This post was first shared on SocialFresh.
It is with the utmost civility
and an assumption that both parties are making a good faith
effort to serve the public good that I'm writing this open letter asking the Institute of Public Relations and the PRSA to reconsider their position on the role of public relations professionals on Wikipedia. Both organizations have advocated against the "bright line
," an informal best practice for PR professionals not to directly edit articles on Wikipedia on behalf of their employer or clients. The concept is a favorite of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales.
Wikipedia is an autonomous news and information source, not unlike The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. The difference being that it is run by citizen journalists, its content needs are based on a set of rules and it uses different models of communication. To provide some perspective, lets consider if we had the same lobbying platform against another form of independent media, like The New York Times:
- Imagine asking the New York Times to allow PR people to directly edit company profile stories
- Picture lobbying against the media, because they are not responsive enough to your voicemails (the Talk page)
- What if you were complaining to the media that it is too difficult to figure out how to meet their content needs?
We have made a science out of determining and fulfilling the content needs of the media, influencers and social media audiences. Why are we asking Wikipedia to make changes to our benefit, when the model has almost always been the other way? Wikipedia isn't that different from traditional PR. We can write contributed articles, make factual corrections, provide perspective on controversial issues and pitch them to impartial editors
For one PRSA event
, the following abstract was provided:
"With his grave misunderstanding of our profession, he [Jimbo] has decided that PR people are biased and thus are not allowed to create or edit Wikipedia pages for our organizations or clients – even simple corrections of errors like the misspelling of the CEO’s name. So we are left with a confusing, cumbersome process to do our job when it involves Wikipedia."
A recent report
from the Institute of Public Relations is focused on "the problems with Wikipedia's editing rule for public relations." In advocating against Wikipedia's rules, we have actually validated their need. Content from both sources verify that it is difficult for us to remain neutral, as neither represent "all majority and minority viewpoints" nor are they written in encyclopedic tone. Additionally, the one-sided media articles secured by the PR industry's efforts actually show our ability to corrupt the neutrality of trusted sources, merely through well thought-out, but one-sided, arguments. In these media stories, none of the volunteer editors at Wikipedia were given a voice to share the other side. Through the availability of resources, a bias has been created to rationalize a very extreme point of view on a complex subject.
Issues of fact
There has been substantial circulation of factual errors resulting from the inherit bias a frustrated PR industry has on the issues. For example, the "bright line" is a best practice that merely exists as a concept and essay that many editors support. There is no "rule" to change and no authority at Wikipedia who could ever change it. There is no possible outcome to advocating against the very existence of an idea. This is portrayed as "changing a rule," but what we're talking about is eradicating an idea. This is like taking an axe to split vapor. It has been repeatedly stated that PR professionals aren't allowed to make simple spelling or grammar changes, however the COI Guideline
specifically allows direct editing in these circumstances. These efforts are seen as so aggressive and hostile, there is actually - apparently - a rumor on Wikipedia that PR professionals will show up in mass at the Wikimania conference to astroturf the perspective given on paid editing. Many of these efforts presented in the public sphere is extremely offensive to a volunteer community that pours their free time into a community they cherish, love and believe in with an unparalleled sense of mission. If these efforts were ever intended to support meaningful change at Wikipedia, it is very likely it will have the opposite effect, creating even more hostility against us by presenting a spotlight example of the reason they don't want this kind of advocacy to reach Wikipedia.
A better solution
We need to collaborate with the community on their
terms, based on their
content needs, by communicating in the ways they
prefer, just as we always have with the media. After all, it is their
turf. I am just one person. I can't compete with the PR engine at work. However, if I have instilled any doubt in your mind on your current position. If you're hesitating right now thinking, maybe we should be humbler, learn more, ask more. Maybe we
are the ones that need to change, there are several more productive things we can do.
Image source: Shutterstock.com old letter and ink
- If the COI guideline is confusing, lets work with the community to improve it.
- If not enough PR professionals know the rules, lets educate them.
- If there is a weak relationship between the Wikipedia community and PR, lets improve it through our actions.
- If the rules are confusing, maybe there is an essay we can improve or create to help.