Wikipedia & PR: Complementary or Conflicting?
Posted on: May 14, 2009
Wikipedia’s editing processes are facilitated through a two-fold communicative engagement, they combine communication through changes to the content of the entry pages themselves and communication through the discussion features attributed to each pages (Bruns 2008). Given this from a public relations standpoint there is little threat for problems to arise from content being included on pages within the Wikipedia framework. Wikipedia also dictates that all entries must remain civil and neutral, ruling out the risk of attack from any contributors based on any issues that may arise.
This however does not suggest that Wikipedia and PR work in harmony. It has been raised in PR forums as to whether you should you create a Wikipedia entry for your own company and its products and/or services? Similarly, if you’re a writer, for your books? If you’re a composer, should you plug your achievements on the popular, free encyclopedia? The simple answer is yes, but based on the nature of Wikipedia and its restriction of neutrality many entries lose sight of the true point. This point referred to by Todd Defren, writer for online blog PR Squared, as the “dark side” to Wikipedia’s popularity, influence and openness.
When looking to create a new entry it is not just as simple as banging something up. 2 important questions to keep in mind are:
1. Whether you already have enough PR influence to warrant a Wikipedia listing – meaning that there is no merit in sticking up a Wikipedia entry that is little more than a stub because the subject matter is about a massively inconsequential local venture.
2. Is Wikipedia going to offer more content to people than what you’d offer on your own website – what more needs to be said about your organisation that has a place on Wikipedia but not within the website that you currently offer.
There is a high chance that a Wikipedia entry about your client exists. Chances are just as high that this entry is inaccurate, skewed, and perhaps even destructive to your clients business and there is nothing you can do about it. However If you do not have a Wikipedia strategy there is a huge hole in your PR program. When it comes to content on Wikipedia firms are dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t. There is no escaping the dominant nature of Wikipedia and its forecasted continued growth.
Jimbo Wales, the co-founder and promoter of Wikipedia, has been quoted saying:
“I think that PR-firms editing in a community space is deeply unethical, and that clients should put very firm pressure on their PR firms to not embarrass them in this way…
It is a bad idea because of the conflict-of-interest. It is perfectly fine to talk to the community, to show them more information, to give them things that show your client in the best light. But it is wrong to try to directly participate in the process when you have an agenda”
However I disagree, no one is lacking and agenda. Wikipedia is not a form of one-way communication. So if a company decides to write up an entry that’s self-serving and unrealistic about their product or inserts self-serving content into other Wikipedia entries, Wikipedia prosumers can deal with it. No one gets the last word on the Wikipedia . PR and Wikipedia can ultimately work in harmony as long as the PR practitioners leave behind the marketing-speak and contribute just the facts about their company and/or products.
But I put it back to you, is PR firms editing their own clients pages unethical or is it fully undertaking their role as relationship managers to ensure that their clients have an accurate representation in the vast Web 2.0 landscape?
Teddi's Blog 
Leave a comment