Wikity Whack Your Reputation's Jacked!

Google Sidewiki for PR and marketing professionals

Google Sidewiki has been out for six months and it a is good time understand the strategies PR and marketing should adopt to deal with this new power-to-the-people channel. For those new to Google Sidewiki - it is like Wikipedia, but in this case anyone can comment right on your own corporate Web site. People who come to learn about your company on the well-kept site could see glowing comments from happy customers or spiteful graffiti from upset ex-employees. Instead of arguing if this is evil, legal, or ethical, I'd like to discus how PR and marketing professionals can address this challenge.

When Google Sidewiki was announced, some thought (including me) that this would result in graffiti all over the Web, but it seems that even months later many major brands have no Sidewiki comments. People simply didn't rush out to hate on their easy-to-bash cable company. Like the broader Web, most of the comments that are visible are constructive and seem to make an attempt to be fair. Just because much of the Web is acting civilly doesn't mean that you should leave this channel unmonitored. Like all social tools, each PR department should develop a plan to engage in a meaningful way with people that are attempting to converse with your company.

I pulled this example from Apple.com. When someone navigates to the Web site, Sidewiki prompts the visitor to view the comments. After six months, there are only four entries about Apple. Most of them are positive or neutral, but there is one that really seems to be burrowing into Apple. This opinion can't be removed, but the company has the opportunity to claim the Sidewiki entry and add their own comments (they haven't yet). Company produced comments are often shown at the top and can set the tone for the online conversation. The Web site owner's comments are always shown in green and that difference sets them apart. To help you retain your online reputation and keep the Debbie Downers in check, I recommend that you start with these steps:

Keeping your reputation from getting hijacked by Google Sidewiki:

1. Claim your site - Sidewiki pages should be claimed by the Web site owner. It's a simple process and it allows you to add a post that sets the tone for the other wiki posts. Without any real programming skills, I was able to claim mine in about five minutes.

2. You don't own your corporate Web - the public does - Paraphrasing from a great article on this topic by Jeremiah Owyang, you should shift your thinking on who owns your corporate Web site. The public now owns it, not you. It is best to adjust how you approach all communication now that it is easy for your customers and other stakeholders to add their opinions on your site through social media.

3. Appoint a Sidewiki ambassador - Steve Rubel, Edelman colleague, recommends in this white paper to assign an ambassador to each social network. Sidewiki is one more channel that requires that you establish and embassy and staff it with well-trained ambassadors. They can build relationships and alert you when relations with your community are cooling off.

4. Verify your identity and be transparent - Google is here to stay so it makes sense to invest a little time in your Google profile. A key benefit of the Google account is that it verifies your identity so people know that you are you (mine is here). This free process increases online trust and reduces spamming and scamming. Set a good example for the community and disclose your real name. Account verification instructions are found here.




For a deeper discussion on the ethics, viability and legality of Google's Sidewiki program, I encourage you to read these blog posts. Each has well-developed thoughts and extensive comments that seem to argue both sides.

Google Sidewiki: Danger - Jeff Jarvis - Buzz Machine

Google Sidewiki is PR Game Changer - Mark Rose - PR Blog News

How To Use Google’s Sidewiki For Maximum SEM Benefit - Kevin Gibbons - Search Engine Land

Google Sidewiki: Brands under attack - Malcom Coles - Econsultancy

The corporate Web site as a controlled communication channel has changed with the introduction of Google Sidewiki. Sharp PR and marketing teams still have an opportunity to understand this new user-generated social tool and develop strategies keep your company's reputation from being hijacked.

How has your company addressed comments on Sidewiki? Please post these stories or links to your blogs in the comments section.

Wikipedia Editing Guidelines for Marketing and Public Relations Professionals

Can I edit my Wikipedia entry?

Wikipedia continues to be one of the most trusted sites on the Web and is regularly listed in the top one or two places on any search. The search engine visibility factor drives every marketing person to peek into what Wikipedia says about their own company or product. That pressure may drive a well-intentioned, but uninformed marketing person to push for inappropriate changes.

Often, PR and marketing people are the ones asked to create or edit a Wiki entry for their client. Creating an entry for a company that you work for is against the Wikipedia conflict of interest policies. Although it is frowned on by the Wikipedia community, everyone has a story about a marketing friend that edited their company's entry and was never caught.

In response to this problem, I drafted this detailed set of guidelines in 2008. Because this piece continues to be my most popular post, I thought it would be good to update the information and re-post it. You may find it overly detailed, but I worked to address every editing temptation that an eager executive could press upon a PR person. I've also linked to nearly all of the sources so it is easy for you to navigate the conflict of interest labyrinth.

Although there are a lot of "No Nos" in this post, at the end there is a clear path for an ethical communicator to address true inaccuracies found in a Wikipedia entry.

