 |
Wikipedia's content on the Prudhoe
Bay (depcited above) oil spill was written
by British Petroleum |
This time it's British Petroleum who is at the center of media controversy for their participation on Wikipedia. BP's corporate communications team has been participating on the Talk page of BP-related articles for about a year, but Wikipedia's editors grew uncomfortable when entire rewrites of content written by BP regarding their environmental record were copied and pasted into the article by volunteers.
BP followed Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the letter by proposing content on the Talk page, but Wikipedians are understandably uncomfortable knowing readers are getting information on some of the biggest oil spills in history directly from BP itself, under the assumption the material was written by disinterested volunteers.
Did BP actually do anything wrong? Probably not. Despite claims to the opposite, nobody has provided compelling evidence of spin by BP about their environmental record. On the contrary, BP has added a lot of informative content about their operations and pointed out a large number of corrections and outdated information.
Some have even pointed out that the PR participant from BP has been more neutral than the editors sparking the debate, many of whom are advocates against big business or that the treatment of BP's PR person borders on harassment. But just because BP did nothing wrong, doesn't mean they didn't put themselves in an avoidable situation where the controversy could have been reasonably predicted. We can all avoid similar circumstances following a few best-practices:
1. Give up control: Marketing teams have a compelling urge to try to get a corporate-approved version of content on Wikipedia, but no matter how neutral the copy is, it will always make people uncomfortable for companies to write their own high-profile controversies. Try offering sources, corrections and feedback and letting Wikipedia's volunteers take a stab at the content.
2. Be easy to work with: A large contributor to criticisms of BP's participation was an editor that threatened to retire from Wikipedia, because he felt the PR editor had strong-armed the community into making bias edits and felt overwhelmed by the resources BP was putting behind the articles. Your relationships with Wikipedians that take an interest in your company is as important as your relationships with the press. Treat them with care.
3. Don't micromanage: Even if you are correct, it will always make people uncomfortable to have public relations editors arguing for very specific language and phrasing of the issues. Some things aren't worth arguing over.
4. No Advocacy: Advocacy is not allowed on Wikipedia anywhere. PR professionals that make well-formulated arguments or work with favorable editors can create a favorable bias on Wikipedia, but in doing so create ticking time-bombs for another more critical editor to come by. The most important part is just making the article "good" by Wikipedia's standards and not allowing corporate issues to get in the way.
5. Disclose all: Wikipedia expects a higher standard of ethics than is normal in the PR field. Many of the accusations against BP are regarding source material that was missing from his proposed drafts. Traditionally in PR it's the expectation that we push positive information and have no comment on controversies, but Wikiepdians expect us to share information even if it's harmful to us.
This post was first published on SocialFresh.
Qorvis recently joined the ranks of PR firms like Bell Pottinger, Portland Communications and Finsbury that stand accused of manipulating Wikipedia entries for their clients.
Something that stood out from the summary at The Daily Dot was that Qorvis is defending their actions with a familiar tune - accusing Wikipedia of not providing reasonable processes to correct errors and have their clients' reputations treated fairly.
That inspired me to write this post on six ways to correct errors, address bias or contest content ethically and safely as a PR/marketing participant on Wikipedia.
Avoid becoming the next media embarrassment by following these steps:
1. Talk: 
The first step is to identify yourself on the Talk page of the article, describe the error clearly and provide sources that can verify the correct information.
2. Request Edit: Often the Talk page is not closely watched by the site's editors. Add {{request edit}} above your comment on the Talk page to add it to a queue of requested edits. This makes your request for correction visible to editors that may not be watching the individual article.
3. Editors: Even the Request Edit queue often grows stagnant with old requests and can take weeks or months, so it may also be a good idea to ask editors directly to consider your request. Take a look at the Talk page or the article's edit-history, find the most active editors on the page, and ask them to respond to your request directly through their Talk page.
4. COIN: COIN stands for the "Conflict of Interest Noticeboard" and it's a fairly active forum for editors to ask for help or raise issues related to conflict of interest, where they need the attention of more editors.
