A Wikipedia conflict of interest can arise when you contribute about yourself, an employer, a client, or another close relationship. Disclosure makes that connection visible; it does not authorize promotional content or guarantee that a requested change will be accepted.
01
Identify everyone involved in paid work
Wikimedia's terms require disclosure of the employer, client, and relevant affiliation for compensated contributions, subject to applicable project rules. Payment through an intermediary does not make the relationship disappear. Keep a clear record of who pays, whose interests the work concerns, and who will contribute. English Wikipedia's paid-contribution guidance adds operational requirements, including a registered account and relevant public disclosures.
02
Use an independent review route
English Wikipedia strongly discourages direct editing of affected articles by conflicted contributors. A concise talk-page request can identify a factual problem and provide sources for others to assess. For a new article, consult the appropriate draft-review process. Check the rules of each language edition rather than assuming an English template applies everywhere. Follow current restrictions on AI-generated contributions as well.
- Disclose the relationship before participating in the affected discussion.
- Separate the client's preference from a verifiable factual issue.
- Keep sources and requested changes narrow and understandable.
03
Do not confuse confidentiality with permission
If a commercial agreement prevents required disclosure, do not proceed with undisclosed editing. For example, an agency cannot hide the end client behind its own name and call the contribution independent. Avoid alternate accounts, employee voting campaigns, and promises to keep an article favorable. Other editors may retain well-sourced criticism or decline a request despite full disclosure.
Frequently asked questions
Does disclosure make paid advocacy acceptable?
No. Content must still meet the project's standards. Transparency is an obligation, not an exemption from neutrality or sourcing requirements.
Can the subject request a correction?
Yes, through an appropriate disclosed process. Clear evidence of a factual error is more useful than a request to remove information simply because it is negative.
Continue with your next step
Related guides on this topic
Sources and policies
Check the current policy before submitting a request.
You do not have to figure out the next step alone.
Share the URLs and explain your concern. We will review the context and explain which options are worth assessing.
Request a confidential reviewOr call (307) 429-2531Educational information, not legal advice. Outcomes depend on the facts and decisions made by third parties.