Wondering about Wikipedia? You Should Be

One of the annual highlights of the IPRRC is to find out what Marcia Watson DiStaso
(Penn State) and Marcus Messner (Virginia Commonwealth University)
have been up to lately. Back in 2006 they presented the first ever study of how Wikipedia impacts reputation and your public relations program. In 2008 they brought us an update, and this year they didn't disappoint. Their 2010 results are more interesting than ever. They looked at the Wikipedia pages for 10 of America's most visible companies including: Wal-Mart, Exxon, GM, Ford, GE, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Citigroup, AIG and IBM.

DiStaso and Messner argue that PR people MUST pay attention to Wikipedia because of the influence it has over search engine results. Overall, according to their research, Wikipedia has gained search engine prominence over the years, essentially dominating Yahoo, MSN and Google searches. In one year, an average of 780,053 people viewed articles about the ten companies. The individual statistics are even more impressive. 1.6 million People viewed the GM article thus far in 2010, and another 1.4 million viewed the page for Wal-Mart

They also investigated how public opinion forms a Wikipedia article, looking at both the number of edits for an article (rigor) and diversity (total number of unique users). As it turns out, there's been a significant shift in both rigor and diversity for many companies, depending on the degree to which they have been in the headlines and how engaged they are in social media. GM and AIG for example have seen significantly higher number of edits and far more users, than they experienced in 2006. On the other hand, companies that have embraced social media and engaged in conversations in the marketplace, such as Ford and Wal-Mart have seen a decline in both the number of edits and the number of users.

Interestingly, the tone of postings to Wikipedia has also significantly shifted over time. Overall, for all companies studied, the percentage of negative articles has increased in 2010, while positive postings declined. This was the reverse of the trend they found in 2008, when positives increased and negatives declined. For individual companies, only IBM saw an increase in positives, while every saw other company saw a decline in positives between 2008 and 2010. GM and Chevron were the only companies that managed to reduce their negatives, while Wal-Mart, CitiGroup, Exxon, and IBM all saw their negatives increased.

Additionally the nature of the topics discussed has changed over time, with less and less of the postings focusing on the past and more about what is currently going on within the companies. Finally, they looked at the length of the average Wikipedia articles over time, and found that it has increased 45% between 2006 and 2010.

 

 

 

Comments

[lunettes de soleil pas cher]

go into the Discussion tab and provide the facts and nothing but the facts, with full disclosure that you work for the company, then ask the writers and editors of Wikipedia to change it on your behalf.

[ryan homes]

I am also intrigued on what is going on with wikipedia. Every time I visit the site, I see are banners asking for money.

[mother of the bride dresses with jackets]

Scott,

Totally agree. 99% of the time a company who cared can catch a change or wrong information faster that the fan or reader.

[michael vick jersey]

Every time I see blogs as good as this I KNOW I should stop surfing and start working on mine!

[cycling clothing]

They also investigated how public opinion forms a Wikipedia article, looking at both the number of edits for an article (rigor) and diversity (total number of unique users). As it turns out, there's been a significant shift in both rigor and diversity for many companies, depending on the degree to which they have been in the headlines and how engaged they are in social media.

[cheap jordan retro]

Life is on its way to further complications, further deepness and mystery, further processes of becoming and change.

[เสื้อผ้าเกาหลี]

Or put another way, how can a corporation, which may have a better grasp of some of the facts, be respected and accepted in this environment?

[Marcia DiStaso]

For more information on this research please see the full article available in the Public Relations Journal at http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/

[Steve Bennett]

Scott, I'm a longtime Wikipedia editor. We respond well to respectful approaches from any concerned party, especially when the approach is essentially "hello, I think there is an error, please have a look at this independent resource". We respond less well to "please remove these lies, they are totally refuted in our in-house magazine". On sensitive issues, the discussion page is not the best place - it can become a shark feeding frenzy. You can email to the OTRS team in those cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem

In general, clear errors with good sources as proof will lead to swift correction. Issues of bias, undue emphasis etc will take longer to resolve, if at all.

[Gregory Kohs]

Unfortunately, most of the companies and academics and Wikipedians that I see discussing how corporate entities should monitor and interact with Wikipedia are (frankly) wrong. That's why I'm finishing an e-book on that very subject, forthcoming in May 2010:

http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Your_Business_and_Wikipedia

[KINGRPG]

I like that you think. Thank you for share very much.

[Marcia DiStaso]

Scott,
The creation of corporate Wikipedia entries puts companies in a difficult position. Topics that many companies would rather not have highlighted often have prominent placement and there really is nothing a company can do (or should do) about it. That is, unless it is not factual information. Then, and only then, can a company edit the content in its Wikipedia entry. To do this you should post a discussion disclosing that you are writing on behalf of the company and request a change to correct the error. Another option is to send your request to [email protected]. Either way, you must provide the correct information and back it up with a citation such as media coverage. If the fact can’t be cited, it is unlikely to be changed. Plus, if the information posted is incorrect but is cited from a credible source, you are probably out of luck unless you can cite a more credible source. Factual information that is not worded as a company would like or about a topic it would rather not have highlighted should be left alone. As you mentioned, it’s a slippery slope – just remember that every change on Wikipedia is recorded and IP addresses can be traced and editing beyond the fixing of errors is unethical.

Please contact us with any other questions at [email protected].

Marcia & Marcus

[Promotional Products]

Scott,

Totally agree. 99% of the time a company who cared can catch a change or wrong information faster that the fan or reader. Wikipedia is an interesting resource; there is a lot of info, but hard to sort out the accurate stuff.

[Kim]

Hi Scott,
Try this: go into the Discussion tab and provide the facts and nothing but the facts, with full disclosure that you work for the company, then ask the writers and editors of Wikipedia to change it on your behalf.

It doesn't always work, but it's the least abrasive way to try to edit your company's Wikipedia page.

Good luck.

Kim Bratanata
PR & social media
SWIFT

[Scott Monty]

Great reminder, Katie. But the real conundrum for corporations isn't the monitoring aspect; it's how can a company credibly change its own Wikipedia entry, without backlash from the Wikipedia community that values unbiased perspectives in its entries?

Or put another way, how can a corporation, which may have a better grasp of some of the facts, be respected and accepted in this environment? Having an agency change it for them is a slippery slope, and employee engagement is questionable based on Wikipedia's rules. There's certainly the fan base, but unless the fans are rabidly following the news, there may be some errors on the page that the company would find before the fan. I can't see companies issuing alerts or advisories to fans, asking them to help correct the entries on a regular basis.

Have you heard of a reasonable way to approach this?

Scott Monty
Global Digital Communications
Ford Motor Company