SemanticPunch’s Ethical Policy for Factual Publications and Wikipedia in the Era of Generative AI

1. Purpose

This policy sets the ethical principles, operational limits, and transparency guidelines that steer SemanticPunch in any work identifying, drafting, or structuring factual information about brands, companies, or people in public knowledge platforms—especially Wikipedia, Wikidata, and other high-authority semantic environments.

Its aim is to preserve knowledge integrity and content neutrality while helping companies achieve semantic consistency and verifiability across the digital ecosystem.

2. Foundational principles

Neutral point of view (NPOV)

No promotional, reputation, or marketing wording. All factual writing must be encyclopedic, balanced, and verifiable.

Verifiability & external evidence

Every claim about a company, product, or person must be backed by reliable external sources with recognized editorial standards (press, institutional reports, academic papers, public records).

No original research (NOR)

SemanticPunch does not create “new knowledge” about clients. Our role is to synthesize and structure already-published, verifiable information.

Transparency & disclosure

Any professional collaboration that results in Wikipedia suggestions or contributions must explicitly disclose the commercial relationship, following Wikimedia’s paid editing disclosure policy.

Separation of semantic analysis and encyclopedic editing

SemanticPunch may prepare neutral base documents or drafts but does not directly edit Wikipedia articles without disclosure.

Ideally, publications are made by independent volunteers using verified sources.

If SemanticPunch publishes directly, it must do so with an identified user and disclose on the Talk page.

3. Scope of permitted services

Allowed

• Audits of factual consistency between owned assets (site, reports, press) and external sources.
• Neutral drafting of informative texts based on public evidence.
• Identification and classification of reliable sources to support encyclopedic claims.
• Technical guidance on format, tone, and references accepted in Wikipedia and Wikidata.
• Design of the corporate semantic map aligned with entities in Knowledge Graphs.

Not allowed

• Edits or article creation without disclosure.
• Promises of publication or “guaranteed permanence” on Wikipedia.
• Insertion of promotional links or mentions in existing articles.
• Creation of unverifiable content or content based solely on internal material without external backing.

4. Standard procedure (ethical workflow)

Analysis phase

• Assess client notability (media presence, editorial coverage, awards, studies).
• Identify potential conflicts of interest.
• Map relevant entities in Wikidata and Knowledge Graphs.

Factual documentation phase

• Collect verifiable external evidence.
• Draft a “Neutral Encyclopedic Dossier” with informative tone, sources, and trilingual version (ES/PT/EN).
• Internal neutrality validation (peer review within SemanticPunch).

Suggestion or publishing phase

If proposing to include content in Wikipedia:

1. Disclose the commercial relationship on the Talk page.
2. Publish only information supported by external sources.
3. Respond transparently to community reviews.

If not publishing: use the dossier as reference for corporate sites, press, or LinkedIn, ensuring semantic coherence.

Follow-up phase

• Monitor data consistency across Wikipedia, Wikidata, Google Knowledge Panel, and generative engines.
• Update the dossier every 6–12 months with new sources.

5. Conflict-of-interest management

• Use an identified user when editing or suggesting content on Wikipedia.
• Declare on the user page the link to SemanticPunch and the relevant brand.
• Abstain from debates or edits where unresolved editorial conflict exists.
• If the Wikipedia community flags conflict or bias, commit to withdraw or revise content per recommendations.

6. Relationship with Wikipedia and the Wikimedia community

• Wikipedia and sister projects are free knowledge platforms, sustained by volunteers, not commercial goals.
• Community autonomy must be respected at all times.
• Any contribution to semantic consistency must be collaborative and transparent, never instrumentalized as marketing.

7. Expected benefits (for clients and the ecosystem)

• Improve semantic and factual consistency across Wikipedia, Knowledge Panels, and corporate web content.
• Increase client information credibility thanks to verifiable sources.
• Foster a more accurate information ecosystem, reducing errors or misinformation about companies in AI environments.

8. Final statement

SemanticPunch believes that the pursuit of semantic consistency cannot and should not oppose the neutrality of public knowledge. Our professional mission is to document facts—not craft narratives—doing so with maximum transparency toward clients, communities, and open platforms.