Wikipedia  

Larger  educated  audience  than  Twi3er  or  Facebook  

C?$    B@$    B?$    A@$    A?$    @$    ?$    

:&;&E#D&0$

!1&F#4$  

 G09#2++;$    

6+%,$(40D$  >+))#(#$D#(4##$    

J?$

I?$

@?$

H?$

C?$

B?$

A?$

 ?$  

 K$+L$&',#4'#,$.%#4%$    

Wikipedia  has  more  college-­‐educated,  adult  online  readers  than  either  Twi3er  &  Facebook  according  to  data  from  the  Pew  Internet  &  American  Life  Project.  

The  most  influenDal  site  on  earth  

It  should  also  be  no  surprise  that  Wikipedia  tops  almost  all  search  results  or  that  it’s  been  ranked  as  the  most  influenDal  website  on  the  planet.  

For  the  long-­‐term  

O+.4%$QBK$+L$R!%$,0;#$E)09#$  &'$  

 O0)LP)&L#$+L$0$,1##,$    

5N#40(#$)&L#%E0'$+L$0$  G09#2++;$E+%,$  

 ?$  @$  A?$      A@$      B?$      B@$    

A$"+.4$ $  

 B@$*&'.,#%$S$@$"+.4%$ $  

 BBTU$"+.4%$    

How  long  does  a  Wikipedia  arDcle  last?  For  the  foreseeable  future  

One  interesDng  comparison  is  that  individual  tweets  and  Facebook  posts  last  less  than  24  hours,  but  a  Wikipedia  arDcle  lasts  for  the  foreseeable  future.  

The  wall  of  humiliaDon  •  Poli[cians  •  Governments  •  PR  agencies  •  The  Va[can  •  The  Mormon  Church  •  Amnesty  Interna[onal  •  The  FBI  •  Scientology  •  Exxon  •  Microsoe  •  Apple  •  Coca-­‐Cola  •  Disney  

•  Nestle  •  Pepsi  •  Diebold  •  CIA  •  Anheuser-­‐Busch  •  ChevronTexaco  •  Dell  Computers  •  MySpace  •  EA  Games  •  Fox  News  •  Sony  •  Wal-­‐Mart  •  The  Guardian  

Lets   talk   about   some   of   the   issues.   The   biggest   one  being  is  what  we  call  the  wall  of  shame.  This   is   just  a  sampling   of   some   of   the   organiza[ons   that   have  gonen   involved   in   some   kind   of   public   controversy  over   their   par[cipa[on   on   Wikipedia.   But   not   all   of  them   necessarily   did   anything   wrong.   For   example  Exxon   replaced   bias,   uncited   and   one-­‐sided  informa[on   about   an   oil   spill,   with   equally   bias,  uncited   and   one-­‐sided   informa[on.   And   anyone  edi[ng  Wikipedia   from   the   corporate   network   could  result  in  this  kind  of  incident,  even  if  it’s  the  guy  from  the  mail  room  that  gets  on  Wikipedia  on  breaks.  So  the  message  a  lot  of  us  get  from  this  is  don’t  touch  Wikipedia.      It’s  risky.  

But  how  do  we  prevent  this?  

“Next  in  line  for  Chapter  11”  

Source:  fired  employee  

On  the  other  hand,  this  is  an  example  of  something   we   deleted   recently.   A  profitable   and   growing   mul[-­‐billion  dollar   company   had   a   small   layoff.  Shortly  aeerwards  someone  added  that  they   were   next   in   line   for   Chapter   11  and  their  investors  were  pulling  out.  It’s  rou[ne   to   find   Wikipedia   ar[cles   on  companies   that  are  wrinen  by  ac[vists,  fired   employees   or   someone   with   an  axe  to  grind.  

Volunteers  haven’t  prioriDzed  your  page  

Also,  without   interven[on,   the  quality  of  Wikipedia  ar[cles  are   generally   extremely   low.   This   data   is   based   on   an  analysis   of   more   than   2,500   Wikipedia   ar[cles   on   brands  and  the  Wikipedia  community’s  own  assessments  on  those  ar[cles.   85   percent   of   company   ar[cles   are   in   bad   shape,  but   only   10   percent   of   them   are   considered   important   by  Wikipedians.        When  we  went   to   the  Wikimania   conference   this   year,  we  talked  about  improving  the  coverage  of  African  culture  and  healthcare,  how  people  were  making  health  decisions  based  on  content  on  Wikipedia  or  how  judges  are  ci[ng  Wikipedia  in  court  rulings,  but  there  were  no  ini[a[ves  to  improve  the  coverage  of  business  topics  and  of  companies.  Your  ar[cle  is  important   to   you,   but   not   to   Wikipedia’s   editorial  community.  

