In brief
- Paid and connected editors are strongly discouraged from editing an affected article directly, so updates are proposed on the talk page instead.
- An edit request has to say exactly what should change and cite a reliable source for it.
- Wikipedia says a request can take anywhere from a day to several months to be answered.
- A conflict of interest request with no response after six months is treated as declined.
- Small, uncontroversial fixes such as spelling and broken links are among the few edits a connected editor may make directly.
- A single sourced correction is often something you can request yourself.
What does the updates and editing service cover?
It covers any change to an article that already exists, where the change is supported by a published source. Most requests fall into a few familiar groups.
- Roles and appointments. A new chief executive, a board seat, a move to a different firm.
- Corporate changes. Acquisitions, mergers, disposals, a change of name or headquarters.
- Recognition. Honours, prizes and fellowships reported by independent sources.
- Deaths. Recording a death, with a reliable source, and adjusting the article's tense.
- Stale or wrong facts. Outdated figures, an incorrect date, a misattributed quotation, a source that no longer supports what it is cited for.
It does not cover rewriting an article to read better for its subject. Where the problem is a hostile edit or a disagreement with another editor, that is handled under disputes and edit requests.
Why does Wikipedia ask for edit requests instead of direct edits?
Because Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline asks for it. Editors with a conflict of interest, and paid editors in particular, are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. Instead they post a proposed change on the article's talk page, marked with the {{edit COI}} template, which adds it to a queue that uninvolved volunteers work through.
The guideline lists a handful of edits a connected editor may make directly because they are unambiguously uncontroversial:
- removing spam and unambiguous vandalism;
- removing unambiguous violations of the policy on biographies of living persons;
- fixing spelling, grammar and markup errors;
- repairing broken links.
Anything beyond those, including a new appointment or an updated figure, goes through a request. The edit request page itself says connected editors should generally use one even where they can technically edit the page.
What makes an update acceptable to the reviewing editor?
A specific change backed by a reliable source that directly supports it. Wikipedia's verifiability policy puts the burden of proof on the editor who adds material, and requires an inline citation for anything challenged or likely to be challenged.
| Update | What usually supports it |
|---|---|
| New appointment | Independent reporting of the appointment. The organisation's own announcement can support a plain, uncontroversial fact about itself. |
| Acquisition or merger | Independent business press coverage of the deal. |
| Award or honour | Coverage by an independent source, or the awarding body's published list. An award nobody independent has noticed is unlikely to be given space. |
| Death | A reliable published source confirming it. The policy on biographies of living persons continues to apply for a period after death, up to two years at the outside. |
| Correcting an error | A source showing the correct fact, and a note on why the cited source is wrong or does not say what the article claims. |
A self-published source, such as a company website, may be used about its publisher only under conditions: the material cannot be self-serving or an exceptional claim, and the article must not rely mainly on such sources. The neutrality policy also applies. An update should take up space in proportion to the coverage it has received, so a minor award earns a line, not a paragraph.
How do we prepare and post an edit request?
- Read the article and its talk page. Earlier discussions, declined requests and any notices about connected contributors shape how the request should be framed.
- Collect the sources. We find the best independent source for each change, not the first one.
- Write the change exactly. Wikipedia asks for a detailed, specific description in the form "change X to Y", "insert X after Y" or "remove X", with the proposed wording and its citation.
- Post and wait. We do not post reminders, which the edit request page asks people not to do.
- Answer questions. If a reviewer asks for more information, we reply promptly. The guidance is to file a new request if a reply asking for more information gets no further response within a day or two.
For a change likely to be contested, the edit request page suggests proposing it on the talk page first and waiting 48 hours for comment before making the formal request. We do that where the change touches anything disputed.
What happens if a reviewer declines the request?
We read the reason and decide whether a better request is possible. A decline because the source was weak can often be answered with a stronger one. A decline because the change gave undue weight to something minor usually means the change should be smaller.
What we do not do is post the same request again with a different heading. If we think the reviewer has misread policy, the next steps are the ordinary ones for any content disagreement: discussion on the talk page, then outside input such as a third opinion or a request for comment. Our guide to edit requests covers the mechanics in more detail.
The edit request page warns that conflict of interest requests can take a long time, and that a request with no response even after six months should be treated as declined. The queue is worked by volunteers, and a well-formed request is the only thing that reliably shortens the wait.
What will we not do?
- Remove well-sourced material because it is unwelcome, or propose wording that tilts the article.
- Propose a change we cannot source, or cite a source for more than it actually says.
- Ask other editors, colleagues or friends to make the change for us.
- Promise that a request will be accepted, or by when.
Can you request updates without help?
Often, yes. A single factual correction with a clear source is exactly what the edit request process was built for. Create an account, say on your user page that you are the subject or work for them, and post a short request on the article's talk page. You do not need us for that.
The case for help is stronger when the changes are several and interrelated, when the article already carries a conflict of interest notice, or when an earlier connected account edited the article directly and was reverted. In those situations a reviewer reads the new request in the light of what came before. A request that mixes facts with promotional phrasing, or arrives as one long rewrite, tends to be declined as a whole, and the decline stays on the talk page for the next reviewer to see.
How do you start?
Tell us what has changed or what is wrong, with any sources you have, through the contact form, and we will respond by the end of the next working day. If the article has a troubled history, a free page health check, usually within two working days, will show whether there is more to fix than the facts. For ongoing coverage of changes as they happen, see page monitoring.