5. OTRS: OTRS stands for the open-ticket request system. If the error or bias is obvious, if you need something handled privately, or if it's urgent, contact Wikipedia at info-en-q@wikimedia.org. You'll get a prompt response each time from an experienced volunteer, though they probably won't handle complex requests.
6. Offer content: Sometimes the article is factual and accurate, but only the organization's controversies are covered, creating an imbalanced article. Unfortunately, it's unlikely volunteer editors will devote the time to beef up the article at your beckoning, so you've got to do the work to add the other side. Put together a really solid draft of the content you want to add and offer it to the site's editors.
If you feel an editor is picking on you or has a bias, this can be resolved through 3PO (third opinion) and other dispute resolution processes. However, often a public relations editor thinks volunteers are bias or picking on them, when it's really us who are bias!
Asking for corrections on Wikipedia isn't as obvious as it is with the media. There's nobody to call, several different ways to go about it and a lot of venues that often don't elicit a response. But, by following the advice above, you can get corrections made and stay out of trouble while doing it.
When was the last time you saw a Wikipedia component included in a marketing case study or award nomination? Public relations professionals are eager to brag about our work, but apparently not about what we do on Wikipedia.
At a recent American Marketing Association conference on social media, I asked the panel of speakers what their company's policy was on Wikipedia. The panel had been pulled together at the last-minute. They were those eager for the publicity, on the edge of their seat, microphone in-hand. One speaker was so bold as to discuss a client's CEO that started following XXX Twitter handles. But at this moment, the speakers dropped their mics and crossed their arms. An uncomfortable silence took the stage. Even a panel of experts on social media were either ashamed, uncomfortable, or completely un-knowledgeable when it came to one of the world's most influential websites.
One question: Why?
The Wikipedia community often assumes that marketing doesn't know any better and we merely contribute to Wikipedia poorly by mistake, because we didn't know the rules. It's plausible right? We were bias accidentally. But I think it's the skeleton in everybody's closet; the dark spot in our otherwise bright marketing programs.
I want to change it. If you're not proud of your work on Wikipedia, stop doing whatever you're doing. If there's one thing I want to accomplish at EthicalWiki, it's giving companies the tools they need to make genuine improvements to Wikipedia and raise their heads high while doing it. Helping them do work we can all be proud of.
It's time for us to contribute honorably and be proud of our work. Is it harder? You bet. So lets get to work rather than taking the easy way out.
 |
| Some red tape can be a good thing.82,000 |
82,000 Euros have been awarded for a project led by the German Wikipedia community to figure out the best way to handle "paid editing." That's the term used by Wikipedians to describe editors paid by a client or employer, such as public relations participants. Historically, the German Wikipedia has been known to establish precedence for other language Wikis, so this may lead to global progress in the relationship between the PR and Wikipedia communities. The project aims to create more consistent and clear guidelines for ethical participation by companies and create a series of workshops and events, as well as informational pamphlets to educate marketing pros on the appropriate way to engage with Wikipedia.
The effort represents a significant change in tone. For years Wikipedia has praised its "chaos that works," boasted that it has no firm rules and urged editors with a "conflict of interest" to do their best to be neutral. For marketing professionals, it's a frustrating experience without process. Wikipedia had guidelines that encourage you to edit your own Wikipedia article, even though you will most likely get in trouble doing so.
I've adopted the habit of telling others that EthicalWiki's approach to Wikipedia ethics is based on legal guidance, not Wikipedia's rules. Not out of disrespect for Wikipedia, but because the Federal Trade Commission and precedence set by a
German court ruling set much higher standards for ethics and offer clearer guidelines. It just makes sense. Editing a crowd-sourced site as if you are another disinterested volunteer is not acceptable. But being a resource for the site's editors - offering content, requesting corrections and discussing controversies to help improve their coverage is a good thing.
Any journalist will say that good PR is useful and the same is true on Wikipedia. But Wikipedians rarely experience good PR. This is evidenced by the dozens of discussion strings concerning the damage PR editors are doing to the site's legitimacy and fears that PRs are corrupting the site. It's true. We do great PR for the media, have fantastic social media campaigns and blow-out advertisements, but one area few marketers excel is Wikipedia; the dark spot in our otherwise case-study worthy work. Out of the thousands of case-studies our industry produces each year, you'll rarely see someone boast of the quality of work they did on Wikipedia.
