Independent evidence

Your site says who you are. Your profiles now agree with it. Google notices, and the record gets cleaner. But there is a ceiling to how far that takes you, because everything so far has been written by you or by platforms that let you describe yourself. The step that moves you past the ceiling is other people choosing to write about you. This module is about telling the difference, finding what already exists, fixing what is wrong, and earning more.

Why independence matters so much

Module 1 described Google weighing claims. A claim you make about yourself is worth something, because it is specific and you are the obvious authority on your own birthplace. But it is also exactly what anyone would say about themselves, true or not. A claim made by someone with no reason to flatter you, who decided on their own to publish it, under their own name, is worth far more.

The same logic runs through every system this course covers. Google uses independent sources to decide how confident it is. Wikidata wants references from sources other than you before it keeps an item about a person. Wikipedia's notability rules for people are built almost entirely on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The AI assistants learned from a web that already sorted sources this way, and when they search live, they lean on the pages that look most authoritative.

So independent evidence is not one input among many. It is the input that decides whether the rest of the course applies to you yet.

The test

Three questions decide whether a page counts as independent evidence about you.

Did someone other than you decide to publish it? An editor chose to run the article, a host chose to book you, a university chose to list you on its faculty page. If you wrote it, paid for it, or filled in a form that published it automatically, it is not independent, however impressive the site.

Is it about you? A profile, an interview, a feature, a review of your book, a news story where you are the subject. A passing mention in a list of thirty speakers or a quote in someone else's story is useful, but it is not coverage of you.

Is it under their own name and judgment? A named outlet with editors, a recognized institution, a show with a real audience and a host who chooses guests. Content farms, sites that publish anything sent to them and directories that list anyone who pays do not count, whatever their domain authority.

How each kind of source counts

Different systems weigh the same source differently. This table is a working guide, not a rulebook; Wikidata and Wikipedia each get their own module with the details.

Two lines in that table surprise people, so it is worth explaining them.

Podcast appearances are excellent evidence for Google and for the AI assistants. They are dated, they are on someone else's site, the host chose you, and the episode page names you and links to you. They show your experience and expertise in your own words. But Wikipedia treats interviews mostly as primary sources, because the content is what you said about yourself. A long run of appearances builds a strong record; it rarely satisfies Wikipedia by itself. More on this in podcast appearances are the new press clippings.

Press releases are worth doing, and your Foundation includes one, but be clear about what they are. A release distributed through a wire service appears on many news and finance sites, which gives Google another page repeating your facts and linking to your site. It is still your own announcement. Nobody independent decided to publish it, and none of the systems in this course mistake it for coverage. Use releases to announce real things and to give journalists something to cite, not as evidence in themselves. Google's spam policies also treat optimized anchor links in widely distributed releases as link spam, so a release should link to your site with your name, not with keywords.

Find what already exists

Before you try to earn new coverage, find what is already out there. Most people have more than they think, and some of it is wrong.

Fix the stale bios

Some of what you find will be wrong. An author page that still lists your old job. A speaker profile with a photo from ten years ago. An industry directory that has you at a company you left. These matter more than they look, because a stale bio on a credible site can feed a second, competing record about you. We have seen exactly that: an author bio on an industry site, listing a role the person had left years before, became the basis for a duplicate entity that competed with the real one for his own name.

The fix is usually a polite email. Editors and site owners are generally happy to update a bio, because an accurate page is better for them too. They are much less happy to do it when asked vaguely or repeatedly.

Keep it short, give them the exact text, match the length of what is already there, and include your site. If there is a profile page with a photo, attach your one headshot. Log the request, and follow up once after two weeks if nothing changes. Some will never answer; move on and do not take it personally.

Earn more

Finding and fixing is the defensive half. The other half is earning new independent coverage, steadily, over time. This is where most of the real progress comes from, and it does not require a publicist.

Be useful to journalists. Reporters writing about your field need people who can explain it quickly and accurately. Services that connect journalists with sources exist, but the better route is usually direct: follow the reporters who cover your subject, and when they write something you can add to, send a short note with a specific point and an offer to talk. One good quote in a named publication is worth more than a dozen listings.

Write for publications others read. Contributed articles in trade publications and respected outlets put your name, under their editorial control, in front of the right audience. They are not as strong as being written about, but they are far stronger than writing on your own platform, and editors who publish you once often call on you again.

Go local and go trade. National coverage is hard. Local business press, alumni magazines, professional association journals and trade publications are much more approachable, and they are reliable, independent sources for exactly the facts Wikidata wants: who you are, where you work, what you have done.

Say something new. Coverage follows information that is not already out there. The story of how you got where you are, the specific thing you did at each role, a number nobody else has, an opinion you can defend. Google rewards pages that add something to what is already known, and so do editors. This is also why the MeMyself onboarding interview is built to draw out what is not already online about you. More in knowledge gain, what Google rewards.

Make appearances count. When you appear on a podcast or speak at an event, give the host your exact name, your one line description and your site, and ask that the show notes link to your site rather than your company. A strong run of appearances will not satisfy Wikipedia, but it builds the record that everything else leans on, and hosts often lead to journalists.

Do not buy it. Paid placements dressed as editorial, "featured in" packages and guaranteed articles in exchange for a fee are not independent, the systems in this course are increasingly good at recognizing them, and some of them create risk for your record rather than adding to it. If you sponsor something, let it be labeled as sponsored.

What enough looks like

There is no fixed number. As a practical guide, which modules 5, 7 and 9 refine:

• For a cleaner record and better AI answers, your own site and consistent profiles, plus a handful of appearances and mentions, are usually enough to see improvement.
• For a Wikidata item, you want at least one independent, named piece about you that a Wikidata editor would recognize as a serious source, and ideally two or three.
• For a knowledge panel, more is better, and it needs to agree. Several independent sources repeating the same facts is the strongest position.
• For Wikipedia, you need significant coverage of you in several reliable, independent sources. This is a high bar, and most people reading this course are not there yet. Module 7 explains it without the folklore.

Questions