Comments on: Wikipedia Astroturfing & Reputation Management

By: Glen Allsopp

Glen Allsopp — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:41:21 +0000

Great info, wikipedia is definitely one to watch

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:06:41 +0000

Very helpful comments thanks - especially liked Peter’s. I have made corrections to Wikipedia before now on my own behalf - but for a company I used to work for and who afterwards became a client. The problem with the Wikipedia system is that you never know when you might get called out - and probably not know by whom.

By: geoliv

geoliv — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:45:36 +0000

Ike: You say we agree, but we don’t. I think that’s just a BS conservative reaction. People looking for excuses to dismiss social media have them abound. Smart marketers look at the numbers and get it.

By: Ike Pigott

Ike Pigott — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:34:48 +0000

Geoff - we are in agreement, but I see a different effect.

When businesses look at policies like Wikipedia’s, they see a system that is unfair and is gamed against them. In places that are just now considering social media, the thought becomes “if those crazy internet people are going to have such silly rules, then maybe we ought to stick to something that is grownup.”

Again… I’m not agreeing with that seniment or editorializing… just showing where those thoughts can lead. And it is a direct consequence of the rules Wales insists on maintaining.

By: geoliv

geoliv — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:23:25 +0000

Peter: I look forward to your post. And the general Wikipedia approach is anti-corporate and assumes all companies are evil. BTW: this reflects general societal opinions of corporate america. The approach actually undermines Wikipedia’s credibility.

Ike: “by encouraging the dismissal of social media as a serious communications tool.” I disagree with that. What it dismisses is Wikipedia as a credible resource, not social media as a tool.

People that dismiss social media as a tool are in denial about dramatic usage numbers that increase with every new research report. They are fighting change as people who are threated want to do. At the same time, smart marketers understand that when you have an early majority of the population using a communications medium that they need to communicate through it. Thus they already know it’s a “serious” communication tool.

By: Ike

Ike — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:17:15 +0000

However, this is one clear case where the Rules and Expectations that business brings into the arena are more accessible and practical than those brought by Wales and the idealists.

In the long run, Wales and the Wikipedia policy is encouraging corporate interests to ignore social media entirely. Who wants to play in an arena that is so hopelessly biased? And who elected this Wales guy to be the King of something so influential? “Business-friendly” does not equate to “business-manipulated,” and by creating a byzantine labyrinth of steps to maintain the “purity” of his creation, Wales is instead becoming an impediment to open and honest dialogue by encouraging the dismissal of social media as a serious communications tool.

That said, I agree with Geoff. This post is not a sanctification of the Wikipedia policy, merely an explanation of the current state of affairs.

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:15:43 +0000

Great post, Geoff. I do, however, think that there is a little more gray area here than the basic principles may suggest. Many of these rules are set to prevent brands from acting irresponsibly in Wikipedia but I think certain conflict of interest issues can be secondary to the correction of factual information, which is more important to the overall goal of Wikipedia. While direct edits to an article are a last resort (and should never be done by an agency), I’m not sure if I’d advise a client to write a white paper if there was a strict factual inaccuracy in their article than can be easily proven false by an independent respected source. I would start in the discussion pages and then move on to the talk pages of the most active editors while maintaining full transparency on the individual’s user page (who they are, who the work for and what they do on Wikipedia).

Also, Wikipedia also has a sandbox feature, that allows users to create entries without them going live to the public. This can also resolve many conflict of interest issues since a sandbox entry can be flagged to enlist other impartial editors to contribute and ultimately decide if the entry should go public. I believe it’s a completely ethical way to submit an idea/concept/brand/personality to the Wikipedia community and let them decide if it deems an article and how that article should be written.

Regarding Wikiscanner, I think agencies and large brands should really take advantage of this tool to make sure no one internal is violating their social media guidelines. If you look at the trouble Edelman has gotten in, it has nothing to do with their expertise (they obviously have some great people in this space) but more to do with their ability to police themselves.

In the next couple days I’ll post some of the lessons I learned in my past year of dealing with Wikipedia issues. I’ve seen everything from Wikipedia editors having vendettas against certain brands to internal editor quarrels using brand entries to get back at each other. It’s definitely not our father’s encyclopedia.

Peter

By: geoliv

geoliv — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:11:23 +0000

Ryan:

Yeah, it’s not really a great system and I think it undermines Wikipedia’s credibility. I think that’s what Scott Baradell’s letter was about. That the rules would cause more astroturfing, not less.

At the same time, as a marketer, it’s good to know what you are dealing with. While the rules may not be good, they are the rules and it’s our job to navigate them. I think it would hurt your company more to be nailed for altering a Wikipedia entry against the rules and outed for astroturfing (wrong or right), then it would be to write something up independently, publicizing it, and calling into question Wikipedia’s already shaky credibility.

By: Ryan Anderson

Ryan Anderson — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:44:17 +0000

I’m completely against astroturfing, but this is one point I simply do not agree on. Astroturfing is about not being transparent about who you are, or allowing only your side of the story to come through. It’s not about going against the wishes of Wikipedia. The fact that they value “unbiased” over “factual” is laughable to me, and the fact that they are the ninth most visited website in the world makes it an issue that companies should deal with, regardless of whether or not Jimmy Wales wants them to.

If there was a paragraph about my company on Wikipedia that was flagrantly false and potentially hurtful, I would consider it my job to correct it, even if that meant doing it from another IP address. It’s not up to the world to decide what is true and what is not.

To be clear, I’m not talking about removing the “controversial” stuff from articles, or altering issue-based articles to suit your needs. I’m talking about correcting the stuff that is 100% false, and in my opinion, not doing so is just bad PR.