Meanwhile, Wikipedia does an awful job at establishing boundaries or collaborating with public relations professionals. In my view, the community needs to stop thinking of public relations as editors who just so happen to have a "potential conflict of interest" and start thinking of them as practitioners that are "trying to do their job" in a way that is respectful and ethical. While there is some room for content marketing like EthicalWiki does, offering complete articles that include the good and the bad, I think the path for most marketers that don't have five years and 11,000 edits of experience on Wikipedia is to fly support the same way we do with media. To offer first drafts, request corrections, donate images, provide sources, answer questions and incite editor participation.
Public relations aren't "replacement editors" or "paid editors"; they are representatives from the company, who support the site's editors. Any journalist will say that "good PR is useful" but they won't ask companies to write their own full-length profile stories and controversies. They will ask public relations to provide images, experts and factual corrections. The best thing for Wikipedia to do is to answer the question: "What would a journalist do?" This is a powerful North Star to guide progress in the relationship and advance Wikipedia as a project to a more sustainable, professional-quality encyclopedia, instead of a junk-yard of blatant promotionalism and rampant bias.
This blog was first published on SocialFresh.
Ethical Wikipedia engagement is similar to traditional public relations with journalists. Just as a PR firm would with media, EthicalWiki offers contributed content, resources, discussion and factual corrections to Wikipedians. As it is with media, relationships, reputation and offering something of value to the medium are crucial.
The big difference?
Journalists expect PR professionals to be bias, while Wikipedia expects us to do our best to be neutral. This puts companies in an awkward position. We may have "no comment" on a subject for the media, but glazing over the issue on Wikipedia is seen as hiding information, manipulating Wikipedia and betraying the community's trust. Journalists expect us to be advocates, but for Wikipedians, advocacy raises defensive walls.
In every case the best thing for the company to do is to just work to make the article compliant with Wikipedia's standards. Companies that create bias articles with obvious omissions often have their articles corrected to the other extreme, invite risk and anger the Wikipedia community; a community that is equipped to enact vengeance on the company through negative editing. Because Wikipedia is openly editable, this leads to a sense of entitlement to control the page, but our relationships with Wikipedia editors are just as important as those with the press.
How do we build relationships on Wikipedia? Like anywhere, they're earned. Through expceptional integrity, patience, diplomacy and neutrality. Trust is the currency of most relationships and on Wikipedia it takes twice as much to earn it through honesty and transparency.
All this creates a seemingly impossible standard for the PR professional that wants to do the right thing. Wikipedia expects you to be neutral, but a half-dozen stakeholders within the company want the Wikipedia article to read like a press release, reiterate corporate messaging and omit all the less flattering aspects of the company's history. How can you do what's right, when your boss and colleagues measure success differently than Wikipedia does?
For the marketing professional that wants to do the right thing, there are at least four ways to convince internal stakeholders to be honest and neutral:
- Newt Gingrich's Wikipedia controversy was proof that even Talk page collaboration on Wikipedia creates risk of media exposure, if it's viewed as an attempt to undermine Wikipedia's sacred neutrality.
- Wikipedians will usually reward honesty and punish indiscretions. Companies that try hiding information or gaming the system can earn short-term gains, but run the risk of getting caught and attracting unwanted attention long-term.
- Companies that put their trust in the community will usually find them to be fair and balanced.
- Relationships count. Companies that want to have a long-term positive relationship with Wikipedians interested in the same topics, should demonstrate the qualities Wikipedians want.
PR and marketing firms are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Edit Wikipedia on behalf of your client and risk
breaking the law or joining a
long history of publicly humiliated organizations. Tell the client there is nothing that can be done, and you ignore arguably the world's
most important website, while inviting client do-it-yourselfers to add their corporate kool-aid to Wikipedia. For many marketing professionals, there is mounting pressure from a boss or client to edit Wikipedia and seemingly no way out of a bad situation. Here's five ways to convince your client or boss that anonymously editing Wikipedia is not the best route.