5  strategies  

Finding  middle-­‐ground  

58.*G(    

".-­‐*L(    C@$  

 J?$    C?$  

 I?$    B@$  

 @?$    B?$  

 H?$    A@$  

 C?$    A?$  

 B?$    @$  

 A?$    ?$  

 ?$    

So   this   brings   us   to   the   ul[mate   dilemma  most  organiza[ons   face,   especially   when   they   start  thinking  about  establishing  company  policy  about  Wikipedia.   Edi[ng   your   own   Wikipedia   ar[cle  isn’t   necessarily   unethical,   but   it’s   ethically  ambiguous.   Not   disclosing   your   iden[ty   may   be  considered   astroturfing.   It’s   extremely   risky   for  major  brands  to  edit  their  own  ar[cles  in  the  eyes  of  Wikipedians.  But  it’s  also  irresponsible  for  you  ignore   one   of   the   world’s   most   influen[al  websites,   especially   seeing   that   it’s  not  always  a  working  system  without  interven[on.  

SmarterWiki   has   iden[fied   five   approaches  to   Wikipedia,   but   most   organiza[ons   don’t  realize  they  have  this  many  op[ons.  We  get  caught   in   this   false   dichotomy   where   most  companies   either   engage   in   the   risky   and  controversial  path  of  edi[ng  their  ar[cles  or  develop   a   complete   hands-­‐off   policy.   Most  of  us  can  find  bener  middle-­‐ground  through  strategies  that  rely  on:  transparent  community  collaboraDon.  

The  five  approaches  to  Wikipedia  

•  Hands-­‐off:  Zero  edits  

•  Monitoring  &  response:  Correc[ng  overt  factual  correc[ons,  grammar  and  vandalism  

•  Public  relaDons:  Be  a  resource;  answer  ques[ons,  provide  research  

•  Content  markeDng:  Create  and  offer  high-­‐quality  content  to  the  editorial  community  

•  Paid  ediDng:  Directly  edit  Wikipedia  

There  are  three  reasons  for  a  company  to  develop  a  hands-­‐off  policy.  If  volunteer  editors  have  already  created  an  excep[onal  page,  if  the  company  doesn’t  meet  Wikipedia’s  notability  requirements,  or  if  the  company  has  a  nega[ve  reputa[on  such  that  genuine  improvements  to  the  ar[cle  would  only  make  the  company  look  bad.      We  can  also  take  a  very  passive  approach  by  just  monitoring  pages  for  blatant  errors  and  vandalism.    

Where   most   companies   and   PR   agencies   should  find  themselves  is  doing  PR  on  Wikipedia  with  the  site’s   ci[zen   journalists.   This   means   answering  their   ques[ons   on   the   Talk   page,   providing  research,   dona[ng   images   and   just   being   helpful  the   same   way   we   would   with   professional  journalists.   This   approach   is   effec[ve   at   making  modest   improvements   to   ar[cles   that   already  have  engaged  editors  interested  in  the  topic.    It’s   inconsistent   and   may   take   years   before   an  editor  decides  to  use  the  sources,  but   it   requires  very   linle  exper[se  and   is   basically   something  an  entry-­‐level  professional  can  support.    

We   create   some   of   the   best   arDcles   on   Wikipedia   on  execuDves,   brands   and   products,   and   we   transparently   offer  them   to   Wikipedia’s   editorial   community   as   contributed  content   for   their   consideraDon.   This   is   the   best  way   to  make  vast   improvements   to   Wikipedia   ethically,   but   it   requires  substanDal   experDse,   established   relaDonships   with   current  editors,  Dme  and  effort.    And  finally  paid  edi[ng  is  what  most  of  us  are  familiar  with  –  this  refers   to   just   edi[ng   your   page.   This   requires   fewer   resources  and   exper[se.   It   also   rou[nely   delivers   bias   or   promo[onal  ar[cles.  This  is  a  poor  choice  for  risk-­‐adverse  or  generally  ethical  organiza[ons,   but   it’s   effec[ve   as   a   low-­‐cost   method   and   for  organiza[ons   that   want   bias   ar[cles,   but   risky   and  unprofessional   method   of   working   with   Wikipedia.   As   seen   in  the   news   recently,   and   wrinen   about   in   ars   technica,   this  method  oeen  results  in  public  shaming.  

SMARTER WIKI  

www.SmarterWiki.com