Careers
Build trust infrastructure for Wikipedia, Wikidata and the AI answer engines.
WikiBusines runs an in-house editorial team — no marketplace freelancers, no manufactured coverage, paid-editing disclosure as a non-negotiable. Joining us means working on real Wikipedia projects, with senior editors who'll argue policy with you, and being measured on whether your published work survives — not on how busy you look.
Who we're looking for
Three things you'll have in common with everyone here
Skills we can teach. These three are the ones we hire for — and the ones we can't onboard around.
You care about the difference between citing a source and faking a source.
We work in a market where shortcuts are normal — manufactured coverage, paid placements, citation laundering. We don't. The first thing we will check is how you read a source list, not how well you write a pitch.
You'd rather kill a project than ship a page that dies in 30 days.
Saying 'this won't pass notability' to a paying client is a skill. So is telling a senior editor the draft they handed you isn't ready. If 'no' costs you sleep, this is the wrong team.
You read Wikipedia talk pages — for fun, or because you have to.
Either is fine. What's not optional is fluency in WP:NCORP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and the actual etiquette of edit summaries, AfD discussions, and AfC reviewer feedback. We hire people who already live there.
Roles open right now
Six roles, all editorial-adjacent
If you don't see the exact title you want but you read Wikipedia policy for fun, email us anyway — the team grows with the work.
Kyiv / Remote-EU
Full-time
Senior Wikipedia Editor (English)
Lead editor on English-language Wikipedia projects — from notability assessment through AfC submission, talk-page defence and post-publication monitoring.
What you'd own
- Own the editorial lifecycle of 6-10 concurrent EN projects, from source audit to publication.
- Run the WP:NCORP / WP:GNG assessment up front and tell the account team when a project should not proceed.
- Write neutral, policy-compliant drafts in plain encyclopedic English; submit via AfC under a disclosed paid-editing account.
- Defend articles at AfD when challenged — with sources, policy citations, and a calm tone.
- Mentor 2-3 junior editors; review their drafts before they reach the client.
- Coordinate with the researcher pod on source packs and with the AI-visibility analyst on post-publication LLM coverage.
You'll thrive here if
- You have 500+ edits on EN Wikipedia under your own account and at least one published article that survived AfC.
- You can explain in one sentence why a Forbes contributor piece is not a reliable source.
- You're fluent in COI and PAID disclosure templates and have used them.
- You can hold a position in a deletion discussion without taking it personally.
How we know it works
Onboarding is two weeks paired with a senior editor on real client work. Tooling — our internal source-vetting dashboard, edit-pacing tracker, and AfD-watch — is taught on day one. Escalation paths are documented: if a draft you wrote is challenged at AfD, the founder-editor pair joins the defence within 24 hours. You will never be alone on a contentious article.
Remote
Full-time or part-time
Wikipedia Editor — Other-language editions (DE / FR / ES / IT / PL / UA)
Native or near-native editors for the non-English Wikipedia editions we ship into. One language per role; multiple roles open across DE, FR, ES, IT, PL, UA.
What you'd own
- Run the local-language notability assessment — what counts as reliable in DE Wikipedia is not the same as in EN.
- Translate and adapt approved EN drafts into a properly-sourced local-language article — not a machine translation, a re-sourced one.
- Find local-language sources the EN team won't find: regional press, ministry filings, court records, academic databases.
- Submit via the language edition's review process (AfC, NPP, or direct creation depending on the wiki's culture).
- Defend at the local deletion-discussion equivalent (LP, PdS, AfD, KFA, etc.) in the local language.
- Flag local-policy quirks the EN team needs to know about — every Wikipedia edition has its own etiquette.
You'll thrive here if
- Native or C2-level reading and writing in the target language; comfortable working in English on the team side.
- Existing edit history on the target-language Wikipedia under your own account.
- You know the local press landscape well enough to spot a paid placement at first read.
- You're willing to say 'this works in EN Wikipedia but not in DE Wikipedia' — and explain why.
How we know it works
First two weeks: shadow a senior editor on the EN side to learn our source-vetting workflow, then take the lead on three small local-language projects with the EN senior reviewing source quality before submission. After month one you own your queue end-to-end. We share a weekly 30-minute call across all language-edition editors to compare policy interpretation drift.
Kyiv / Remote-EU
Full-time
Researcher / Source Analyst
The person who decides whether a subject is publishable before the editor writes a single line. Owns source-vetting, competitor audits and source-pack assembly.
