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
The Importance of Wikipedia
Friday, March 09, 2007
We all use this vast repository of human knowledge from time to time. There's no denying it. So shouldn't the 10th most visited site on the Internet provide authority to all of the other websites that made it so popular? Jimmy Wales no longer thinks so, even though the Wikipedia community does. How important is Wikipedia? Enough to attract the attention of universities who refuse to call it a legitimate source and senators who want to ban it in public libraries (either intentionally or out of ignorance through overarching laws). Yet for all of these naysayers, it is still an authoritative place to post mostly un-biased information and refer back to it. Newcomers to the Internet may not realize it, but Wikipedia was a fix for one of the longstanding problems of the Open Directory Project (which was never really open in the first place). In addition to providing encyclopedic tidbits, you can also link to relevant articles and external sites. As the Internet has grown exponentially in size, it has shown how much we lack a truly open directory. Search engines are great for finding websites based on keywords, but not if you want a hierarchical view to discover things on your own. What happens if you know nothing about a particular category? You can't search on keywords, so you need to do old fashioned research. Without an online Dewey decimal system, we only have Wikipedia. So there's no reason that links from this great amalgamation of knowledge should not be authoritative. When everyone in the world links to Wikipedia articles making it the 10th most visited website in the world, it seems unfair that links back to the real world no longer provide the same authority back. Especially when we've seen the alternative in the Open Directory Project that relies on mysterious editors who rarely log in to approve or decline your submissions. In reality, it was about as closed of a system as the Yahoo Directory. If Netscape had done something with ODP instead of trying to copy Digg's interface, they could have renewed interest in one of their most influential properties. But they didn't. So I, like so many others, have helped to build up Wikipedia with my time, research, and monetary donation. I know Mr. Wales is concerned with spam, as we all should be. However, I think he underestimates the Wikipedia braintrust who has done quite well at keeping this to a minimum so far. As the Foundation slowly learns how to deal with anonymity, it should begin to embrace its authority, not run from it. That's the Wikipedia I want to support, at least. Labels: digg, seo, Wikipedia
posted by Adam Edwards
0 comments
 |
