Wikipedia's Ironic Taboo
Friday, August 17, 2007
The anonymity of Wikipedia is being put in question this week with CalTech grad student, Virgil Griffith, unveiling a tool called WikiScanner, which automatically identifies contributors to the user-generated site. Traditionally, the online encyclopedia grows with people just like me and you supplying information. Wikipedia also has a staff of "editors", who police the site and make sure the information added is not purely promotional or inappropriate. The ease with which people's identities could be revealed is spurring a dialogue to which PR professionals should be paying attention. The AP's Brian Bergstein quoted Griffith in an article published yesterday as saying that with his new tool "he hopes 'to create minor public relations disasters for companies and organizations [he] dislike[s].'" What does he mean? Well, even though it is quite obvious that companies are most likely responsible for their own Wikipedia entries, the notion of public relations teams being behind them is still taboo. So, if there was a tool that would call us out, so to speak, it might make the entries created seem less credible. I have to wonder, though, why is this the case? Who, for example, has time or the urge to write a Wikipedia entry for a random company or individual, even if it might be of relevance to Wikipedia? I understand that there are enthusiasts out there who would perhaps want to contribute to a World War II entry or some other such topic, but for the types of entries we are talking about, there really is no realistic third party contributor available. Yet, the information in those seemingly unimportant entries is valuable. If Wikipedia's aim is to truly be an encyclopedia, then it must have information relating to companies and people affecting our society. Thinking about this more, I realize that it may just be the old problem of PR ignorance. The majority of people simply don't realize that PR, and marketing in general, shape the way we see the world. This is a reality and surely it would manifest itself in the world of Wikipedia But it doesn't mean that we're trying to trick you and present a false image. On the contrary, PR professionals spend much of their time correcting journalists (see my entry from last week) and making sure that accurate information reaches the masses. In an ideal world, truth is objective. But in our complex world, truth is often multifaceted. Should the FBI, CIA and companies like Diebold be allowed to edit their own Wikipedia entries to serve their messages? Of course! But so can you! The very nature of Wikipedia depends on its readers paying attention, and the transparency added by the Wikipedia Scanner might push those PR folks with not the most honest intentions in the right direction. Labels: Marketing, Public Relations, Wikipedia
posted by Gina Bolotinsky
0 comments
Post a Comment
0 Comments:
Home
 |