What you'd own
- Run pre-engagement source audits — score every available source against WP:RS and WP:NCORP criteria; output a written notability verdict the sales team can defend.
- Build the source pack the editor will work from: independent, secondary, in-depth coverage, with a one-line reliability note on each.
- Audit competitor Wikipedia coverage in the client's space and flag what the client's article needs to clear notability comparatively.
- Track source decay — sources that were strong last year may be dead or downgraded this year (Forbes contributor reclassification, regulator URL changes, etc.).
- Maintain the team's reliable-sources lookup table for the industries we work in most often.
You'll thrive here if
- You can tell the difference between a sponsored content piece and an independent article in under 30 seconds.
- You read primary regulator filings (SEC, BaFin, FCA, court PDFs) without complaint.
- You're comfortable saying 'this client does not meet notability and we should decline'.
- You think in checklists and write internal notes the next analyst can actually use.
How we know it works
Onboarding is one week with the senior researcher walking you through 15-20 past source packs — both the ones we shipped and the ones we used to decline projects. Your first month is paired audits; from month two you own your own queue and the editor pod treats your verdict as authoritative. Escalation goes founder-direct when a sales call needs a notability ruling under deadline.
Kyiv / Remote-EU
Full-time
PR Outreach Specialist
Source-pitch outreach to journalists at Tier-1 and Tier-2 outlets — not generic PR. The job is to help clients become coverage-worthy, not to spam editors.
What you'd own
- Identify the actual reporters covering the client's beat at outlets that count as WP:RS — by beat, by recent byline, not by publication name alone.
- Build the source pitch — the story the journalist would actually want, not the press release the client wants to send.
- Manage outreach correspondence end-to-end: pitch, follow-up, response handling, embargo logistics if needed.
- Coordinate with the editorial team on which coverage moves notability vs. which is cosmetic.
- Maintain a clean record of who said yes, who said no, and why — for the next round.
You'll thrive here if
- You have 3+ years of journalist-facing outreach and you can name 10 reporters at Tier-1 outlets in at least two industry verticals from memory.
- You have been ignored, ghosted and politely refused enough times to not take it personally.
- You can write a 90-word pitch a journalist will actually open.
- You're allergic to mass-blast PR distribution lists and refuse to use them.
How we know it works
First two weeks: read the last 6 months of our outreach archive — wins and losses — and shadow the lead on three live campaigns. Tooling: our journalist relationship tracker (built in-house, no Meltwater) and the team-wide pitch library. Escalation is the founder for sensitive accounts; the editorial lead for notability-impact ambiguity.
Kyiv / Remote-EU
Full-time
Account Manager — Enterprise
End-to-end ownership of 5-10 enterprise client relationships — multi-language portfolios, annual-support tiers, multi-stakeholder approvals.
What you'd own
- Own client comms from kickoff through annual support — written briefs, scope discussions, approvals, escalation handling.
- Translate client business goals into editorial scope the editor pod can actually execute against Wikipedia policy.
- Manage cross-language portfolios — 4-6 language editions in parallel for one client is normal; you coordinate timing and consistency.
- Run the quarterly health-check call: what's live, what's been edited by community, what's at risk, what's the next move.
- Be the person who tells a client 'this addition won't pass' before the editor pod has to.
You'll thrive here if
- You have managed enterprise clients with €50k+ annual spend and stakeholder pyramids 3-4 deep.
- You're comfortable in legal, comms and C-suite conversations in the same week.
- You can hold scope without becoming the editor's adversary — the relationship works only if you and the editor are visibly on the same side.
- You can write a status update a CEO will read.
How we know it works
First month: shadow the Head of Business Development on three existing enterprise accounts before being assigned your own. You inherit a starter portfolio of 3-4 accounts with documented histories; you grow to 5-10 over six months. The editorial leads and the researcher pod are 1:1 partners — not vendors you assign work to. Escalation is the founder for contract issues; the editorial lead for policy interpretation.
Kyiv / Remote-EU
Full-time
AI Visibility Analyst
Monitors client brand presence across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews; builds source-recovery and source-strengthening plans tied to Wikipedia / Wikidata work.
What you'd own
- Run weekly visibility scans across the LLM stack and build per-client visibility deltas — what shifted, why we think it shifted, what we'd do about it.
