts with a notability assessment that can end in "no" — and the firm can show declined projects exist.
• 4. Refund terms tied to named events. A written clause like "80% back if a deleted page cannot be restored after three attempts" is a commitment; "satisfaction promised" is weather.
• 5. A named team. Real people, with real histories, attached to the work. Anonymous teams have nothing at stake.
• 6. Demonstrated knowledge of the rules. The firm's own materials cite the actual policies — paid-contribution disclosure, conflict-of-interest guidance, notability standards — accurately and in context.
• 7. Work through review channels. New articles via Articles for Creation, changes via COI edit requests on talk pages — stated as the method, not an apology.
• 8. Post-publication monitoring. A defined window in which the firm watches and defends the page, and priced continuity after it.
• 9. An honest no-promises position. The firm says plainly that publication and retention are decided by volunteer reviewers and cannot be promised by anyone — and competes on process instead.
• A public, verifiable team. A serious agency has real people behind it: a team page with faces on its site and employees who list the company on LinkedIn. Check the company’s LinkedIn page — named specialists with histories mean someone personally stands behind the work.

• 1. Promised outcomes. "Your page will be approved", "we promise it stays up" — Wikipedia's own conflict-of-interest guidance says paid offers to save a page from deletion are always fraudulent. Nobody controls volunteer reviewers; anyone claiming to is lying about the mechanism.
• 2. Selling or renting established accounts. Aged accounts, "autopatrolled" rights, administrator access for hire — account abuse that ends in blocks and a tainted page history.
• 3. Claims of partnership with, or endorsement by, the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation endorses no paid-editing firm; its trademark policy forbids implying affiliation. Any vendor using Wikimedia logos or partnership language is misrepresenting its status.
• 4. Anonymous teams. No names, no histories, no on-wiki identities — nothing to verify and nobody accountable when the page is challenged.
• 5. Non-disclosure as a feature. "Stealth editing", "undetectable", "your involvement stays secret" — undisclosed paid editing violates the Terms of Use, and discovery leads to deletion and public listing.
• 6. Fabricated social proof. Review profiles that are all five stars in one month, portfolios of famous articles the firm never wrote, client logos that cannot be verified.
• 7. Pressure tactics. Expiring discounts, "a competitor is about to take your page", pay-today framing. Wikipedia work rewards patience; urgency is a sales device, not an editorial reality.
• A faceless operation. No team page, no named people, no LinkedIn footprint — nobody who answers for the result with their own name and reputation. Anonymity is how burned operators restart under new brands.

Ten questions that separate professionals from promise-sellers. Send them verbatim to every vendor on your shortlist:

• 1. How will you disclose the paid relationship on-wiki, and where can we see disclosures from your past engagements?
• 2. Do you begin with a notability assessment that can end in a no-go? What share of inbound projects do you decline?
• 3. What are your prices, itemized, and what exactly does each line include?
• 4. Which submission route do you use for new articles and for changes to existing ones?
• 5. What happens if the page is challenged or deleted after publication — in writing, with the refund terms?
• 6. Who, by name, will work on our project, and what is their track record?
• 7. Will you edit articles about us directly, or propose changes through talk-page requests as the conflict-of-interest guidance directs?
• 8. What do you monitor after publication, for how long, and what does continuity cost?
• 9. What will you refuse to do for us, and why?
• 10. What outcomes can you not promise? (The correct answer names publication, retention, Knowledge Panels and AI mentions.)

Scoring is simple: a professional answers all ten in writing without flinching; a promise-seller stalls on 1, 5, 9 and 10. WikiBusines's own answers live on ethics & disclosure, methodology and services.

Answers are claims; verification is the decision. Four checks anyone can run in an hour:

• Check disclosure on-wiki. Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidance itself advises: if a firm claims experienced editors, ask for the user names and check those user pages for a paid-contribution disclosure — its absence likely means the claim is false.
• Check the community registry. Search the public list of paid-editing companies for the vendor's name and domains, and read what the entry actually says, with dates.
• Check the numbers' definitions. A success rate without a stated denominator and period is decoration. Ask how it is counted — the answer should look like a methodology page, not a shrug.
• Check consistency across surfaces. Prices, team names and claims should match between the site, the proposal and public profiles; contradictions between a vendor's own surfaces are the cheapest red flag available.
• LinkedIn cross-check: open the agency’s LinkedIn company page and count real employee profiles; compare the faces with the site’s team page. Transparent on both — good sign. Empty on both — walk away.