A useful Wikipedia correction request identifies the exact problem, proposes a proportionate factual change, and supplies reliable published evidence. If you represent the subject or have another conflict, disclose that relationship and use the applicable request process.
01
Define the correction narrowly
Save the article version and identify the sentence or field at issue. “Make the article more positive” is not a factual request. “The article gives 2018 as the opening year, while these published records give 2019” is a testable issue. Negative information supported by appropriate sources is different from an incorrect date, mistaken identity, or unsupported claim.
02
Match evidence to each proposed change
Read the sources themselves and explain which claim each supports. Prefer relevant, reliable material rather than a large bundle of promotional links. A company's own page may help verify limited basic facts, but it does not automatically establish independent significance or justify removing critical coverage. Neutrality requires attention to the overall record, not simply balancing criticism with favorable adjectives.
- Include the article link and exact current wording.
- Explain the factual issue and identify supporting passages.
- Declare relevant employment, client, or paid relationships.
03
Request review without pressuring editors
On English Wikipedia, conflicted contributors are strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles and can propose changes on the talk page. Paid contributions require disclosure. Read the current edition-specific procedure and respond concisely to questions. Do not repeatedly repost a declined request or hide prior discussion. Check current restrictions on AI-generated Wikipedia content before preparing anything for submission.
Frequently asked questions
Can a private document prove the change?
Wikipedia relies on verifiable published sources. A private document may explain your concern but is not automatically suitable as a citation accessible to readers.
What if the request is refused?
Read the stated reason. Improve the evidence or narrow the proposal where justified, and use appropriate discussion routes rather than treating refusal as a reason to conceal your affiliation.
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.