Wikipedia PR Puffery

Encyclopaedic writing and public relations (PR) copywriting are at opposite ends of the content writing continuum. The encyclopaedic voice maintains a neutral point of view. Conversely, writing in a promotional tone implies the hand of PR. However, like any form of written communication, knowing your audience's expectations unlocks its stylistic proficiency.?

Wikipedia's readers are;?

1. Other editors, some more experienced and others less.?
2. The public. While the public might comprise prospective customers or investors, bloggers, journalists and tweeters also occupy this forum.?

While the public's expectations of Wikipedia's content vary according to the types of articles that they read, fellow Wikipedia editors have clear expectations. This blog explains how Wikipedia's web-savvy readers and editors spot public relations boilerplate.?

Puffery

PR writing is synonymous with puffery. By puffery, Wikipedians refer to an editor's ambiguous or promotional lexical choices. Puffery is loaded language that editors should avoid. Wikipedians distinguish between two kinds of puffery: peacock words and weasel words. Peacock words illuminate while weasel words obfuscate.

Peacock words illuminate?

PR editors use superlatives to make subjective proclamations about a subject's importance. Examples of peacock words indicative of PR editing include 'world-class' or 'award-winning'.?

Weasel words obfuscate

Weasel words give the impression that the writer has posited something meaningful whilst obscuring its origins. Phrases like 'research has shown' or 'is widely regarded' dominate the weasel wordsmith's rhyme book.??

For example, a copywriter writing about organic rat milk might say;?

"Packed with B vitamins and omega threes, our rat milk is proven to be effective against hangovers."?

Vagueness has no place in encyclopaedic writing. The writer hasn't stated which B vitamins or omega threes consumers can expect to find. Crucially, they've weaselled out of stating whether they got their milk from a cute, cuddly capybara or a pestilent rat.?

Cherry-picked sources

If puffery is Bonnie, then cherry-picked sources are Clyde. A PR editor will select reheated press releases and chaperoned interviews. Consequently, their encyclopaedic writings read like a brochure, giving Wikipedia's readers minimal information. Instead, try diversifying your page's source pool for something unique.?

Sections

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It's also a subculture. However, it's not a catalogue or a Crunchbase. Consequently, Wikipedia has a list detailing its different mislabels. Therefore, an article's structure enables Wikipedians to identify PR editing. One example is an article with excessive sectioning providing intricate details about business operations. Here are a couple more examples.

Wikipedia is not a trophy shelf.

A notable living subject may wish to include a table or a list of every award and gold sticker they have ever received. While the right kind of award enhances your brand's page and reputation, the wrong award will inspire other Wikipedia editors to tag your page for promotional activity. To avoid ugly maintenance tags, use the following decision tree;?

Synthesised narrative?

PR editors often construct history sections using the unmet need narrative. The newbie paid editor will invent an existential crisis that only their product will solve.?

Although the budding encyclopaedist might use reliable sources, they will combine those sources to synthesise an original posit that supports their unmet need narrative. Naturally, synthesising new conclusions violates Wikipedia's no original research policy.?

Additionally, the PR editor will accompany this with a "brochure-like recitation" of said product or service. We can identify this through the PR editor's title choices. Headings such as? "Features" or "Uses". These title sections violate Wikipedia's policy WP:NOTCATALOG.

Style and format

Wikipedia calls its house style the Manual of Style (MoS). Memorising Wikipedia's entire style sheet is not a prerequisite for volunteers. Similarly, neglecting the manual of style in good faith won't get you blocked. However, neglecting the MoS can indicate PR activity.

Newbie paid editors often deviate from the MoS to puff their client's entries. Here are some of the most common stylistic issues that un-stealthy paid editors make.?

Inappropriate use of capitalisation.?

Capitalising improper nouns is akin to putting on a clown suit and telling every volunteer editor that you're a paid editor. Not only is inappropriate capitalisation indicative of paid editing, but it also shows contempt for the English language.?

Like most respectable mediums, Wikipedia subheadings use the sentence case, not the title case. Yet, when our clients send us encyclopaedic content drafted in-house, they always write their subheadings in the title case.?

Excessive or improper quotations?

Long-form copy and press releases are naturally quotation heavy mediums. Quotes give readers valuable insights into your business' style. However, Wikipedians use quotes to express things which normal encyclopaedic prose cannot.?

The manual of style also says that if you can paraphrase a quote, you should. But more often than not, the PR editor will overestimate the relevant encyclopaedic content of an interview and quote it in its entirety in an article.

Copyright violations?

Command + C, Command + V

Copying and pasting from sources is a) stealing and b) characteristic of PR editing. Public relations professionals also try to release their copyrighted images into the public domain. Or upload copyrighted images without checking their license. Intellectual property theft can result in speedy deletion. So, please check your image licenses and use a plagiarism checker to avoid committing a felony.?

A picture is worth a thousand words

In the PR world, image is everything. It is a form of advertisement. For Wikipedia, an image is there to facilitate encyclopaedic entries by supplementing the reader's knowledge. Yes, including images improves the encyclopaedia. But there are licensing restrictions. Plus, editors must explain how inserting an image fulfils the illustrative purpose of including images. For more information, see WikiNative's image guide.

Final thoughts

Undeniably PR writing has its place. But, PR writing is not encyclopaedic writing. Hopefully, it will educate/warn PR persons who attempt to put PR content on Wikipedia that the best person for the job is a paid Wikipedian editor.?

If you found this interesting and wish to read more, please see my blog posts on Wikipedia's dos and don'ts.