A while back — and up until recently — I had the pleasure of working with Monica Rhodes, a powerhouse in the historic preservation world. We worked together for a couple of years, and during that time, my team helped her grow her digital presence from the ground up: we took her Instagram from barely 1,000 followers to over 16,000, helped her reach her first 100 YouTube subscribers (a major milestone for any new channel) and built out her email list, brand messaging and online voice in a way her very impressive network couldn’t ignore.

Monica wasn’t just making waves online — she was shaping national policy and preserving overlooked pieces of American history. She was appointed to the Biden administration’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. She’s helped raise and manage over $150 million, led preservation work across 46 states and over 100 national parks and developed the first national program focused on diversifying the preservation industry. Her work has helped reinstitute major federal programs that tell the stories of African American, Latinx and women’s history through our national parks.

She’s a Rome Prize winner, a Harvard Loeb Fellow, and has multiple advanced degrees from Temple and Penn. She is, in every sense of the word, notable.

So naturally… we thought, “She has to be Wikipedia-worthy.”

But no matter how we approached it — researching the rules, submitting drafts, consulting editor forums — the answer kept coming back:

“There’s not enough substantial, independent, secondary coverage that’s solely about her.”

Translation? She had been quoted in dozens of articles, featured in panels, mentioned in national outlets. But there weren’t enough major, in-depth articles where she was the main subject. And that, according to Wikipedia’s current standards, made her “not notable enough.”

It was a deeply frustrating experience — not just for Monica, but for me as someone who’d seen the scope of her work and the impact she’d made.

Wait, So Who Does Get a Page?

Around that same time, I stumbled across a Wikipedia article for a marketing agency I was researching — a green agency with a short but solid write-up. At first, I thought it was new (the article called them an “early sustainability agency”), and I wondered how they got approved when Monica couldn’t.

Then I looked closer.

The company had been around since the 1990s. The article cited The New York Times, Adweek, and CNNMoney. They’d launched campaigns for global clients. In short: they’d been written about by third-party sources a lot, and the Wikipedia page had likely been created back in Wikipedia’s Wild West days, when the rules were looser and enforcement was sporadic.

And here’s the kicker: once a page is approved and sticks around long enough, it becomes almost untouchable — even if the subject wouldn’t meet today’s standards. That early-entry privilege is real.

Why This Matters

I share this not to gripe about the green agency (kudos to them), but to highlight a very real visibility gap on one of the world’s most-used reference sites.

People like Monica — often women, often people of color — are doing exceptional, history-making work, but struggle to meet Wikipedia’s narrow definition of “notable.” Meanwhile, legacy companies and individuals who got in early keep their pages by default.

This doesn’t mean all hope is lost. There are grassroots initiatives working to change this, like:

• AfroCROWD
• #VisibleWikiWomen
• Women in Red

But the system still favors those who’ve been featured by traditional gatekeepers: big media, big institutions, and long-standing publications.

What You Can Do If You’re Trying to Get a Page

If you’re someone (or represent someone) trying to get a Wikipedia page, here’s what I learned the hard way:

1. Wikipedia wants third-party, independent sources. Not press releases. Not org bios. Not LinkedIn.
2. The coverage needs to be deep and focused on you — not just a quote or a passing mention.
3. Avoid writing your own page unless you disclose a conflict of interest. Better yet, find a neutral editor through one of the communities above.
4. Start with visibility. Pitch thought leadership pieces, get profiled by local or national media, and build a body of public work that’s citable.

Monica wasn’t alone in this journey — and I suspect a lot of other brilliant, accomplished people have tried and failed in quiet frustration. Hopefully, that changes. Until then, if this post saves someone a rabbit hole of confusion, I’ll take it as a win.