Wikipedia writers are not copywriters. Copywriting is just like a billboard while Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Copywriting provokes its audience to take action while Wikipedia content just teaches them how to take action. Usually copywriting use the language of pleasure like they use too many adjectives, metaphors, jargon while professional Wikipedia writers use factual language which is obvious. Wikipedia’s manuals don’t allow the user to add fantasies and fictions in their words and sentences and require a direct speech or active voice, unlike copywriters’ passive voice. How cannot one distinguish between the two entirely two different paths of writing?