Ethical. Expert. Experienced.
Wikipedia articles that hold up in review and stay up afterward.
Whether you are hoping for a first article or worried about one that already exists, we can tell you where you stand and help you get where you want to be, inside Wikipedia's rules and with the community on your side.
Companies and people
Maybe you need a first article for a company that has grown into serious press coverage, or a rewrite of one that has gone stale or carries a warning banner. Maybe an article has been nominated for deletion, or a subject draws steady attention and needs someone watching it. Whatever brought you here, it begins the same way: with a notability analysis, free and up front, and a written verdict you can act on.
For companies and peopleInstitutions and mission-driven organizations
We recruit, onboard, and coach Wikipedians in Residence to measurable results, turn curious staff into confident editors, and build the tools that repair citations and flag unreliable sources across millions of articles. Our clients have included Harvard, the Smithsonian, Annual Reviews, the Internet Archive, and the Linux Foundation.
For institutions
Led by the founder of The Wikipedia Library
Jake Orlowitz has edited Wikipedia for nineteen years, serves as an English Wikipedia administrator, and built The Wikipedia Library at the Wikimedia Foundation, the program that gives editors free access to 100,000 journals. He has placed Wikipedians in Residence at the Smithsonian and Annual Reviews, advised Harvard, started the Internet Archive's dead-link partnership, and been featured with Jimmy Wales on NPR. His identity and editing record are public, which matters more than it sounds: you can check who is guiding you, and so can anyone else.
Most people who write to me are a little unsure whether they should be asking at all. They have read that Wikipedia frowns on companies and public figures, and they are half expecting to be scolded. Nobody gets scolded here. You will get a straight answer about where you stand, in plain language, and if the answer is not yet, you will leave knowing what would change it. I have spent nineteen years inside this community, and the thing I like most about the work is watching someone stop dreading Wikipedia and start understanding it.
Jake Orlowitz, founder
We care about ethics. We get results.
The audit comes first
Before anything else, we read what has been written about you and tell you, in writing and at no charge, where you stand. That comes before any fee is discussed. When the honest answer is not yet, we say so, along with what would need to change.
Named, verifiable standing
Our founder's identity, editing history, and standing in the Wikipedia community are public and checkable, and that is how it should be. You disclose your own affiliation on Wikipedia, in your own name, and the guidance behind every step comes from a two-decade record you can verify.
Drafted with you, posted by you
We do the research, the strategy, the analysis, and the drafting with you, revising until you are comfortable with every line. Then you submit the draft, or post the suggested change on the article's Talk page, under your own openly disclosed account, and volunteer editors decide what goes into the article. Neither of us edits it directly, ever, and nothing goes up that you have not read and approved.
We stay through the first year
Community review runs on Wikipedia's own clock, and the work is not finished when something is submitted. We stay, with guidance on every reviewer question, replies to challenges worked out with you and grounded in policy, and twelve months of monitoring after publication for reverts, warning tags, and deletion nominations.
By the numbers
The most striking thing about Jake is his ability to build a strategic vision and light a flame to see it made real. Jake has inspired faith at the highest levels, and has rewarded that faith by delivering tangible, impressive results. I trust his vision; I trust his drive; I trust his ability to execute. When Jake tells me something is a good idea, I listen.
Maggie Dennis, Wikimedia Foundation
Organizations WikiBlueprint has worked with
- HarvardResearch institute article rewrite
- SmithsonianWikipedian in Residence, biodiversity
- Internet ArchiveRepair of millions of dead citation links
- Annual ReviewsTwo Wikipedians in Residence
- Linux FoundationGroup rewrite of a key computing article
- MITWikipedia engagement
- CochraneWikipedian in Residence, medicine
- Pérez Art Museum MiamiWikipedian in Residence, contemporary art
- Hacks/HackersReliable-source monitoring system
- Anti-Defamation LeagueEditor training to counter extremism
- Wiki Project Med FoundationFundraising strategy
- Whose Knowledge?Podcast series for marginalized voices
- OA.WorksRebrand, redesign, and product strategy
- Equis ResearchWikipedian in Residence, U.S. politics
- Milton Public LibraryTraining a new Wikipedian in Residence
- Bakehouse Art ComplexTraining series and article development
- Quill.orgWikipedia engagement
- ValisureCompany article
The Guide to Successful Wikipedia Engagement
A handbook for corporate professionals. Seventy-five pages on how companies work with the volunteer editing community: which requests pass and which fail, how to handle criticism and sensitive topics, and what to do when an article is challenged.
The Successful Wikipedian in Residence
Selection, execution, mentorship, and impact. The playbook we use with our own institutional clients, from the first internal conversation to year two and beyond.
Tell us the name. We will tell you where things stand, kindly and clearly.
Send the name of the company, person, or institution and we reply with a short set of questions, then a notability analysis or a scoping call. The analysis is free, nothing needs preparing on your side, and you will know what Wikipedia's rules support before you commit to anything.