Wikipedia&

companies

Lennart GuldbrandssonWikimedia Sverige

lennart@wikimedia.se

@AliasHannibal

With commen

ts

in red.

Data: ComScore

And now

Wikipedia h

as more tha

n 500million

visitors each

month. . .

Why companies should work with Wiki-

pedia. Let's compare Wikipedia with some

of the most trusted information websites.

However, if companies engage Wi-

kipedia in the same way as the

Church of Scientology - with

attempts at pushing their agenda -

they will face the same two conse-

quences:

1 . Being banned from editing Wiki-

pedia

2. Facing media and the public's

scorn for what they've done.

The lesson here: if you want to

work with Wikipedia, you' ll have to

do it our way.

Read more:

http://bit. ly/xenuwikipedia

Companies should follow the

same rules as anyone else

who want edit Wikipedia. Our

five pillars is a good guide:

1 . only encyclopedic material

2. only neutral material

3. only freely licenced mate-

rial

4. in good collaboration with

other Wikipedians

5. while using common sense

Read more:

http://bit. ly/WPpillars

About 100 000 persons comprise the active group of Wikipedians. Most of us are easy-going, but we are a very diverse

group, and there is no central editorial board, which makes it imperative to be patient and polite when you deal with

Wikipedia.

Read more:

http://bit. ly/Wikipedian

Here's me, at the yearly Wikipedia meetup, 2012, in Washington DC.

This is a printed version of Wiki-

pedia's best articles. But the

span between our best articles

and our worst is great. It's just

not single articles, either, but

entire topics. Some topics are

bad because we haven't gotten to

them yet. Some topics are bad

because the topic is difficult to

write about. Company articles

are difficult, for several reasons:

1 . companies try to push PR into

the articles

2. competitors and critics want to

skew the articles negatively

3. few Wikipdians (relatively the

number of articles) know a lot

about the corporate world, i.e.

we have a lack of business peop-

le among our editors

4. most companies have very litt-

le knowledge about their own

history

5. most companies have very

little time updating Wikipedia or

learning its system.

Read more:

http://bit. ly/companiesWikimania

Some companies use PR companies to write

their articles for them. In some cases this turns

out bad, and almost every time the media takes

Wikipedia's side. Many Wikipedians want to

forbid paid editing completely, since the wri-

ting so often is skewed and non-neutral. Others

want to differentiate between paid editing and

paid advocacy editing. Still other Wikipedians

want to try to find a solution with the PR com-

panies and their customers. We have no final

good solution, yet.

A big reason why PR companies get it wrong is that they go

the "dumptruck approach", i.e. just add a lot of text in one

go, without working with the community and its rules.

This often lead to. . .

. . . the same thing as the scientolo-

gists: they get blocked and publicly

ridiculed.

So is there a solution?

Yes.

Next some dos and don'ts.

DON'T

* share an account

* threaten and/or demand action

* create articles (it's too difficult

for most newcomers)

* remove negative information,

such as information about a cri-

sis or bad press

* plagiarize, even your own web-

site

DO

First and most important: imitate

other articles and veteran users!

* remove obvious vandalism

* create account, be open with your

identity and bias

* write on Talk pages

* find users, ask for help

* work on the history section, where

it's often less controversial stuff

* provide sources, such as links to

annual reports

* provide freely licenced images

Again, imitate other users and

articles.

For instance, look at the best

articles by going to the one listed on

the main page of Wikipedia and find

out how your article could look.

1 . Talk pages2. info-en@wikimedia.org

If you should find yourself in

trouble, use these ways to contact

Wikipedia.

Read more:

http://bit. ly/WPContact

"Wikipedia Best PracticeGuidance For Public RelationsProfessionals"

http://bit. ly/Wiki-PR

&WikimediaUK

PR professionals and Wikipedians together

created a great guide for companies who

want to work with Wikipedia without

risking getting into trouble.

Questions?

Image sources

* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xenuobey.svg, CC-BY.SA 2,5, First Church of Xenu

* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10_sharing_book_cover_background. jpg, © ®, Lane Hartwell, David Peters,

Jmkim dot com

* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Group_Photograph. jpg, CC-BY-SA 3,0, Lisa N Marrs

* http://thewikipedian.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/wikipedia-in-print-rob-matthews. jpg, © , Rob Matthews

* http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/, ©

* http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/22/wikipedia-ban-sock-puppet-pr, ©

* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Afghan_dumper_truck. jpg, public domain, Jeremy Harris, U.S. Marine Corps

* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:D-P006_Zutritt_fuer_Unbefugte_verboten.svg, public domain, Torsten

Henning

* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Welcome_mat_2. jpg, CC-BY-SA 2,0, The McClouds

* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Johannes_Vermeer_%281632-1675%29_-The_Girl_With_The_Pearl_Ear-

ring_%281665%29. jpg, CC-BY-SA 3,0, Kunstkenner2305

* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RedCrossNurseg. jpg, public domain, David Henry Souter

* http://www.cipr.co.uk/content/policy-resources/best-practice-guides-toolkits/wikipedia-and-public-relations, ® CIPR