So. . . the latest PR brouhaha is that a PR firm created, edited and changed pages on Wikipedia.
I don’t know all the details, but the article at this point has a lot of finger pointing and innuendo. Beyond the article some are even saying that a PR firm should not create or edit Wikipedia pages for a client.
I have to say, “What is wrong with a PR firm creating a page for a client or correcting errors in a page about a client?”
I briefly looked at the editorial policy for Wikipedia, and it states, "Anyone can create or edit a page…" It doesn’t say, “except for PR and marketing firms on behalf of a client.” So I have to believe that when they say “anyone,” they mean ANYONE.
The fact that anyone can create or edit pages is one of Wikipedia’s greatest strengths and, at the same time, greatest weaknesses.
Unfortunately, there are people out there, not all of them working for PR firms, who deliberately remove anything negative, place overly positive comments and editorialize like crazy, not to mention just plain lie on Wikipedia pages that they have designated themselves as the gatekeeper for all information on the subject.
If one of the main duties of a PR firm is to protect their client’s reputation and provide correct information about them, isn’t it also their responsibility to ensure any information concerning that client is up-to-date and accurate on a website like Wikipedia?
What do you think?
Ken
Posts
3 comments:
If you are editing a page for a client (regardless of whether you are a PR firm, or a social media expert, or just a marketing consultant), the operative word is FOR, i.e. you are editing that page for a particular reason such as the client pays you to keep that information up to date. There should be no reason to protest that. I am however not completely convinced that Wikipedia the the correct venue for information about private or public companies. That does seem to me as belonging on a dedicated web page rather that a Wiki, but then I could be accused of being more than a little ignorant of the actual details of this controversy. I do believe that allowing random people to edit Wiki entries places all the information on Wiki's into question, thereby causing people to question the information available on Wikipedia. Placing the information on a dedicated website controls access to the information, thereby ensuring the veracity of the information. Just my random musings. Jim Stoutamore
I agreed corporate websites are the place for that sort of information, but the big problem with Wikipedia is that is has become a major source of information for both the general public and the news media.
Over the last few years there have been a number of news articles that have used information from Wikipedia what was 100-percent wrong. Then that wrong information is amplified 100-fold on news websites all over the world.
The news gathering field has changed so much in the last decade, and reporters are under so much pressure today, that fact checking has just about gone out the window. Plus beat reporters, those reporters who were familiar with a subject, industry or issue, are practically nonexistent now. So it is much easier to lead reporters astray with wrong information.
And I have no idea what the solution is. But it won't be easy.
All in all - the "community" of Wikipedia does a pretty good job of balancing, pruning, renovating, or just plain editing content on its website for creditability (although notable exceptions do apply). A force that powerful needs to be embraced by any and all - and that includes the smallest business owner to the largest CEO. The facts and information are out there and, creditably sourced, everyone has the right to post them.
Post a Comment