If you enjoy the piece and use it, please drop me a line and let me know.

Wikipedia Editing Guidelines for Marketing and Public Relations Professionals

Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference Web sites, attracting at least 684 million visitors yearly by 2008. There are more than 85,000 active contributors working on more than 14 million articles in more than 273 languages. Entries to Wikipedia often rank high in search engine results and are generally held in high regard by online communities. This trust is fueled in part by Wikipedia’s emphasis on transparency.

Wikipedia Guidelines

Wikipedia includes a list of guidelines that govern its use. When observed, contributors can freely make edits and advance the Wikipedia project. Violations of these guidelines are looked upon negatively by the Wikipedia community and will be removed. Occasionally, an editor or organization that violates these rules is exposed in a public way that diminishes their credibility with customers and other constituents. A simple Internet search of “conflict of interest Wikipedia” returns dozens of stories and blog posts exposing companies that updated a Wikipedia entry. Even factual changes made contrary to the guidelines can damage trust. Content guidelines should be reviewed before an editor makes changes to Wikipedia.

Conflict of Interest

Wikipedia’s conflict of interest page is the recommended first stop for all marketing and public relations professionals. This short article clearly outlines that Wikipedia aims to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. Directly from the Wikipedia site – “COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.”

Although an employee at a company may be the best expert on a topic, technology or product, they have a conflict of interest if their comments benefit that company. According to the guidelines, they should not edit Wikipedia pages “in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make the edits non-neutral (biased).” Remember that changes are forever recorded in the history section and Wiki editors use tools to trace changes back to individuals to assess their conflict of interest.

Wikiquette

Wikipedia operates on the principal of assumed good faith and its editors follow etiquette guidelines. People come to the site to collaborate and write good articles and in return expect transparency and open disclosure.

Highlights:

· Sign and date posts to talk pages

· Work towards agreement

· Argue facts, not personalities

· Recognize biases and keep them in check

· Observe conflict of interest guidelines

· Make all entries verifiable by including references and evidence for each claim or fact

The list of what Wikipedia is not helps contributors understand that the site is not a soapbox, publisher of original thought, advertising outlet, repository of links, directory, democracy or a battleground.

Correcting Information

Wikipedia does have an outlet for circumstances in which information on a Wikipedia page is incorrect and the editor has a conflict of interest. For example, if a page on a specific company incorrectly states the inventor of the company’s key technology, a PR or marketing person can justifiably initiate a correction process. This entails making an appeal to the discussion page located on the top row of tabs of each Wiki entry. This is a place where editors can discuss the contents of the pages and mediate their disagreements. By making an appeal on the discussion page, the contributor is asking a fellow editor without a conflict of interest to make changes. On pages where there is frequent discussion and monitoring, changes can be made quickly by a neutral community member.

Neutral third parties, such as industry analysts and user group members, can be contributors to articles in their subject area. By scanning the list of previous contributors, you may find a neutral party whom you already know. Contact that person through the user talk page to discuss your update.

Experience shows that it can be effective to publish correct information on a company-sponsored page and release it for publication on Wikipedia, giving a neutral third-party editor all the information needed to make a correction. Please see below a letter from Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia co-founder on this topic.

Encouraging experts without a conflict of interest to contribute to Wikipedia speeds the correction process and builds reciprocal trust.

Recommendations for appeals to the discussion page:

1. Clearly disclose your affiliation and conflict of interest. Transparency is key to building trust.

2. State your recommended changes and cite verifiable references.

3. Explain your recommendations so others can see their validity. You are working towards a compromise and a balanced presentation.

4. Feel free to discuss the issue on the discussion page. You may even post your recommended changes on this page.

5. Check back on the discussion page to answer questions from the community about your request.

6. Follow wikiquette guidelines.

7. Maintain a neutral point of view.

8. If you find you are in dispute with a specific editor, see the dispute resolution page for assistance. There are formal and informal methods of resolving the conflict.

Resources

· Wikipedia: Five Pillars – Summarizes official polices and guidelines

· Letter from Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia:

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.

It is all well and good to say, well, it is ok so long as they remain neutral, but if they really want to write neutral articles, they can do so, on their own websites, and release the work under the FDL [MIT’s GNU Free Documentation License], and notify Wikipedians who are totally independent.

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.

Of course it is always going to be the case that unethical practitioners may get involved in inappropriate behavior, but I think this is no argument for simply accepting it. Rather, it is a strong argument for asking people to do this the right way: transparently and allowing independent editors to make the actual editing decisions.

--Jimbo

- Nabble.Com Mailing List

August 21, 2006

This document was drafted by Travis Murdock on August 28, 2008. This document paraphrases and copies text from several Wikipedia articles. These articles have been referenced where possible with their corresponding URLs. Last updated on January 31, 2010.

