Loading…
Wikipedia for crypto & Web3
Crypto Wikipedia pages face harder scrutiny than almost any other industry — because of what has been submitted before. If your company has genuine independent coverage in reliable financial or investigative press, we can map the case and build it. If you do not, the audit tells you plainly.
The honest picture
This is not an opinion — it is the documented editorial environment. Understanding it is the starting point for any realistic strategy.
Wikipedia has processed thousands of crypto articles created by teams with financial interests in the projects they were documenting. That pattern is documented in Wikipedia's own editorial discussions. The result: reviewers are trained to be skeptical, to investigate contributor histories, and to require clearly independent sourcing — not marginal cases.
Much of the crypto media ecosystem is funded by the industry it covers — through token advertising, exchange sponsorships and VC-backed publications. Wikipedia's reliable source standard requires editorial independence from the subject. For crypto coverage, that means only a subset of outlets will be accepted without challenge, and even those will be scrutinised article by article.
The companies that successfully maintain Wikipedia articles in this space share a common pattern: coverage in mainstream financial press (Reuters, Bloomberg, FT), regulatory records, or documented involvement in significant market events. That is a narrow source pool — but it is a real one, and companies with genuine presence in those sources can build defensible articles.
The general framework is on the Wikipedia for companies page. This page covers what is specific to crypto and Web3.
Signal check
Sources common in the crypto sector, assessed against Wikipedia's elevated scrutiny — including the source reliability tests that catch most crypto articles.
| Source type | What a reviewer sees | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Reuters, Bloomberg or FT covering the company's role in a significant market event | Financial press covering your company in a regulatory context, a major hack, an exchange collapse, or a legal action. These events attract genuine editorial attention — the best notability signal in crypto. | Strong |
| SEC, CFTC or FCA enforcement action or regulatory filing naming the company | Government regulatory records are reliable sources by definition. An SEC complaint or CFTC action is public documentation of significance — even when the context is negative. | Strong |
| CoinDesk or The Block editorial investigations | CoinDesk and The Block have editorial teams that conduct independent investigative journalism. Reporter-written investigations about your company are different from market data aggregation or price coverage. | Strong |
| Exchange listing independently covered by financial press | A token listing on Coinbase or Binance reported by Reuters, Bloomberg or the FT in an editorial context — not a press release republished by crypto blogs. | Strong |
| Crypto Twitter / X following and community size | Social media reach is not a Wikipedia notability criterion under any circumstances. Neither is Discord member count, Telegram subscribers or Reddit karma. | Weak |
| CoinMarketCap / CoinGecko listing and rankings | Price aggregators that list every token. No editorial judgment — automatically generated data, not independent assessment of significance. | Weak |
| Sponsored crypto media coverage | Much crypto coverage is paid placement or native advertising. Wikipedia reviewers specifically check for sponsor tags, 'promoted' labels and publications where coverage correlates with ad spend. | Weak |
| Whitepaper citations by other projects | Whitepapers are primary sources produced by the projects themselves. Cross-citation between whitepapers is not independent coverage in any sense Wikipedia recognises. | Weak |
Common pitfalls
These four patterns account for the majority of AfC declines and deletion nominations for crypto and Web3 company articles. None of them are opinion — they are documented in Wikipedia's editorial record.
Wikipedia's editorial community has seen thousands of promotional crypto articles, many created by teams with financial interests in the assets they were documenting. This history means crypto and Web3 articles face a higher initial skepticism from reviewers than most industries. A credible sourcing case needs to be airtight — not merely adequate. That is the honest context any crypto company needs to understand before approaching a page.
A significant portion of crypto journalism is funded by industry interests — through token advertising, sponsored content, exchange backing or VC-affiliated media. Wikipedia's reliable source assessment (WP:RS) applies to outlets, not just individual articles. Reviewers will investigate whether a publication has genuine editorial independence from the crypto projects it covers. Publications that are primarily revenue-funded by the industry they report on face hard questions about independence.
Total value locked, trading volume, protocol revenue and similar on-chain metrics are publicly verifiable data — but they document the protocol's usage, not independent editorial coverage of the company behind it. Wikipedia needs sources that independently evaluated and reported on the organisation, not metrics generated by the protocol's own activity.
Price movements attract enormous coverage in crypto-focused media. A 300% price increase covered by CoinDesk, CoinTelegraph and Decrypt is still price coverage — not coverage of the company building the project. Wikipedia reviewers distinguish between coverage of a token's market behaviour and independent editorial assessment of the organisation that created it.
Pricing
The audit tells you honestly whether your company's coverage profile can support a defensible article — before you spend on page creation.
€490
one-time
Scored verdict covering financial press, regulatory records and source reliability assessment for crypto media. Credited toward page creation.
from €1,930
per page
Disclosed drafting built to survive elevated crypto scrutiny, publication and 90-day monitoring included.
Frequently asked questions
Other industries
Each industry clears Wikipedia's bar with different evidence. See the guide for yours.
The €490 audit gives you an honest verdict against Wikipedia's elevated crypto standards — go / not-yet within days. If the answer is not yet, you leave with the source gap mapped.