Turkish or English Wikipedia? Two measurements of Turkish brands, two different results

In our own measurements, the question of whether Turkish Wikipedia (Vikipedi) or English Wikipedia is cited more often in AI answers about Turkish brands has no single answer. In one measurement English Wikipedia was ahead; in a second measurement, run with other brands and other questions, Turkish Wikipedia was. This article puts the two results side by side, explains why they cannot be combined, and summarises what a brand should and should not do under Vikipedi's own rules.

Two measurements, two different results

The first measurement (Measurement A from here on) covers the 60 analyses we ran up to 3 August 2026. These analyses included 19 brand records: our own client and comparison brands. We recorded 10,474 successful responses from ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude and Google AI Overviews; the questions both named and did not name the brand, and were weighted towards products and categories. The figures were recounted on 7 October 2026.

What we measured in Measurement A was reach: in how many of the 60 analyses a site was cited as a source at least once. The two language editions of Wikipedia came out like this:

The second measurement (Measurement B) consists of 6 measurements run between 16 and 25 August 2026 for three corporate brands: a pharmaceutical company, a dairy brand and a technology group. Only questions that did not name the brand were asked here. Of 1,835 planned responses, 1,646 were measured; 189 (10.3%) could not be measured and were not counted.

In Measurement B the unit was not the analysis but the individual response. Among the sites cited for all three brands, the order was: dergipark.org.tr first with 82 responses, tr.wikipedia.org second with 72 responses (4.4%). en.wikipedia.org was ninth on this list with 26 responses (1.6%).

Why can't they be combined?

It is tempting to reduce the two results to a single answer, but it would be wrong. The two measurements differ on three points:

• The brands are different. Measurement A consists of 19 records weighted towards technology and consumer brands. Measurement B has only three corporate brands, and their sectors (pharmaceuticals, dairy, technology) differ from those in Measurement A.
• The questions are different. Measurement A also included questions that named the brand. Measurement B asked only questions that did not name the brand. A question that names the brand can send the engine straight to that brand's article; a category question that does not name it can send it to general pages on the topic.
• The counting is different. Measurement A answers "in how many of the 60 analyses at least once", Measurement B answers "in how many of the 1,646 responses". A site that appears once in an analysis gets full credit in Measurement A; in Measurement B it counts as a single response.

So comparing 45% with 4.4%, or 32% with 1.6%, is meaningless. The only thing that can be read is the order and presence within each measurement: in Measurement A English Wikipedia is ahead of Turkish Wikipedia, in Measurement B it is behind.

The explanations that occur to us for why the two results point in opposite directions (questions that name the brand, the difference in sectors, corporate brands having more detailed Turkish articles) are possibilities. We have not measured any of them separately, and we do not present them here as findings.

Which engine cited which Wikipedia?

In both measurements there was a clear split between the engines. Claude cited sources in both languages. ChatGPT was among the engines citing English Wikipedia in Measurement A but not among those citing Turkish Wikipedia; in Measurement B it again did not appear in the Turkish Wikipedia row and cited English Wikipedia in only 3 responses. Google AI Overviews, for its part, was among the engines citing Turkish Wikipedia in both measurements, and not among those citing English Wikipedia.

The practical meaning of this split: the answer to "what does Wikipedia say?" depends on which engine you are asking about. Your Turkish article may be a page that AI Overviews and Perplexity read, while your English article (or the lack of one) may affect ChatGPT's answer. This is why the engines are measured separately; we explain our method on the How we measure page.

Next step

Is your brand named in AI answers?

The visibility measurement asks five engines Turkish questions that do not name your brand, and records every answer. Answers that could not be measured are shown separately, never as zero.

See the visibility measurement

The risk of being confused with the wrong company

A name that has a Wikipedia page is not always your brand. A person with the same name, a place, a company in another country or an older organisation with a similar name may have an article on Wikipedia. When the engine gets a question about you, it may read that article and pass on its details (founding year, headquarters, founder) as if they were yours.

This risk is greater when the brand has no article of its own: the engine leans on the closest page that matches the name. That is why a Wikipedia page being cited in an answer is not good news on its own. You first need to check whether that page is really about you.

