Edelman and Technorati Japan have released the results of a blogger survey (PDF, 37 pages) (press release), based on the same questionnaire used for the survey published in January 2006.
It’s good to see that the limitations of the survey are clearly stated this time (the previous study had serious problems in this area).
PS: Memo to press releases fans: they’re big in Japan! :) (details in page 29)
The issue of PR firms’ involvement in editing Wikipedia entries for clients strikes again: the German newspaper Die Welt has recently published an article (original) featuring MyWikiBiz, a US company founded by Gregory Kohs, that is writing (for a fee) Wikipedia articles about companies.
Mr. Kohs, who was editing the clients’ articles under the username MyWikiBiz, has been banned blocked for 10 days by Jimmy Wales for being paid to add entries to Wikipedia which — says Mr. Wales — “is a serious serious no-no because of the obvious conflict-of-interest issues“. Also, the Wikipedia article edited by Kohs on Norman Technologies has been marked as AfD (article for deletion) which has started a discussion that will likely determine if PR firms will have any involvement in editing their clients’ entries in Wikipedia, and how the process should work.
Bellow you’ll find a list of links pointing to Wikipedia talk pages and discussions lists where this issue has been debated for the last couple of weeks (as well as a couple of other articles that I thought are relevant for this discussion). If you’ll take the time to read them — which I strongly recommend — you’ll see that the issue is not trivial. (I’ll post my views on this issue later.)
The problem of edits by PR firms for client — or any “pay for edit” arrangements — is not going to disappear. This is not only about using Wikipedia to promote one’s clients - it’s also about accuracy and reputation. As Wikipedia’s readership, popularity, and position in search engines results will grow, companies will become more and more concerned about the accuracy of Wikipedia’s entries and on how their reputation is affected by it, and will not stay idle if the entries on their organization, leaders, or products are inaccurate.
Of course there will always be a problem with anonymous editors. But I think there are a lot of PR firms and practitioners that are willing to abide by a code that will state clearly the guidelines to be followed by a practitioner for getting involved in the edits of clients pages.
This code doesn’t exist yet - and the discussion about it is happening, for now, without the participation of PR practitioners.
The problems raised by this case are not confined to Wikipedia. The industry should start working now on the rules of engagement on Social Media Commons — social spaces like del.icio.us, YouTube, digg, MySpace, and Second Life — that will allow organizations’ participation in a way that is transparent and respects the communities’ rules.
Let us talk about: “What should Wikipedia do about editors who are paid to contribute to Wikipedia?”
With the advent of User:MyWikiBiz and continuing discussion on Wikipedia:Conflicts_of_interest, it has emerged that the absence of any form of rules or policy for editing that has been directly or indirectly paid for is a issue that needs to be resolved. What follows are the personal thoughts and solution of myself and other contributors to this article. It is presented in the manner of classical motions for debate.
I think we need to be very clear in a lot of different places that PR firms editing Wikipedia is something that we frown upon very very strongly. The appearance of impropriety is so great that we should make it very very strongly clear to these firms that we do not approve of what they would like to do. [...]
Additionally, it is always appropriate to interact on the talk pages of articles. If a PR firm is not happy about how something is presented about their client, they can identify themselves openly on the talk page, and present well-reasoned arguments and additional information and links. [...]
Other articles and blog entries on PR edits in Wikipedia:
I think that PR-firms editing in a community space is deeply unethical, and that clients should put very firm pressure on their PR firms to not embarrass them in this way.
Hat tip: PR-Kloster, Storryblogger & bitemarks.
Technorati tags: wikipedia, public relations, social media commons
Starting a blog to “share and discuss research-based knowledge” in PR is a great way to open a new chapter in the activity of IPR, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year.
I really hope this is going to be an important step toward bridging the gap between PR practitioners and academia. Join the Conversations!
XHTML · CSS · Theme: Almost Spring (modified)