Wikiwars: Wikipedia versus PR
The following post originally appeared in Campaign Asia (subscription required). It generated a bit of discussion so I thought I'd capture it for posterity here.
Wikiwars: Wikipedia versus PR
PR
professionals would like to edit Wikipedia entries on behalf of their brands,
but current Wikipedia policies treat them like corporate shills who are not
welcome. Jeremy Woolf, Global Digital Lead at Text 100, examines this hot-button
issue—and hopes for a compromise.
If you search for anything online, you’ll
usually find a Wikipedia entry in the top five results. In little over a
decade, Wikipedia has evolved from being the plaything of logophiles into a
highly credible and up-to-date source of information on practically anything. According to Google,
Wikipedia is the sixth most visited site on the web, and it’s also a
significant source of inbound web traffic for most websites.
Wikipedia is clearly helping people make
decisions and form opinions. However Wikipedia—like traditional media before
it—is
not immune to hoaxes, mistakes, and false death claims. The reality is that
any information source with more than 3.8 million English-language crowdsourced
entries will include factual errors, outdated information, and abandoned posts.
Wikipedia’s undeniable importance and famed
collective approach to editing make it a critical site for public relations
firms to watch as they try to protect their clients’ brands. The problem for
many PR pros, though, is that while Wikipedia promotes itself as a free
encyclopedia anyone can edit, it doesn’t include PR people in its definition of
‘anyone’.
It is against Wikipedia’s policies for
people with a conflict of
interest to directly edit pages. This presents a real challenge for many PR
people, in spite of Wikipedia‘s
guidelines, which are quite specific on the nature of edits allowed and who
can make them. The site prefers brand representatives to influence the site’s
editors (a.k.a. Wikipedians) to update content. PR and corporate communicators
are directed to use the “talk” page feature to suggest content edits, as
opposed to directly editing pages themselves. Unfortunately PR pros report that
it can often take months to get responses from editors or allow them to be
posted. In the meantime, pages with incorrect information are continuing to be
read by millions each day.
This challenge has created a
significant debate. On one side is Wikipedia, which is sticking to a policy
that makes it hard for brands to correct inaccuracies without editors’
approval. On the other side is a PR
industry frustrated by a process that relies on the endorsement of people who
often don’t hold subject matter expertise and frequently deny edits on the basis
of the contributor’s profession.
Many Wikipedians see PR folks as
“spin-merchants” who want to use their site as a marketing channel through
which we’ll blast our key messages and biased opinions. In spite of our
industry associations, ethical guidelines and more than 100 years of
professional behaviour, it seems we struggle to shake this perception. Sadly
the recent Bell
Pottinger incident didn’t improve our industry’s reputation with Wikipedia’s
army of editors.
PR has tried to fight back. Industry
veteran Phil Gomes posted
an open letter to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales on his blog, calling for change.
Wales responded, stating that “…no one in the PR industry has ever put forward
a cogent argument (and seldom bother putting forward an argument at all) why it
is important that they take the potentially (especially if I have anything to
do with it) reputation-damaging step of directly editing entries where they are
acting as paid advocates.”
So what to do? On one side we have PR
professionals frustrated by what many see as an overly complex system that
often makes it impossible to correct factual errors in one of the world’s most
critical sources of company information. On the other we have a community-based
site that prides itself on presenting a neutral point of view and deliberately
excludes PR people from making direct contributions beyond fixing grammar and
spelling errors and removing vandalism.
Some companies have chosen to work through freelance Wikipedia editors, an approach that frequently raises the ire of die-hard amateur Wikipedians, who feel this is a clear conflict of interest. Others have taken the path of editing directly and trying to avoid the editors’ scrutiny. From Jimmy Wales’ perspective, there’s little case for change. “The simple and obvious answer is to do what works, without risking the reputation of the client: talk to the community, respect their autonomy, and never ever directly edit an article,” he stated recently.
In an attempt to find a middle ground, Phil Gomes has created a Facebook group, Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE). CREWE’s mission is to “…create a forum for discussing how Wikipedia and PR can have a constructive relationship in the public interest of maintaining entries that are accurate.” Since the group went live in early January, hundreds of posts have been shared and more than 130 people are taking part in the discussion. Interestingly, Jimmy Wales and several Wikipedia editors have actively joined in the debate.
So what’s next for Wikipedia and the PR
community? There are those who say the editing rules are good enough, and PR
people should simply shut up and learn to follow them. Others see a case for
change, reflecting a more mature understanding of PR as a discipline. UK
industry body Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) has
announced plans to work with Wikipedia on clear guidelines for the PR
profession.
While there’s no conclusion yet, the lines
of dialogue are open. I’m hopeful that the outcome will present a more balanced
approach to the types of edits ethical PR people wish to make.
-Jeremy
Photo: Sportsday by slagheap