Wikipedia Publisher

---

name: wikipedia-publisher description: Draft, review, de-risk, and publish Wikipedia or Wikidata content with a bias toward policy-safe workflow. Use when creating or editing encyclopedia articles, sandbox drafts, Wikidata items, citations, notability/source assessments, conflict-of-interest reviews, or MediaWiki wikitext. Especially useful for company, founder, product, or client subjects where promotional tone, weak sourcing, or direct-to-mainspace publishing would be risky.

---

Wikipedia Publisher

Use a conservative workflow. Prefer publishable drafts over impressive drafts.

Default workflow

1. Collect evidence first - Gather independent secondary coverage before writing. - Separate independent sources from primary/company sources. - Do not treat the subject's own site as proof of notability. - Run scripts/citation_fetch_enricher.py first when URLs are bare, weak, or missing metadata. - Run scripts/source_hygiene.py and scripts/notability_score.py early.

2. Decide the safest target - Prefer User: sandbox or Draft: namespace for new articles. - Use mainspace only when the article is already established or the user explicitly wants that path and the sourcing is strong. - For conflict-of-interest situations, prefer sandbox + disclosure-minded language.

3. Write plain, non-promotional prose - State what the subject is, why it received coverage, and what reliable sources say. - Attribute claims when needed: "According to X..." or "Coverage in Y described..." - Avoid mission-language, puffery, rankings, and unverified superlatives. - If a paragraph smells like PR, run scripts/coi_rewrite.py and then edit manually.

4. Run a risk pass before publishing - Check tone with scripts/coi_tone_lint.py. - Check citation/source mix with scripts/source_hygiene.py. - Check likely rejection risk with scripts/deletion_risk_check.py. - Use scripts/citation_normalizer.py to clean weak references. - Remove unsupported claims, crowded lists, and anything sourced only to the subject. - Make sure the lead can stand on independent sources alone.

5. Publish conservatively - Save to sandbox/draft first unless there is a good reason not to. - Use scripts/sandbox_publish.py --dry-run before live save. - Use a factual edit summary. - Verify the live page after save.

Writing rules

Prefer independent news/features/books over press releases, directories, or the company site.

Keep claims proportional to source strength.

Use primary sources for routine facts only: founding date, location, official name, contact details, basic product list.

Avoid these unless clearly and independently sourced:

- "leading", "world-class", "premier", "innovative", "trusted" - "official" except when it is structurally true and relevant - unsourced rankings, market leadership, customer counts, geographic scale, or awards

Do not pad new articles with trivia or exhaustive project catalogs.

When in doubt, shorten.

Article shape for company/org drafts

Use this default structure unless the sourcing suggests otherwise:

Lead

History

Operations or Products/Services

Reception / Coverage / Major projects (only if independently notable)

See also

Skip sections that cannot be supported cleanly.

Sandbox-first publishing pattern

When the user wants a new page:

1. Draft locally in .wiki or .md. 2. Convert to clean MediaWiki markup if needed. 3. Save to User:/ or Draft:. 4. Fetch the saved page and inspect the rendered result. 5. Only then discuss moving toward mainspace.

Wikidata pattern

For Wikidata work:

confirm an item does not already exist

collect minimally sufficient identifiers and statements

prefer low-controversy statements first: instance of, country, official website, inception, founders

cite every claim you can

avoid copying marketing copy into descriptions or aliases

use scripts/wikidata_helper.py for a clean starter bundle

Red flags that should slow you down

Read references/red-flags.md when any of these appear:

only primary or affiliated sources

article reads like PR

many claims use the same weak source repeatedly

the user wants direct mainspace publication for their own company/client

notability seems to rest on routine business coverage or local mentions

Helpful resources

scripts/source_hygiene.py — classify citations as independent, primary, press-wire, directory, or review-needed

scripts/notability_score.py — rough article-viability scoring from the citation mix

scripts/coi_tone_lint.py — lightweight tone/source risk checker for drafts

scripts/deletion_risk_check.py — heuristic rejection/deletion-risk checker

scripts/citation_fetch_enricher.py — fetch live metadata from URLs and suggest richer cite templates

scripts/citation_normalizer.py — suggest cleaner cite templates and missing metadata

scripts/coi_rewrite.py — rewrite PR-ish text into more neutral attributed prose

scripts/sandbox_publish.py — sandbox/draft publishing helper for MediaWiki API

scripts/wikidata_helper.py — starter statement generator for Wikidata items

references/red-flags.md — quick safety checklist for companies, people, and organizations

references/workflow.md — recommended script order and interpretation

references/citation-guidelines.md — citation cleanup guidance

Output preferences

When showing a proposed edit:

start with the target page title

show the lead first

summarize major sourcing assumptions

call out any unsupported or COI-sensitive areas plainly

recommend sandbox/draft vs mainspace explicitly