1. It may be illegal
Wikipedia's rule that marketing professionals disclose our "conflict of interest" and use Talk pages may also be the law. The Federal Trade Commission's
guidanceasks marketing professionals to disclose our affiliation with the organization in online communications. In Germany it was found that a CEO's edits to Wikipedia was an illegal form of covert advertising, even though he disclosed his affiliation with the company on the Talk page. While the FTC hasn't taken a stance on the issue yet in the US, it's certainly legal/ethical hot water most organizations don't want to dip their toes in.
2. Vengeful editing
Even months or years after a company posts promotional content on Wikipedia (which they may have thought was neutral) it's routine for Wikipedia's editorial community to add negative information (sometimes unfairly) to help "balance" the page. Most Wikipedians aren't excited about the prospect of spending hours culling through our content, so there's a simple mantra: "If you do it poorly, I'll do it poorly too." Once companies have already created bad blood with Wikipedians, it's very difficult to earn that relationship back or correct the problem. In general, Wikipedians will do what it takes to discourage bad behavior in an efficient way.
3. There is an ethical way to go
Companies edit Wikipedia anonymously often because they didn't know there was an ethical way to participate. Over-simplified media stories and a lack of general education have led to the assumption that any participation on Wikipedia is unethical and therefor must be done in-secret. When companies learn that there is an ethical path by doing PR and content marketing with the site's editors, rather than astroturfing the page, most companies will take the higher path. Why would anyone put their reputations at risk, jump into legal/ethical hot water and anger Wikipedians just to take a shortcut in doing it properly?
4. Credibility
The level of credibility Wikipedia has with its readers is on a per-article basis. Some articles are well-sourced, neutrally written and high in quality; this makes them credible to readers. On the other hand, Wikipedia's readers routinely tell me that they can tell when they found a self-written promotional page and they are quick to dismiss it. Companies think they have succeeded when a glowing Wikipedia page is created, but all that's been accomplished is turning Wikipedia into another of the 200 advertising messages bombarding people every day that are largely ignored.
5. Wikipedians know you
The guardians of many company pages on Wikipedia are journalists, analysts and customers, especially in B2B or niche areas. Companies that violate Wikipedia etiquette and do things that anger the editors on their page are often rubbing their largest customer or closest analyst the wrong way. Because of Wikipedia's anonymous model, the company will never know the harm they've done. I could name a few companies that think they're getting away with something, but many of their users are talking about their Wiki activities. Wikipedians don't always take the time to point it out or do anything about it. On the other hand, doing Wikipedia well and ethically often strengthens evangelists who are excited you've taken an interest in their side-hobby and demonstrated exceptional character in the manner it was done.
Gall Pharma, a German nutritional supplements company, was fined €250,000 by the Munich High Regional Court for edits made to Wikipedia, according to the German Wikipedia's newsletter. The company's edits highlighted that their incense products were available in German pharmacies and elaborated on why their competitor's products were not, a contested claim that could influence buying decisons.
The German court found that:
- The company's disclosure on the Wikipedia article's Talk page did not suffice, because readers can't be expected to see it
- Readers have an expectation that Wikipedia is written by objective and neutral editors
- Wikipedia is a form of advertising and content on the site may constitute an "endorsement" of a product
- These edits constituted a form of covert advertising
The ruling may set a precedence on how the European Unfair Practices Directive is interpreted regarding the legality of Wikipedia astroturfing and it will be interesting to see if the US-based Federal Trade Commission has a similar interpretation of its own Endorsement Guides, which require marketing professionals to disclose their affiliation in online communications:
"When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed."
Many Fortune 500 companies have - perhaps without considering the legal and ethical ramifications - written glowing product reviews on Wikipedia that are not far afield from Gall Pharma's editing. Additionally, huge swaths of Wikipedia's English articles on companies are written by the company's representatives anonymously. Are all these edits unlawful?
What it means for marketing
The news reinforces what EthicalWiki's position has been all along, that directly editing Wikipedia is - at the very least - ethically and legally ambiguous. Many PR professionals have been advocating against Jimmy Wales' "Bright Line" rule that public relations pros not directly edit Wikipedia. It turns out it may not just be his rule, it may also be the law.
