PRSA ExecutiveBlog Logo
  • Home
  • About PRSA
  • Membership
  • Professional Development
  • Publications
  • Resources
  • PRSA Home

Currently viewing and reading

Making the Case for PR Pros Editing Wikipedia

Posted by Gerard Corbett in February 7th 2012  
Tweet

Editor’s note: The following post is an excerpt from an op-ed published Feb. 3, 2012, in Techdirt.

Obscured amidst the hysteria over anti-piracy bills SOPA and PIPA has been a valuable discussion bubbling up within public relations about PR people editing clients’ Wikipedia entries.

It’s a topic that has been debated for years. From Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales stating in 2006 that “PR firms editing Wikipedia is something that we frown upon very, very strongly” to last year’s Bell Pottinger lobbying scandal, where it emerged that the firm was surreptitiously manipulating client’s Wikipedia entries — raising the ire of Mr. Wales and his Wikipedia acolytes — it’s a discussion that seemingly knows no end.

PR people have long been frustrated by the complexities of the Wikipedia editing process. Colleagues tell us they feel rebuffed by what they believe is an arcane system meant to ostracize them whenever they attempt to correct inaccurate or outdated employer or client entries.

The issue over edits made on Wikipedia is one that affects more than just the public relations profession. It has implications for every business, organization and institution around the world, given Wikipedia’s widespread use as an information resource.

The matter gained particular prominence recently when Phil Gomes, an executive at Edelman Digital, began to peel back the layers of distrust and confusion between PR people and Wikipedians with a blog post and Facebook group aimed at bringing together the sparring parties.

Gomes’ initiative, dubbed the Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement, is based on four pillars:

  1. Corporate communicators want to do the right thing.
  2. Communicators engaged in ethical practice have a lot to contribute.
  3. Current Wikipedia policy does not fully understand Nos. 1 and 2, owing to the activities of some bad actors and a general misunderstanding of public relations in general.
  4. Accurate Wikipedia entries are in the public interest.

It’s a noble effort and one that my organization, the Public Relations Society of America, wholeheartedly supports.

Read the full op-ed in Techdirt.

under: Advocacy, Ethics, Social Media
Tags: corporate communications, editing, PR, public relations, Wikipedia
Share: Digg it del.icio.us Facebook Stumble it Technorati Twitter

Related Post

  • No Grand Slam for Miami Marlins’ PR Practices (April 23rd, 2012)
  • A CEO’s Most Powerful Tool is Communications (April 18th, 2012)
  • Infographic: Measuring PR Pros’ Engagement with Wikipedia (April 17th, 2012)
  • What the USC Annenberg GAP Study Tells Us About Public Relations’ Success (April 12th, 2012)
  • Reviewing the FDA’s Proposed Social Media Guidelines (April 9th, 2012)
  • Pingback: PR News Poll: Wikipedia Mostly Unexplored By PR Pros « Rational Idealist

« It’s Time for PR to Get Serious about Ethics
Business Knowledge Key to Enhancing PR Professionals’ Value »

Subscribe to the PRSA blog.

  • Feed Icon via RSS Feed or eMail


    Your email is safe. Privacy Policy.

Welcome



PRSAY is a forum for PRSA members and other public relations professionals to engage in a dialogue with PRSA leaders, exchange viewpoints, and share perspectives on issues of concern to the Society and the public relations industry as a whole. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of PRSA.

Search

Join PRSA

  • With your PRSA membership, you will:

    • Stay on top of emerging public relations trends and industry news.
    • Be a part of a vibrant community of more than 22,000 public relations professionals.
    • Accelerate your career -- at any level.

PRSA on Twitter

#prsa on Twitter

Categories

    • #PRin2012 (13)
    • Accreditation (8)
    • Advocacy (150)
    • Awards (4)
    • Black History Month (10)
    • Board of Directors (17)
    • bylaws (7)
    • Careers (11)
    • Chapters (9)
    • Conferences (4)
    • Counselors Academy (4)
    • Crisis Communications (13)
    • CSR (5)
    • Districts (3)
    • Diversity (26)
    • Ethics (73)
    • Financial (7)
    • Friday Five (17)
    • Governance (12)
    • Guest Posts (44)
    • Industry Trends (62)
    • Intelligence (13)
    • International Conference (7)
    • Learning (10)
    • Measurement (5)
    • Member Benefits (17)
    • Membership (12)
    • Multicultural Marketing (3)
    • National Assembly (13)
    • Network (2)
    • Networking (6)
    • Nominating Committee (3)
    • Professional Development (16)
    • PRSA Foundation (2)
    • PRSA Leadership (25)
    • PRSA News (38)
    • PRSSA (8)
    • Public Affairs (4)
    • Public Relations Defined (3)
    • Public relations measurement (5)
    • Publications (3)
    • Pulse of the Profession (36)
    • recession (7)
    • Regulation (1)
    • Regulatory Issues (8)
    • Reputation (37)
    • Research (11)
    • Resources (10)
    • Sections (5)
    • Silver Anvil (2)
    • Social Media (29)
    • State of the Society (12)
    • Technology (1)
    • The Business Case for Public Relations (46)
    • The PRSA Interview (1)
    • Trust (24)
    • Uncategorized (17)
    • Universal Accreditation Board (1)
    • Video (2)
    • Web site (1)

Archives

Recent Entries

  • Friday Five: Measurement as a Second Language
  • Why Professional Communicators Should Care About CISPA
  • Friday Five: Advertising Faces Challenges in a Digital and Social Age
  • Friday Five: Key Learnings in a Social Landscape
  • No Grand Slam for Miami Marlins’ PR Practices

Recent Comments

  • Marvin Gurgold in A Tribute to Jean Way Schoonover (1…
  • Dennielle Howes… in Analysis: PR Lessons From The Penn …
  • Facebook, Burso… in PR Pros: Haven’t We Learned Anyth…
  • Link Ch. 12 … in Occupy Wall Street Abandoned PR 101…
  • Stop Worrying a… in Merely ‘Image Men’? Hardly

Most Comments

  • Public Relations Won’t Fix Penn State’s Crisis  (48)
  • Paid or Unpaid, Time to Evaluate PR's Use of Interns (34)
  • To Remove — or Not To Remove — the APR Requirement for Board Service (31)
  • ‘Prize-Rigging’ Can Undermine Your Brand’s Online Promotion (27)
  • #PRin2012: 12 Trends That Will Change Public Relations  (27)
©2008-2012 PRSAY – What Do You Have to Say?
Powered by WordPress 3.3.1
Box-Tube Box Modulize WordPress Theme By Dezzain Studio
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Membership
  • Professional Development
  • Publications
  • Resources
  • PRSA Home
  • Blog Policy