Skip to content

Wikipedia editors discussing PR firms participation – Rules of Engagement in Social Media Commons

Ward Wiki's logoThe 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.

Other articles and blog entries on PR edits in Wikipedia:

Hat tip: PR-Kloster, Storryblogger & bitemarks.

Technorati tags: , ,

Comments 8

  1. Mike Driehorst wrote:

    Is there anywhere on Wikipedia that states people cannot be paid to edit or start entries? (Yes, I could look, but would rather ask first, then check.)

    If not, then why is Kohs banned? If you are paid to start/edit entries, does that assume the information is misleading? I edited an entry with new information based on a client. The information was accurate (sports stats, personnel, etc.), but was it cause for being banned?

    If Wikipedia bans PR firms or anyone paid to start/edit entries, isn’t that going against the purpose or the spirit of Wikipedia? You can’t start a collective knowledge vehicle and then change rules, or make them up.

    Well, if you started Wikipedia, I guess you can institute your own rules, midstream.

    This is just an example of why sources like dictionary.com and similar reference sites are the best vehicles for information. Or, how about the ol’ fashion Web search?

    I very rarely use Wikipedia because the information there cannot be guaranteed to be accurate. Or, at least, put forward in good faith.
    Mike

    Posted 29 Aug 2006 at 3:19 pm
  2. Todd And wrote:

    Interesting read. Enjoy your blog.

    Todd

    Posted 29 Aug 2006 at 7:18 pm
  3. Gregory Kohs wrote:

    The account for MyWikiBiz (Gregory Kohs) — that’s me — is NOT blocked any longer. My firm is (until a more permanent, official policy develops) abiding by the agreement that Jimbo Wales offered. We post GFDL content on our own website (http://mywikibiz.com/wikifiedarticles/index.html), and respected editors of Wikipedia who are NOT employees of MyWikiBiz.com are free to post these articles to Wikipedia, if they feel the content is not unduly biased in any significant way. It’s a half-hearted “solution” to a problem that I still fail to see as a real problem, but those are the parameters we’re working within. Our account was blocked for a total of ten days, and we’ve been in operation for about a month. Certain Wikipedians who are in a panic don’t seem to understand that our clients are not looking to “advertise” or “promote” their business on Wikipedia. They merely want to be fairly included in what has become a leading repository of the “public record”. It’s when opponents begin to demand proof of importance and notability that articles begin to take on a commercial tone.

    Posted 29 Aug 2006 at 11:30 pm
  4. Niall Cook wrote:

    Interesting as always, Constantin. Do you know if they have rules for companies editing the information about themselves? Surely if I am a communications director and I edit the page about my company, then I am also being “paid” to do so?

    Posted 30 Aug 2006 at 3:35 am
  5. Rohit wrote:

    Constantin – This is a great summary of the issue, thanks for turning your lens on this and brining multiple views together. A slight correction for you, the original date of my post was actually March 3, 2006. An interesting effect I also noted after posting was that my views were the subject of some debate on Wikipedia forums. While some shared strong views against marketers being part of the conversation, most ultimately agreed that as long as the basic tenents of relevance and neutrality (among others) are followed, “corporate content” can have a legitimate place in Wikipedia.

    Posted 30 Aug 2006 at 6:04 am
  6. Constantin Basturea wrote:

    Mike, there is a proposed policy/guideline on Conflicts of Interest addressing the question you’re asking:

    “If you fit either of these descriptions:

    1. you are getting paid to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (either directly, as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly, as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes);
    2. you expect to derive monetary benefit from editing Wikipedia, as, for example, the owner of a company you are writing about;

    then we encourage you very strongly to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas in which you appear to have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy states that all Wikipedia articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and a conflict of interest makes it difficult to fulfill this duty impartially.”

    This isn’t about changing rules midstream: it’s about a decentralized system on Admins and editors that might disagree with other Admins/editors on their decisions (like the one made by Jimmy Wales when he banned temporarily MyWikiBiz) and about a community-driven process of establishing and modifying policies (that’s what’s happening right now with the policy on Conflicts of Interests).

