3 ms·

You can hire a ghostwriter to write a biography about yourself and pay a publishing house for a limited edition print run and voila, you can have your own wikip

You can hire a ghostwriter to write a biography about yourself and pay a publishing house for a limited edition print run and voila, you can have your own wikipedia page based on an authorized source. Wikipedia's view of what's 'original research' has alway been a bit murky, on top of that. Are the primary documents that historians rely on acceptable as sources, or only if they've been synthesized by an 'accredited historian' (whatever that is) in book or research journal form? If publishing original research is wrong, why publish a journalist's original research which is incorporated into a newspaper article? What about original research published as a blog post, is that now an acceptable secondary source?

skissane 4y ago
> You can hire a ghostwriter to write a biography about yourself and pay a publishing house for a limited edition print run and voila, you can have your own wikipedia page based on an authorized source It isn’t as easy as you make it sound - to establish notability, they don’t accept self-published / vanity press sources - so you’d need to get your book published by a publisher with an established track record. That’s a lot harder - it is either something that money can’t buy, or at least you’d need a lot lot more money to buy it than self-publishing charges Furthermore, one high quality reliable source is generally not considered enough for notability, they want multiple sources. If you get your biography published, and then get some journalists in established media outlets to publish articles about it, you’ll meet that hurdle too. But if you manage that, you are probably actually are notable, as opposed to just some random nobody trying to buy their way into Wikipedia