Rules of Engagement for the Web Marketing Battleground: Wikipedia

Categories: Community Marketing, Social MediaPosted on August 19th, 2007

As you now know, Web Marketing has spread off the corporate domain as the corporate website becomes less relevant. Websites like Wikipedia are important as they: 1) Result high in Search Results 2) Are deemed to be credible, independent sources 3) Where prospects look for market research (I conducted interviews at my previous role to find out this is true)

Wikipedia is one of the largest collections of human knowledge, given the ease that many can easily contribute to it. In a recent article by the New York Times, we’re now spotting fingerprints of corporations manipulating and deleting information for brand protection.

I attended Forrester’s Social Computing event where Charlene Li gave some practical advice:

-Consider assigning one employee to make changes, if at all.
-Be fair and unbiased (if possible)
-Consider using the discussion area on the site (not the main page)
-She gave a lot of other information, but I’ll leave it for her to blog

Monitoring Wikipedia regarding your brand, products, executives and competitors is absolutely mandatory for the Web Strategist, but before engaging, have a strategy that will help all readers, provide factual information, and of course, not end up in an embarrassing situation. Be sure to check out this helpful rules of engagement on wikipedia. Brian Oberkirch has strong suggestions for corporate folks not to edit any entries without being completely transparent.

Share This Post:

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 19th, 2007 at 9:20 am and is filed under Community Marketing, Social Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Jeremiah,

Great post, and terrific links. I absolutely agree that monitoring Wikipedia is a critical step that must be included on any emerging media checklist.

There is an inherent disconnect, though, when it comes to Wikipedia. On one hand, the site’s most prolific editors want it to continue to be a utopian information-wants-to-be-free resource (”Anyone can edit a page!”). On the other hand, hell will hath no fury if you try to edit a page and even the slightest connection to the subject.

Case in point, my firm has a client who is building a major water park resort in the northern Illinois suburbs. There is a huge public interest here, and given your point on how Wikipedia show up very high in search results, it stands to reason that having an entry on the site would be doubly important both to the public and to the client. On three separate occasions, an entry was submitted and deleted within minutes.

Several weeks ago, I submitted the entry again after making doubly certain that it linked to credible third-party sources as well as removing anything remotely promotional. Within 10 minutes of posting, the entry was tabbed for deletion. I lodged a protest, and the deletion was put up for discussion. The number one reason given for deletion was bias. I asked, and nobody could give a straight answer, who was supposed to contribute an entry if neither the resort’s owners nor its PR firm (us) could contribute the entry.

I understand the need to protect against bias. I really do. But to assume that anyone remotely connected with the entry’s topic is inherently biased is just short-sighted.

I’m actually thinking about trying an experiment next time this comes up. I am going to post a sample entry — plus images available under Creative Commons license — and post it to the company’s online newsroom. Instead of us posting it, we’ll wait and see if someone goes ahead and uses the content to create an entry.

Other suggestions are more than welcome as well.

—-
Michael E. Rubin
Arment Dietrich, Inc.

Call me — 312-787-7249 x212
Tell a friend — fight destructive spin! http:///www.spinsucks.com
See what I’m up to — http://twitter.com/merubin
See a picture of an orangutan — http://tinyurl.com/yosceb

Posted by Michael Rubin, Arment Dietrich on August 19th, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Michael, good example, thanks for sharing. I think we all agree, there are no ‘perfect’ communication tools.

Posted by jeremiah_owyang on August 19th, 2007 at 3:27 pm

In my experience (as an English Wikipedia admin and a press contact for the Wikimedia Foundation), much of it isn’t done out of underhandedness at all - it’s that they think they’re honestly setting the record straight, but don’t know the right way to do it.

And the news stories are demonstrating that “perceived conflict of interest” “the right way to do things” isn’t just explicit Wikipedia rules, but implicit rules of the society we live in.

The Microsoft example from January is a good case in point - they actually tried to do it as openly as they could, but people assumed they were just spinning things. I think we got it straightened out fairly well.

“Let’s you and him fight” press stories about Wikipedia and a company don’t do our project or its aims any good either. We don’t want to take companies to the cleaners, we don’t want people scared to approach Wikipedia, we want people to participate and help in a way that works and that looks good because it is good. It’s something we’re still working out how to do …

Posted by David Gerard on August 20th, 2007 at 5:27 am

David

great to hear from a wikipedia Admin, thanks for this

Posted by jeremiah_owyang on August 20th, 2007 at 7:49 am

I wonder if one of the inherent problems with Wikipedia is that the editors aren’t always knowledgeable about the topics they are editing and it is difficult to make a judgement about that as a reader.

Understanding editorial processes is not the same as understanding the underlying topic that is being edited.

Posted by Dennis McDonald on August 20th, 2007 at 8:25 am

Never, ever, ever try to edit your own entry. Sheesh. We’re not building a grand piano here, folks. Yes, I know you WANT to, but you can’t. Ask your community to do it, instead, or get on the discussion pages and try to convince. Edit yourself? You can’t win. We want you to win. We think you’re nice. But, alas, you’ll only look sneaky or petulant.

Posted by Curt on August 20th, 2007 at 10:27 am

When I was researching for a blog post I noticed that wikipedia needs updated def’ns for ’social media’ & ’social networking’ doesn’t exist. It was redirected to ’social network service’.

It’s a good project for someone…
Connie

Posted by Connie Bensen on August 20th, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Connie, Ugh, I won’t touch it, I think Brian Solis may want to.

Posted by jeremiah_owyang on August 20th, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Dennis, good point, maybe that’s why they require references to each article

[...] Rules of Engagement for the Web Marketing Battleground: Wikipedia (tags: wikipedia marketing socialmedia) [...]

I’ve had a number of clients asking about this issue lately. I tell them the same thing I’ve always said about social interaction (offline and online alike): Maintain an open and honest relationship.

The reality is that Wikipedia has a number of inherent conceptual problems (i.e. content edited by people who likely don’t know the subject, certain level of error due to the open nature, etc.). We’re still working through these issues as a society, yet far far too many people (and wikipedia admins) believe, IMHO, that we’ve already found the right answers.

I don’t like biased, PR Agency driven edits any more than anyone else. But we can’t say to companies that we expect them to participate on the social web, then smack their hand for doing so. If we’re going to smack hands, it should be for doing stupid things, not for simply showing up like they’ve been asked to do.