That being said, like many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the FTC's regulations have language that encourages common sense. I don't forecast companies will get fined for correcting grammar, removing vandalism or offering content for consideration. Rather the ruling re-affirms that Wikipedia is an atonomous site; that PR professionals are not correct to portray ourselves as just another member of the public editing; and that there are some disclaimers in Wikipedia being the site "that anyone can edit."
Marketing is not without recourse for improving our Wikipedia articles. According to Jimmy Wales, "using the talk pages, wikiprojects, notifying other editors on notice boards, coming to my talk page, emailing OTRS - these are all valid options that work successfully. Editing directly is extremely likely to prove embarrassing for your client."
Any contribution to Wikipedia of any size that is genuinely valuable to the site can be made in a format that leaves content decisions in the hands of impartial editors where they belong. EthicalWiki has overhauled controversies, re-written articles and made 5,000+ word contributions without ever touching the page.
The take-home message? Stop editing Wikipedia and start doing quality public relations and content marketing with the site's editors.
A substantial transformation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline is underway in an attempt to simplify and clarify our instructions for PR professionals. These changes are in the wake of months of thoughtful debate within Wikipedia's editorial community, following the Bell Pottinger scandal, best practices established by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations and a lobbying effort by Edelman. In a community of editors that debate the virtues of "the" versus "The" for eight years, the difficulty in reaching community-wide agreement on Wikipedia can't be underestimated.
Answering our complaints
Many of the current or upcoming changes to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline reflect responses to issues raised by the PR community.
The rules are too complicated
Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline has been cut almost in half and extensive discussions are taking place on how to set better boundaries for PR professionals, create clearer instructions and make the ethical path forward more obvious.
Contradicting advice
Contradicting advice can be found on Wikipedia largely because editors with different opinions write different documents. Once the conflict of interest guideline is completed, editors have discussed going through a half-dozen essays, FAQs and other documentation to make sure they are consistent.
Everything is in Wiki-language we don't understand
This problem isn't unique to marketing professionals; every new editor struggles with Wikipedia's way of explaining things. This is where I am particularly active in trying to help editors understand that "financial COI," "paid advocate," and "paid editor" aren't terms marketing professionals understand or resonate with.
Bright Line?
Jimmy Wales has insisted public relations professionals never directly edit an article, but Wikipedia's editors have different points-of-view. This is a difficult hurdle to overcome, because Wikipedia has no firm rules, yet we aspire to set clear boundaries and simplified rules for marketers.
What I would like to see
EthicalWiki encourages organizations not to do what is tolerable on Wikipedia, but to do what is exceptional. So long as even a quarter of Wikipedia's editorial community opposes direct editing by PR professionals, organizations are motivated to do what is accepted by a larger majority. When we offer contributed content, discuss controversial issues and request factual corrections, we treat Wikipedia with the same autonomy and respect as any independent news organization. What we need is less "paid editing" on Wikipedia and more good public relations with the site's editors.
My hope is that the revised conflict of interest guideline will:
- Encourage marketing professionals to avoid controversy and ethical ambiguity by focusing on Talk page strategies
- Offer straightforward instructions on how to request edits and offer contributed content
- Encourage organizations to do good PR by supporting our editors with images, resources, research and expertise
Wikipedia's openly editable model and a history of misbehavior on the site creates radical attitudes about what constitutes astrotrufing on the online encyclopedia. According to the FTC, astroturfing occurs when someone intentionally gives the appearance of an organic, grass-roots source by not disclosing they were re-imbursed for their statements.
I would like to set the record straight in particular with regards to what is or isn't astroturfing on Wikipedia.
1. Illegal
In 1980 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published "the Guides," a set of guidelines that establish what is and isn't astroturfing. The guides were updated in 2009 and demonstrated in the Reverb Communications case. It's simple, individuals that work for the company are expected to disclose that affiliation in online communications.