    Todd – thank you for reading!

    Gregory – thank you for clarifications. I understand your clients’ need for being fairly represented in Wikipedia – but, on the other hand, I understand people who are trying to keep at bay the hype and commercialization of Wikipedia. I hope we’re going to find a solution that will preserve Wikipedia’s integrity while allowing companies a role in correcting false information about themselves and contributing accurate information.

    Niall, since a company is a “fictional person” :), employees’ edits of articles are covered by the Conflicts of Interest guideline.

    Rohit, apologies for the mistake (corrected now), and thank you for the link you provided – it’s really interesting. It proves the point that if marketers are showing understanding of community rules and willingness to follow them –like you did in your blog post– then it’s more likely to be accepted as contributors in the social media commons.

    Posted 30 Aug 2006 at 5:16 pm
  7. Tom wrote:

    Wikipedia is a popularity contest, just like DMOZ. The editors have attitudes (ok, I don’t believe ALL of them do) and it’s sad because I bet there’s many people who just jumped on the bandwagon while there’s been nothing but hard work over the years for the creators and parties involved who had good intentions. Wikipedia is great – but when you create something that’s free for anyone to post to, you gotta run with it. OR do the opposite. Make it not free or make a review process. Of course that all requires man hours and money. Then again, moderators to a free automatic inclusion site also costs time if not money… the moderators certainly should be paid.

    I think Wikipedia will ultimately fall into the clutches of spam and control by money. Sad.

    Posted 06 Sep 2006 at 9:30 am
  8. kaye sweetser wrote:

    So if there is a fact error on your client’s wikipedia page & you have all the info to correct the record, is the best approach to go in to the “discussion” talk tab of the wiki entry & add in your information there (so it shows up in forum area but not on the actual wiki entry)? Being fully transparent of who you are, of course. What is the right way to do it?

    Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 11:42 am

Trackbacks & Pingbacks 13

  1. From Simonsays on 30 Aug 2006 at 8:45 am

    PR professionals need a social media Code of Conduct

    Constantin Basturea reports that a debate is ranging over at Wikipedia about the use of ‘pay-for-edit’ firms writing clients’ entries. The debate was sparked by a US firm, MyWikiBiz, which charges clients $49 to produce a stub or $79 for

  2. From Social Media World » PR and Wikiality on 30 Aug 2006 at 7:27 pm

    [...] Apparently, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, except for PR professionals (and Stephen Colbert). Constantin Basturea points out that Wiki-marketing, wherein a certain German PR agency was banned from placing articles on Wikipedia for pay. PR should remain as transparent as possible and this version of wiki-payola certainly doesn’t help the case for collective intelligence. Wikipedia has smart people at the helm who can help control abuse on the site, just like the collective community over at digg. Bookmark to:          [...]

  3. From Wiki me this Batman « Blogging Me Blogging You on 31 Aug 2006 at 11:25 am

    [...] Your guide through the ethical minefield of a Wikipedia entry?  Founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales via an illuminating interview on Bitemarks.  Constantin Basturea has an excellent article on the subject, including a plethora of links, as well as Alex Pullen who wrote on it yesterday.  [...]

  4. From New Media in Australia » Blog Archive » Reputation management in the wiki world on 31 Aug 2006 at 5:05 pm

    [...] Constantin Basturea’s PR meets the WWW has a comprehensively-sourced entry on the latest controversy. Basturea argues for a code of conduct. I think he’s right but it’s unlikely to be readily agreed to; but the internet – from bulletin boards to wikis themselves – has shown the willingness and abilities of users to referee codes of behaviour. [...]

  5. From links for 2006-09-08 « Das Textdepot on 07 Sep 2006 at 7:34 pm

    [...] PR meets the WWW » Wikipedia editors discussing PR firms participation – Rules of Engagement in Social Media Commons Constantin Bastruera zu PR-initiiierten Wikipedia-Beiträgen. Er schlägt eine Art Codex vor, der sich auch auf andere Social Media-Plattformen beziehen sollte (tags: Ethik wiki online-pr) [...]