- Map the citation sources the AI engines actually pull from for the client's industry — sometimes Wikipedia, sometimes Wikidata, sometimes neither.
- Build source-recovery plans when a client's brand mention drops or gets attributed to the wrong entity.
- Coordinate with the editorial team on which Wikipedia / Wikidata edits would actually move LLM visibility — and which won't.
- Stay current on retrieval and training-data architecture changes at the major LLM vendors — this market changes in weeks.
You'll thrive here if
- You're fluent in retrieval-augmented generation as it exists in production at OpenAI / Anthropic / Google scale — at least at the level of being able to read the papers.
- You're sceptical of vendor 'AI SEO' claims and can explain why most of them are wrong.
- You can build a dashboard in something other than a vendor tool when needed.
- You write reports a non-technical client will understand.
How we know it works
Onboarding pairs you with the Head of Digital for the first month — you'll learn the in-house monitoring stack (we built our own; vendor tools weren't honest enough) and read the past 12 weeks of client visibility reports. Escalation: founder for client-facing recommendations, Head of Digital for tooling questions. You'll publish a weekly internal note on what shifted across the LLM stack — this becomes a team artefact.
How we hire
Four steps. Roughly two to three weeks end-to-end.
We have one strong opinion about hiring: the people who can do the job and the people who interview well are not always the same set. Our process is built around that.
Application
Email team@wikibusines.com with your CV, links to relevant work (portfolio, Wikipedia username if applicable, recent journalist contact list for PR roles), and a paragraph on what drew you to this work. We read every one.
30-minute screening call
A short call with the hiring lead for the role — not HR. We use it to confirm we understood your background and to answer your questions about how the team actually works.
Paid trial assignment
A 2-4 hour realistic task — e.g. a source-quality audit on a sample subject for the Researcher role, or a Wikipedia draft against WP:NCORP for the Editor role. Paid at the role's pro-rated rate. You'll work with the same tooling you'd use on the team.
Offer — or honest feedback — within 7 days
If it's a fit, we send the offer within 7 days of the trial. If it isn't, we send specific feedback within the same window — what worked, what didn't, where you'd be a better fit. We pay for trial work because we hire people who can do the job, not people who can interview well.
We pay for trial work because we hire people who can do the job, not people who can interview well.
Why work here
Six concrete reasons — not hype
Every line below is something a team member could verify on day one. We don't write careers copy we'd be embarrassed to defend.
In-house editorial team
You work with senior Wikipedians and a researcher pod on the same payroll — not a marketplace of freelancers bidding on your draft. Reviews are conversations, not silent rejections.
Paid-editing disclosure is the default
Every editor on staff publishes under a disclosed paid-editing account per WP:PAID. You will never be asked to hide who you work for. The clients know that. The community knows that. It is non-negotiable.
Tools we built ourselves
Internal source-vetting dashboard, edit-pacing tracker, AfD-watch, LLM-visibility monitoring stack. We built our own because vendor tools weren't honest enough about source quality and we needed audit trails that survive client review.
1,000+ articles a year
Real volume, real ownership — you're not the eighth approver on someone else's draft. Once trusted, you own your queue end-to-end and we measure outcomes (survival, AfD defence rate), not activity.
50+ specialists across the EU
Editors in DE, FR, ES, IT, PL, NL, UA work in their own time zones with weekly cross-language calls. You're not the only person who knows the policy backwards — there's always someone to argue an NCORP read with.
Honest refund clause
Our offer agreement includes a real refund clause for borderline work. That's not just client-protection — it's the reason we don't ship questionable pages. Your published Wikipedia URLs are evidence of competence, not embarrassment.
How to apply
One email. Subject line in this format.
No portal, no form, no third-party ATS. Email reaches a person on the team within one business day.
Send your application to team@wikibusines.com.
Suggested subject line
Application — [role title] — [your name]
Please include
- CV or résumé (PDF preferred).
- LinkedIn URL.
- Your Wikipedia username, if applicable — and the language editions you edit on.
- One paragraph — about 6-8 sentences — on what drew you to this work. Not a cover letter; a real paragraph.
We reply to every application we receive. If you don't hear back within five business days, please follow up — sometimes emails go missing.
Want to know who you'd be working with? Meet the team behind the work →
Not sure which role fits? Email us anyway.
If you read Wikipedia talk pages for fun and you can't tell whether the Editor or Researcher path is right for you — write to us. We'll figure it out together on the screening call.