Wikipedia Editing Guidelines for Marketing and Public Relations Professionals

Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference Web sites, attracting at least 684 million visitors yearly by 2008. There are more than 75,000 active contributors working on more than 10,000,000 articles in more than 250 languages. Entries to Wikipedia often rank high in search engine results and are generally held in high regard by online communities. This trust is fueled in part by Wikipedia’s emphasis on transparency.

Wikipedia Guidelines

Wikipedia includes a list of guidelines that govern its use. When observed, contributors can freely make edits and advance the Wikipedia project. Violations of these guidelines are looked upon negatively by the Wikipedia community and will be removed. Occasionally, an editor or organization that violates these rules is exposed in a public way that diminishes their credibility with customers and other constituents. A simple Internet search of “conflict of interest Wikipedia” returns dozens of stories and blog posts exposing companies that updated a Wikipedia entry. Even factual changes made contrary to the guidelines can damage trust. Content guidelines should be reviewed before an editor makes changes to Wikipedia.

Conflict of Interest

Wikipedia’s conflict of interest page is the recommended first stop for all marketing and public relations professionals. This short article clearly outlines that Wikipedia aims to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. Directly from the Wikipedia site – “COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.”

Although an employee at a company may be the best expert on a topic, technology or product, they have a conflict of interest if their comments benefit that company. According to the guidelines, they should not edit Wikipedia pages “in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make the edits non-neutral (biased).” Remember that changes are forever recorded in the history section and Wiki editors use tools to trace changes back to individuals to assess their conflict of interest.

Wikiquette

Wikipedia operates on the principal of assumed good faith and its editors follow etiquette guidelines. People come to the site to collaborate and write good articles and in return expect transparency and open disclosure.

Highlights:

· Sign and date posts to talk pages

· Work towards agreement

· Argue facts, not personalities

· Recognize biases and keep them in check

· Observe conflict of interest guidelines

· Make all entries verifiable by including references and evidence for each claim or fact

The list of what Wikipedia is not helps contributors understand that the site is not a soapbox, publisher of original thought, advertising outlet, repository of links, directory, democracy or a battleground.

Correcting Information

Wikipedia does have an outlet for circumstances in which information on a Wikipedia page is incorrect and the editor has a conflict of interest. For example, if a page on a specific company incorrectly states the inventor of the company’s key technology, a PR or marketing person can justifiably initiate a correction process. This entails making an appeal to the discussion page located on the top row of tabs of each Wiki entry. This is a place where editors can discuss the contents of the pages and mediate their disagreements. By making an appeal on the discussion page, the contributor is asking a fellow editor without a conflict of interest to make changes. On pages where there is frequent discussion and monitoring, changes can be made quickly by a neutral community member.

Neutral third parties, such as industry analysts and user group members, can be contributors to articles in their subject area. By scanning the list of previous contributors, you may find a neutral party whom you already know. Contact that person through the user talk page to discuss your update.

Experience shows that it can be effective to publish correct information on a company-sponsored page and release it for publication on Wikipedia, giving a neutral third-party editor all the information needed to make a correction. Please see below a letter from Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia co-founder on this topic.

Encouraging experts without a conflict of interest to contribute to Wikipedia speeds the correction process and builds reciprocal trust.

Recommendations for appeals to the discussion page:

1. Clearly disclose your affiliation and conflict of interest. Transparency is key to building trust.

2. State your recommended changes and cite verifiable references.

3. Explain your recommendations so others can see their validity. You are working towards a compromise and a balanced presentation.

4. Feel free to discuss the issue on the discussion page. You may even post your recommended changes on this page.

5. Check back on the discussion page to answer questions from the community about your request.

6. Follow wikiquette guidelines.

7. Maintain a neutral point of view.

8. If you find you are in dispute with a specific editor, see the dispute resolution page for assistance. There are formal and informal methods of resolving the conflict.

Resources

· Wikipedia: Five Pillars – Summarizes official polices and guidelines

· Letter from Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia:

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.

It is all well and good to say, well, it is ok so long as they remain neutral, but if they really want to write neutral articles, they can do so, on their own websites, and release the work under the FDL [MIT’s GNU Free Documentation License], and notify Wikipedians who are totally independent.

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.

Of course it is always going to be the case that unethical practitioners may get involved in inappropriate behavior, but I think this is no argument for simply accepting it. Rather, it is a strong argument for asking people to do this the right way: transparently and allowing independent editors to make the actual editing decisions.

--Jimbo

- Nabble.Com Mailing List

August 21, 2006

This document was drafted by Travis Murdock on August 28, 2008. This document paraphrases and copies text from several Wikipedia articles. These articles have been referenced where possible with their corresponding URLs. Last updated on October 23, 2008.