  6. From Wikipedia and PR - The New PR on 05 Dec 2006 at 2:25 pm

    [...] December Ryan12:49 am2 Comments There’s an ongoing debate about whether or not PR people should be allowed to edit Wikipedia entries that they have a direct interest in. Constantin Basturea, in his typical style, has pieced together an excellent post detailing the arguments from all sides. [...]

  7. From 360 Digital Influence » Blog Archive » PR and Rules of Engagement on 04 Jan 2007 at 10:09 am

    [...] Wales: “They should leave Wikipedia completely alone in every respect other than asking politely on the discussion page of articles. Anything more than that is deeply unethical.”Constantin Basteura from Converseon had a broader post in August. Here is his addition to the argument:”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 [...]

  8. From The Cycle » Blog Archive » Who should edit Wikipedia? on 24 Jan 2007 at 12:48 pm

    [...] What is interesting here is that Wikipedia wants to make it more difficult for “advocacy groups” like PR firms to contribute to a Wikipedia page may in fact lead to more headaches then it would purportedly cure. (Here’s Constantin Basturea’s wonderful take on PR firms and wikipeida). [...]

  9. From The Cycle » Blog Archive » A dialouge with Constantin Basturea on 01 Feb 2007 at 10:46 am

    [...] He was kind enough to give more much more information than I could fit online, so I’m putting his thoughts below. For more of his thoughts, check out this link. My thesis is that the current approach to employees and corporate participation in Wikipedia is encouraging dishonesty, is preventing people from becoming members of the community and, as a result, is undermining the quality and credibility of the encyclopedia, while failing to address the problem of bias. [...]

  10. From davedonohue.com » Wikipedia warns PR people off (again) on 04 Feb 2007 at 7:03 pm

    [...] Naturally, not all PR people have taken Wales’ words to heart, nor have all of us read these strong opinions. I’ve noticed a lot of firms rushing in to create and edit entries, as well as a rising backlash against those entries and PR folks in general in Wikipedia discussions. In the interests of the industry’s reputation amongst the Wikipedia community, I hope people will read those comments, and familiarize themselves with how the discussion of PR and conflicts of interest came to be – Constantin Basturea does an excellent job of summarizing this. [...]

  11. From Marcom Blog · Mary Kneeland Metcalf Returns to Marcomblog :: From Student to Contributor on 05 Sep 2007 at 10:43 pm

    [...] No example of this is better than my classmate, Christi Eubanks. Christi searched and searched for the right jobs coming out of college. She is the one of the best writers and strategic thinkers that I ever came across at Auburn. She had all of the tools to make a hugely successful practitioner. After months of searching and unsuccessful interviews, she dedicated herself to updating her blog and getting involved with the ongoing public relations conversation online. A few weeks later, Christi now has a dream job working at Converseon in New York City with Paull Young and Constantin Basturea, two influential practitioners. I am confident that if you ask Christi why she got her job, she would say her involvement with social media. [...]

  12. From Valley PR Blog » Blog Archive » Citizendium, Mahalo, Wikispaces: alternatives worth looking at on 04 Oct 2007 at 11:28 am

    [...] Citizendium: a wiki for people who can’t stand the rules of engagement established by Wikipedia’s founders about NPOV or” neutral point of view.” This alternative doesn’t let people use pseudonyms such as “WizardDuck,” and welcomes the general public and experts –meaning those who represent organizations, including professional communicators, PR agencies etc. It has lofty goals, to “soon attempt to unseat Wikipedia.” [...]

  13. From Citizendium, Mahalo, Wikispaces: alternatives worth looking at « Hoi Polloi: marketing + social media + public relations on 04 Oct 2007 at 11:30 am

    [...] Citizendium: a wiki for people who can’t stand the rules of engagement established by Wikipedia’s founders about NPOV or” neutral point of view.” This alternative doesn’t let people use pseudonyms such as “WizardDuck,” and welcomes the general public and experts –meaning those who represent organizations, including professional communicators, PR agencies etc. It has lofty goals, to “soon attempt to unseat Wikipedia.” [...]