The way to separate this in measurement is to read the answer not only for whether the name appears, but also for whether the details it gives match the brand's own information. Our Sources and competitors module puts what the engines say next to your verified information and shows where you are being confused with another company of the same name.

What do Vikipedi's own rules say?

A brand's visibility on Vikipedi depends on the rules of the Vikipedi community; its effect on AI answers does not change those rules. The summaries below are taken from the pages of Vikipedi and the Wikimedia Foundation themselves (accessed 7 October 2026).

Notability

Under the Vikipedi:Kayda değerlik (notability) guideline, a subject is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of it. There is a separate guideline for companies: Kayda değerlik (organizasyonlar ve şirketler) (notability of organisations and companies). This guideline does not count press releases, the company's advertising or works in which the organisation talks about itself as sources that establish notability. Routine coverage, such as a newspaper item that only announces opening hours, does not count either. The guideline also states that arbitrary criteria that would favour large organisations should be avoided.

Conflict of interest

The Vikipedi:Çıkar çatışması (conflict of interest) guideline strongly advises against editing articles you are connected to without any disclosure. Users with a conflict of interest, including those making paid edits, are expected to disclose it. The recommended path is to propose the change by leaving a note on the article's talk page rather than making it directly.

Disclosure of paid contributions

On English Wikipedia, Paid-contribution disclosure is a policy. A person who contributes for pay must disclose their employer, client and affiliation. This rule comes from the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use: section 4 of the terms requires that, for paid contributions, the employer, client, intended beneficiary and affiliation be disclosed on the user page, on the talk page or in the edit summary.

What should brands do, and not do?

Vikipedi's rules and what our measurements show point in the same direction: visibility on Wikipedia is built not by text the brand writes itself, but by what independent sources write about it.

Do not write your own article. Editing your article without disclosing your connection is exactly what Vikipedi's conflict of interest guideline strongly advises against. Handing the work to an agency does not change this: a paid contribution made without disclosure also breaches Wikimedia's terms of use.

Propose corrections to wrong information on the talk page. If your founding year or headquarters is wrong in an existing article, disclose your connection and leave a correction proposal on the article's talk page, together with an independent, reliable source. The community makes the decision.

Keep your information the same everywhere. Founding year, headquarters address, the spelling of the brand and product names should be the same on your own site, in trade registry records and in reliable publications that write about you. The engines read these sources together; a contradiction is the easiest way in for wrong information. We explain how to check this in our article when AI gives wrong information about your brand.

Do not use Wikidata as a shortcut. According to the Wikidata:Notability page, an item must either link to a valid page on a Wikimedia project, or refer to an entity that can be described using serious and publicly available sources, or fulfil a structural need. If you have a notable brand and independent sources, an accurate Wikidata entry is useful; an entry without sources does not meet these criteria and may become the subject of deletion requests from the Wikidata community.

Measure which page is being read. As both of our measurements show, which language edition of Wikipedia stands out varies by brand and by question. Measure with your own questions, engine by engine, and check whether the Wikipedia page being cited is really about you. We have collected the other sites the engines read about Turkish brands in our article who AI reads about Turkish brands.

Frequently asked questions

Which matters more, Turkish Wikipedia or English Wikipedia?

Our own measurements gave no single answer to this. English Wikipedia was ahead across the 60 analyses up to 3 August 2026, and Turkish Wikipedia was ahead in the August 2026 measurement of three corporate brands. Which one stands out for you depends on your brand, the questions you ask and the engine; it needs to be measured with your own questions.

Can we write a Vikipedi article for our brand?

Vikipedi's conflict of interest guideline strongly advises against editing articles you are connected to without disclosure. Paid contributions, under Wikimedia's terms of use, must be disclosed. An article is written by the community once independent, reliable secondary sources have covered your brand sufficiently.

If we have no Vikipedi article, will AI not know us?

No, an article is not a requirement. In our own measurements, alongside Vikipedi, the engines also cited complaint sites, marketplaces, news sites and academic sources about Turkish brands. If you have no article, the real risk is that the article of another company or person with your name is read as if it were yours.

Is it worth creating a Wikidata entry?

If you have a notable brand and independent sources that write about you, a Wikidata entry created with accurate information can help keep your information consistent. Wikidata's own criteria call for serious and publicly available sources. Creating an entry without sources is not a path we recommend.