Start with the claim, not the backlink

A Wikipedia backlink is an external reference from an encyclopedia page to another website. That description alone says nothing about whether the destination belongs in an article. Start with a precise statement readers need to verify. An inline citation supports a statement; an External links entry has a different purpose and its own selection guidance. A useful company page is not automatically suitable for either. This guide explains English Wikipedia practice, even when you read it in translation.

Separate evidence from promotion

Evaluate the published work, its author, publisher and relationship to the subject. A source must support the particular statement, not merely mention the same topic. Independent coverage can help separate reporting from an organization’s claims about itself. Reliability still depends on context: an institutional catalogue may document an object without establishing that its maker was the best or the first. A sales page, press release or sponsored feature is not interchangeable with independent editorial coverage.

Work through the catalogue example

Imagine a fictional catalogue at archive.example/catalogue, page 18, describing glazed tiles made by a workshop in 1908. The proposed statement is deliberately narrow: the workshop produced glazed tiles in that year. A shop page selling reproductions says the workshop invented the technique. The catalogue example supplies no evidence for that stronger claim. Our worksheet compares those two candidates, records missing evidence and leaves the editorial decision open. The URL and publication are invented; do not cite them on Wikipedia.

  • Exact support: Example observation: Fictional catalogue page 18 describes tiles made in 1908; Evidence to record: Specific passage, author, date and proposed sentence; Action if it differs: Consider only the narrow statement after real source verification
  • Commercial substitute: Example observation: Reproduction shop promotes the maker’s products; Evidence to record: Ownership, sales purpose and independent coverage; Action if it differs: Do not substitute a sales claim for independent evidence
  • Unsupported extension: Example observation: The proposed wording says the maker invented the technique; Evidence to record: Whether the source actually addresses priority; Action if it differs: Remove the stronger claim unless appropriate evidence supports it
  • Contributor relationship: Example observation: The proposer works for the workshop’s successor; Evidence to record: Affiliation, compensation and applicable disclosure rules; Action if it differs: Disclose and use an independent review route; acceptance remains open
  • External-links context: Example observation: A catalogue resource is suggested beyond a single citation; Evidence to record: Article relevance and English Wikipedia external-link guidance; Action if it differs: Evaluate that purpose separately; do not add a promotional directory entry

Choose an appropriate review route

If you own, represent or are paid by the subject, identify that relationship before proposing changes. English Wikipedia discourages conflict-of-interest editing and provides a talk-page edit-request route for independent consideration. Wikimedia’s terms include paid-contribution disclosure requirements; check the current terms and the local project’s additional rules. Disclosure is not approval. A reviewer can reject unsuitable text or sources, and an unpaid affiliation can still create a conflict. This worksheet sends no request and offers no paid Wikipedia placement.

Keep a reproducible citation record

Write down the target article, exact proposed sentence, source title, author, publication date, page or section, relevant passage and your relationship to the subject. Separate a source you actually inspected from one you merely found in a search result. In the exercise, record page 18 as fictional evidence and mark verification incomplete. In real work, check the publication and context yourself, retain a dated review note, and explain why the source supports only the proposed sentence. Leave unresolved questions visible.

  • Write one exact claim before selecting a destination.
  • Inspect the source itself, not just its title or search snippet.
  • Record ownership and compensation separately from source quality.
  • Check the relevant language project’s rules and disclose applicable relationships.
  • Keep acceptance, link attributes and search results as separate, unverified outcomes.

Understand inclusion and SEO limits

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: relevance, balance and community judgment still matter. A dead reference is not permission to replace it with a commercial page; any replacement must support the original statement. This guide cannot promise a permanent link, a dofollow attribute, referral visits or improved rankings. Inspect any real published link separately instead of treating a domain name as a ranking score. Other language editions have their own policies; translations here describe the English project and do not authorize edits elsewhere.

Fictional, unverified exercise about English Wikipedia. These translations do not replace another language edition’s rules. No edit, citation or backlink is submitted.