Is it "bad manners" to add a Wikipedia entry about your book?

Can't you forward the info to someone to add it for you? I'll do it if you would like.

underthecity said:

If you're an author, is it okay to add an entry about your book? Has anyone here done that?

Click to expand...

It is absolutely forbidden. Seriously, don't do it; it will just make people mad at you there.


See the Conflict of Interest page.

If you were commenting on a topic and bolstered your argument with a link to one of your own publications, that might be acceptable in certain contexts; starting an entry about your own work is self-promotion and a violation of Wikipedia policy.

Also, many individual books get speedy-deleted for non-notability.

IceCreamEmpress said:

It is absolutely forbidden. Seriously, don't do it; it will just make people mad at you there.

Click to expand...

Really? Wow, who knew. And how would they know?

WendyNYC said:

Really? Wow, who knew.

Click to expand...

It's in the rules.

And how would they know?

Click to expand...

Well, usually when people do it, it's extremely obvious.

But you'd be surprised how much effort some people put into "policing" Wikipedia, especially these days--tracing an IP address, for instance, might indicate that a post is coming from the same location as an author's blog or website.

underthecity said:

Then, who adds book entries?

Click to expand...

A) Readers.

B) Friends of the authors.

C) Paid publicists.


Look at the "History" pages and see how many participants there have been in the postings. For example, the "history" page for Stones from the River shows that 18 or 19 different people have edited the entry.

IceCreamEmpress said:

B) Friends of the authors.

C) Paid publicists.

Click to expand...

No conflict of interest there

Lots of people do this. Most times it happens like this...

The article reads like a press release, as the person says how great they are and how well-written their book is. It doesn't follow any of the Wikipedia guidelines for laying out articles. The person creating it hasn't read any of the notability guidelines, so they don't know if there should be an article about it in the first place.

Other editors arrive and try and fix the article. Author throws hissy fit at the edits. The article gets put up for deletion for lacking notability. Author throws a hissy fit, saying that they're notable. They're asked to 'show not tell' by providing sources. Sources don't appear, article gets deleted, author complains on blogs and forums that Wikipedia is evil.

Don't do this. It makes you look very bad. A better approach is to get someone else to make the article (someone who knows about Wikipedia guidelines). You must make sure the subject is notable, or it will just get deleted.

Wikipedia asks that people with conflicts of interest post on the talk page for articles where they want changes, rather than making the changes directly. This includes adding links to your site. Post the link on the talk page and ask if people will add it. This lets other editors decide if your link is relevant.

Wikipedia is a very public site, so I'd strongly recommend that you follow their rules while you're in their sandbox. You won't be able to delete it later if you behave badly.

Some useful links to get started:
Conflict of Interest Guidelines
Notability Guidelines
Notability Guidelines for Books

Navigating all the guidelines and policies isn't a quick and easy thing. You will make mistakes. That's why it's a good idea to edit unrelated articles for a bit to get the feel of things. This also helps show that you're making good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia, which in turn makes people more willing to work with you and explain your mistakes.

dempsey said:

No conflict of interest there

Click to expand...

Oh, if someone finds out that someone from either of those groups has done that, there's merry hell to pay, don't get me wrong!

It's just a lot easier to spot author self-promotion.

There was someone who posted here about a year ago, maybe once in the promotions forum about her blog and book on "How to promote your book on the Internet" (probably not the exact title but IIRC that was the gist of it. I forget her name, but if that's enough to give her away, well so what). One of her blog entries/suggestions was to look through relevant Wikipedia entries, and add "legitimate content" that also happens to mention one's book as a source. She said she had actually done this. And yes, I "reported" her and pointed out her blog entry saying this.

IceCreamEmpress said:

It's in the rules.



Well, usually when people do it, it's extremely obvious.

But you'd be surprised how much effort some people put into "policing" Wikipedia, especially these days--tracing an IP address, for instance, might indicate that a post is coming from the same location as an author's blog or website.

Click to expand...

I think a substantial portion of the people who make Wikipedia entries and edits don't read past "Be Bold." There is no one single place to find "the rules" in Wikipedia, and when I was looking into "how things are reallly supposed to be done" in recent years, I had a hard time finding stuff, though the "no original content" and "no content about oneself" rules aren't too hard to find IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THEM. And on the way to studying all the procedures and rules, I found such decorative things as User Boxen for my User Page (I saw so many on other user pages, it felt like they were doing interior decorating, and that it was as much a social networking site as a content site). More experienced editors generally go over and fix up "loose canon" articles and edits so most of the time articles make general sense and are halfway balanced.

I'm on a forum with someone who has many warnings and such on his "user page" (which is an IP address, he doesn't even log in!) and has done hundreds of edits on a few controversial subjects. I'm thinking surely all these warnings aren't from those with the opposing view who are "out to get him," though many might be. I've tried to tell him if only he'd follow a few more procedures that Wikipedia asks of people, he'd be in a lot better position to have his edits kept (I was hoping he would do better, because I agree with the content he adds). But no, it's all just full speed ahead. I wonder if he's even READ his User Talk page.

I'll generally trust Wikipedia for technical things where there's no reason for anyone to disagree with the facts, but for other things it can be an edit-fest. It's often worth looking at the history to see what's been added and deleted. I've pretty much given up on the idea of doing even simple editing, much less adding any real content.

I'd ask a friend to do it. That's what I plan to do if I'm published.

Well, really, I wouldn't want to get articles about myself or my works on Wikipedia. I think of Wiki as more of a measuring stick than an advertising tool. If I think that I can even be a successful, let alone good writer, I believe that articles will eventually be added about me through the general will of others. That way, when an article gets made about me, I know that I'm being recognized. After all, if anyone wants to read about my works, someone will most likely write about them.

-giusti

giusti said:

Well, really, I wouldn't want to get articles about myself or my works on Wikipedia. I think of Wiki as more of a measuring stick than an advertising tool. If I think that I can even be a successful, let alone good writer, I believe that articles will eventually be added about me through the general will of others. That way, when an article gets made about me, I know that I'm being recognized. After all, if anyone wants to read about my works, someone will most likely write about them.

-giusti

Click to expand...

I agree, wait until someone is inspired enough to add an article. But if that happens, is it then ok as the author to add edits with information only you know, fix errors, etc?