Three Steps to Ethical Wikipedia Marketing
1. The Law
In a nutshell: Disclose your connection to the subject of the page before making or proposing changes.
Step 1: Comply with the Law
Wikipedians may place a public badge of shame on pages that were secretly written for a non-disclosed commerical interest, even when the person buying wiki services was unaware of their tactics. In other instances, organizations have received a cease and desist letter from the Wikimedia Foundation or even been sued by a competitor.
How to Tell
Ask for a link to the user profile of the Wikipedia account that will be used (or has been used already). Look for a clear disclosure on that user profile of who they work for and their commercial interest in Wikipedia.
2. Wikipedia Policy
Step 2: Follow Wikipedia Policy
Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Guideline very strongly discourages directly editing a page you have a vested interest in. Instead, it says to propose changes and share proposed content, so that independent, crowd-sourced editors have an opportunity to weigh in. There are also a myriad of rules about acceptable content, such as those on citations and neutrality.
Directly editing the page may create the appearance of impropriety, especially on controversial subjects. It can lead to your edits being reversed, contentious editing from angry Wikipedians, tags or cuts, or uncooperative editors that are frustrated with your conduct.
How to Tell
Click on the "Talk" button near the upper-left corner of the page. Look through the discussions (if any) for some kind of communication disclosing their affiliation to the subject of the page and sharing proposed changes.
3. Wikipedia Ethos
Step 3: Adopt the Wikipedia Ethos
The Arbitration Committee (the Supreme Court of Wikipedia) unanimously support the idea that editors affiliated with the subject of an article must comply with the "purpose," "intent," and "spirit," of Wikipedia's rules.
This means avoiding advocating exclusively for your position and including harmful information or opinions that are a part of a balanced warts-and-all historical narrative.
Most saavy editors can tell when wiki content glazes over the controversial stuff, or is designed to give a misleading impression. This can cause editors to avoid collaborating with someone that doesn't "get it." Additionally, once omissions or misrepresentations are discovered, this betrayal of Wikipedia's trust can result in media scrutiny or burned bridges with the editors that control the page.
How to Tell
Ask how controversial or critical information published by the media is handled, or see if the page is missing major issues you know have been written about in reputable news sources.