Wikipedia
Larger educated audience than Twi3er or Facebook
C?$ B@$ B?$ A@$ A?$ @$ ?$
:&;&E#D&0$
!1&F#4$
G09#2++;$
6+%,$(40D$ >+))#(#$D#(4##$
J?$
I?$
@?$
H?$
C?$
B?$
A?$
?$
K$+L$&',#4'#,$.%#4%$
Wikipedia has more college-‐educated, adult online readers than either Twi3er & Facebook according to data from the Pew Internet & American Life Project.
The most influenDal site on earth
It should also be no surprise that Wikipedia tops almost all search results or that it’s been ranked as the most influenDal website on the planet.
For the long-‐term
O+.4%$QBK$+L$R!%$,0;#$E)09#$ &'$
O0)LP)&L#$+L$0$,1##,$
5N#40(#$)&L#%E0'$+L$0$ G09#2++;$E+%,$
?$ @$ A?$ A@$ B?$ B@$
A$"+.4$ $
B@$*&'.,#%$S$@$"+.4%$ $
BBTU$"+.4%$
How long does a Wikipedia arDcle last? For the foreseeable future
One interesDng comparison is that individual tweets and Facebook posts last less than 24 hours, but a Wikipedia arDcle lasts for the foreseeable future.
The wall of humiliaDon • Poli[cians • Governments • PR agencies • The Va[can • The Mormon Church • Amnesty Interna[onal • The FBI • Scientology • Exxon • Microsoe • Apple • Coca-‐Cola • Disney
• Nestle • Pepsi • Diebold • CIA • Anheuser-‐Busch • ChevronTexaco • Dell Computers • MySpace • EA Games • Fox News • Sony • Wal-‐Mart • The Guardian
Lets talk about some of the issues. The biggest one being is what we call the wall of shame. This is just a sampling of some of the organiza[ons that have gonen involved in some kind of public controversy over their par[cipa[on on Wikipedia. But not all of them necessarily did anything wrong. For example Exxon replaced bias, uncited and one-‐sided informa[on about an oil spill, with equally bias, uncited and one-‐sided informa[on. And anyone edi[ng Wikipedia from the corporate network could result in this kind of incident, even if it’s the guy from the mail room that gets on Wikipedia on breaks. So the message a lot of us get from this is don’t touch Wikipedia. It’s risky.
But how do we prevent this?
“Next in line for Chapter 11”
Source: fired employee
On the other hand, this is an example of something we deleted recently. A profitable and growing mul[-‐billion dollar company had a small layoff. Shortly aeerwards someone added that they were next in line for Chapter 11 and their investors were pulling out. It’s rou[ne to find Wikipedia ar[cles on companies that are wrinen by ac[vists, fired employees or someone with an axe to grind.
Volunteers haven’t prioriDzed your page
Also, without interven[on, the quality of Wikipedia ar[cles are generally extremely low. This data is based on an analysis of more than 2,500 Wikipedia ar[cles on brands and the Wikipedia community’s own assessments on those ar[cles. 85 percent of company ar[cles are in bad shape, but only 10 percent of them are considered important by Wikipedians. When we went to the Wikimania conference this year, we talked about improving the coverage of African culture and healthcare, how people were making health decisions based on content on Wikipedia or how judges are ci[ng Wikipedia in court rulings, but there were no ini[a[ves to improve the coverage of business topics and of companies. Your ar[cle is important to you, but not to Wikipedia’s editorial community.
5 strategies
Finding middle-‐ground
58.*G(
".-‐*L( C@$
J?$ C?$
I?$ B@$
@?$ B?$
H?$ A@$
C?$ A?$
B?$ @$
A?$ ?$
?$
So this brings us to the ul[mate dilemma most organiza[ons face, especially when they start thinking about establishing company policy about Wikipedia. Edi[ng your own Wikipedia ar[cle isn’t necessarily unethical, but it’s ethically ambiguous. Not disclosing your iden[ty may be considered astroturfing. It’s extremely risky for major brands to edit their own ar[cles in the eyes of Wikipedians. But it’s also irresponsible for you ignore one of the world’s most influen[al websites, especially seeing that it’s not always a working system without interven[on.
SmarterWiki has iden[fied five approaches to Wikipedia, but most organiza[ons don’t realize they have this many op[ons. We get caught in this false dichotomy where most companies either engage in the risky and controversial path of edi[ng their ar[cles or develop a complete hands-‐off policy. Most of us can find bener middle-‐ground through strategies that rely on: transparent community collaboraDon.
The five approaches to Wikipedia
• Hands-‐off: Zero edits
• Monitoring & response: Correc[ng overt factual correc[ons, grammar and vandalism
• Public relaDons: Be a resource; answer ques[ons, provide research
• Content markeDng: Create and offer high-‐quality content to the editorial community
• Paid ediDng: Directly edit Wikipedia
There are three reasons for a company to develop a hands-‐off policy. If volunteer editors have already created an excep[onal page, if the company doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements, or if the company has a nega[ve reputa[on such that genuine improvements to the ar[cle would only make the company look bad. We can also take a very passive approach by just monitoring pages for blatant errors and vandalism.
Where most companies and PR agencies should find themselves is doing PR on Wikipedia with the site’s ci[zen journalists. This means answering their ques[ons on the Talk page, providing research, dona[ng images and just being helpful the same way we would with professional journalists. This approach is effec[ve at making modest improvements to ar[cles that already have engaged editors interested in the topic. It’s inconsistent and may take years before an editor decides to use the sources, but it requires very linle exper[se and is basically something an entry-‐level professional can support.
We create some of the best arDcles on Wikipedia on execuDves, brands and products, and we transparently offer them to Wikipedia’s editorial community as contributed content for their consideraDon. This is the best way to make vast improvements to Wikipedia ethically, but it requires substanDal experDse, established relaDonships with current editors, Dme and effort. And finally paid edi[ng is what most of us are familiar with – this refers to just edi[ng your page. This requires fewer resources and exper[se. It also rou[nely delivers bias or promo[onal ar[cles. This is a poor choice for risk-‐adverse or generally ethical organiza[ons, but it’s effec[ve as a low-‐cost method and for organiza[ons that want bias ar[cles, but risky and unprofessional method of working with Wikipedia. As seen in the news recently, and wrinen about in ars technica, this method oeen results in public shaming.
SMARTER WIKI
www.SmarterWiki.com