In 2011, The Bell Pottinger Group created a fake identity as a retired stock broker in order to pretend they were a disinterested volunteer editor on Wikipedia. This kind of intentional deceit to mimic a grassroots effort may have legal repercussions. Astroturfing laws have led most legal departments to establish policies - as recommended by the FTC - to identify ourselves online and ask bloggers that have received gifts or reimbursement to disclose it. When companies edit Wikipedia anonymously, but are not specifically deceitful, they are not following legal best practices, but it would likely be seen as a good-faith mistake by Wikipedians and in the eyes of the law.
2. Suspect
There are ways to participate on Wikipedia that are controversial (and risky), but not necessarily illegal. They are not unethical, nor are they ethical, rather there are areas where there is disagreement and varying points of view, among the Wikipedia community, the media and the public at-large. "It depends" is the mantra of conflict of interest on Wikipedia. While the FTC has not set a precedence or provided guidance for Wikipedia, we can assume that corporate participants that disclose their affiliation with the company on their user page and on the Talk page of the article have fulfilled their obligation to the FTC. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines also allow an editor with a conflict of interest to edit the page, it merely urges caution and warns of "real-world consequences."
3. Ethical
EthicalWiki called our latest report "Finding Safety in Ethics," because the business value of ethics is a welcomed collaboration with the editorial community and avoiding the risk associated with mediocre ethics. Companies with a hands-off policy can request factual corrections, discuss controversial issues and offer contributed content to the site's editors through Talk pages.
When companies ignore that Wikipedia is openly editable, our relationship becomes the same as how we work with any other website, because we work collaboratively with the site's editors. Wikipedia's openly editable model gives marketing professionals a feeling of entitlement, but if we humble ourselves and treat Wikipedia with autonomy and respect, any contribution that is valuable to Wikipedia can be made without the controversy.
Within the clearly ethical band, companies still have options. Some choose to pro-actively cover controversies, while others cross their fingers that they won't be covered. One rarely used, but very effective and efficient approach, is a sponsored Wikipedian. This is when an experienced Wikipedia editor is sponsored, but the company grants them editorial freedom, realizing encyclopedic content is difficult to pass through corporate approval cycles.
Most companies can improve their Wikipedia articles by preparing excellent draft articles, genuinely collaborating with other Wikipedia editors and requesting a move to article-space when it's ready. Just like any other website, final editorial decisions are left in the hands of editors who only have the reader's interest at heart.
This essay was originally published by the International Association of Business Communicators in the CW Bulletin. It has been reposted here with slight modifications and corrections.
Wikipedia has been called the most influential website on the planet. It has more college-educated readers than Facebook or Twitter. According to the Wikimedia Foundation’s latest stats, Wikipedia gets 6.6 billion views a year and reaches 74 percent of the U.S. population (26 percent worldwide). In a world now filled with 140 character tweets and click-hungry infotainment news, for many, Wikipedia is the last bastion of deep, meaningful and genuinely neutral information, written by academics (Wikipedia editors are more than twice as likely as the average American to have a master’s degree or Ph.D.).
However, many organizations and PR professionals don’t see it the same way. Neutral? Written by academics!? For us, Wikipedia articles define our brand, heritage, reputation, executives, and products for online searches. But for the Wikipedia community, these articles are thier top priority. According to an analysis I conducted of 2,578 company articles on Wikipedia, only 10 percent are marked as high or top priority by Wikipedia’s editorial community.
The quality and completeness of Wikipedia’s content is a rollercoaster. Controversies get more coverage than growth stories and philanthropy because they’re more interesting to Wikipedia's editors. Articles on politicians, sports, science, and culture are more complete, well-written, properly sourced, balanced, and of a higher quality than most brand pages. Wikipedia’s editorial community is 87 percent male, many of whom are technology professionals. This leads to more than 100 articles on different versions of Linux, while major cosmetics brands don’t naturally attract interested editors.
What to do about it
While it takes more work, patience and expertise, the only completely safe way for PR professionals to make substantive improvements to their organization’s and brand’s Wikipedia articles is to do so without directly editing the article. This is the approach sanctioned by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, supported by Jimmy Wales and recommended by Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guideline. Any content or correction of any length or complexity that is genuinely valuable to Wikipedia can be contributed through transparent community collaboration. According to Wikipedia’s editing guidelines, editors with a “financial conflict of interest” (which could include company representatives) are encouraged to use Talk pages and the {{request edit}} option to make changes to pages.
