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.

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

It’s a good project for someone…
Connie

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

great to hear from a wikipedia Admin, thanks for this

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 …

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