Wikipedia is controversial, because its openly editable format leaves it vulnerable to censorship, advertising and corporate influence. When we as PR professionals ignore the fact that Wikipedia is openly editable, philosophically our relationship becomes similar to the one we have with professional journalists. We can offer contributed content, act as a resource, discuss controversial issues, and request factual corrections just as we do with the traditional media. Not directly editing the article doesn’t prevent us from overhauling bias controversy sections, contributing 5,000-word articles or reworking a substantial body of work—it merely leaves final content decisions in the hands of impartial Wikipedia editors that have only the reader’s interests in mind.
When legal and marketing departments establish their corporate Wikipedia strategy or policy, they often feel they are faced with only two choices: Ignore one of the world’s most influential websites with a hands-off policy or engage in the risky, controversial and ethically ambiguous practice of direct editing. In some circumstances these are both good strategies, but most companies can find more effective middle ground by engaging in PR or content marketing with Wikipedia’s citizen journalists—a safe and ethical way to make improvements that is valuable both for the organization and Wikipedia. In EthicalWiki’s strategy selection chart, only one of five strategies involve editing the article.
Content is king
Aligning corporate objectives with Wikipedia’s content needs is the fundamental building block of a successful Wikipedia strategy. Any Wikipedia initiative that brings long-term value to the company should also bring value to Wikipedia; otherwise, it will eventually be purged.
For example, heritage brands that lean on their history as part of their corporate identity have an amazing opportunity on Wikipedia, which has a vast audience. Many companies come to Wikipedia to improve their article, but then find they have a vested interest in informing the public about subjects they don’t have a conflict of interest with. Focusing on a single corporate Wikipedia article with an edit button is an overly simplistic way of looking at it, when Fortune 500 companies have dozens of articles that span a variety of topics relating to the organization, such as information about executives, business units, products, and sometimes major events (like a legal controversy). Each one of these may have a dedicated Wikipedia page. For instance, Wells Fargo has a page dedicated to the organization’s history, and Justin Bieber's Wikipedia page has a section on just his Twitter account. Contributing images of your product for Wikipedia articles on the product category also presents an opportunity to promote that product to an audience of millions per year in a manner that is also valuable to Wikipedia.
Good content according to Wikipedia
According to Charles Matthews, a major contributor to Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guideline, Wikipedia wants “the type of article that a business school academic would write.” Wikipedia’s definition of good content can be counterintuitive to PR professionals. For example, PR professionals often want to add their organization’s latest news to Wikipedia. In contrast, Wikipedia wants their oldest archives. Product PR wants to focus on the product, but Wikipedia is more interested in the company’s heritage, business model and corporate culture. As PR professionals, our instinct is to write the article, but what Wikipedians need and want most is research.
More than 50 percent of requests for improvement to company articles on Wikipedia concern providing sources so the article can be improved. PR agencies and departments that want to effectively engage with Wikipedia should consider a do-it-yourself approach by becoming a trusted resource to volunteer editors. For organizations that already have an article on Wikipedia, another approach is to have an intern share feature stories on the Talk page in proper citation templates to make it easier for Wikipedia volunteers to improve the page.
Content marketing, meaning writing exceptional articles and offering them to the community, requires more resources and expertise, but also delivers more consistent results.
Collaborate with nothing to hide
The best way not to get “exposed” for editing Wikipedia covertly is to have nothing to hide. Wikipedia’s readers and editors can tell when a company wrote its own article. They can even see exactly what’s going on behind the scenes, equipped with nothing but editing records on Wikipedia and enough smarts for solid speculation.
Be transparent about who you are, what your objectives are and who you work for. Don’t overhaul an article without disclosing negative information or controversies. In truth, negative information is more likely to be excluded if you’re shoving it down an editor’s throat, begging them to write it for you, than if you’re skating by hoping they won’t notice.
Most of all—be patient. Just like journalists at The New York Times don’t pick up the phone each time you call, most of Wikipedia’s editors won’t be immediately responsive. Companies that make the investment in engaging with Wikipedia properly will typically find Wikipedians thanking them for their contributions and for their respectful approach.