Wikipedia's Impact on PR (Part I)
So far this year, the mainstream media has cited Wikipedia as an authoritative body of knowledge nearly 100 times. Obviously, this underscores the need for every PR professional to be monitoring the human-powered encyclopedia for client/brand references. However, it also raises a number of interesting ethical questions. Let's start with the obvious: what should someone in PR do if he/she finds inaccurate information?
Using BusinessWeek's 2004 Global Brand Scorecard (PDF) as a starting point, I searched Wikipedia for articles on the 10 top brands on the list. It is not my intention to embarrass the companies listed below. Rather, I am merely using these three corporate examples to initiate a broader dialogue about what they could/should do to counter facts that I bet they wish did not appear in Wikipedia at all…
- Wikipedia on Coca-Cola (#1 on the BW list): “Coca-Cola
has recently been denounced in the UK for weaning young children onto
junk food. In India, the corporation has provoked a number of boycotts
and protests as a result of its perceived low standards of hygiene and
adverse impact on the environment. In Colombia, the company is alleged
to be responsible for 179 major human rights violations, including nine
murders.”
- Wikipedia on Microsoft (#3 on the BW list): “Microsoft software is seen by some as more expensive to purchase, use and maintain than competitors' software.”
- Wikipedia on McDonald’s (#7 on the BW list): “As the world's largest fast-food company, McDonald's has been the target of criticism for allegations of exploitation of entry-level workers, ecological damage caused by agricultural production and industrial processing of its products, selling unhealthy food, production of packaging waste, exploitative advertising (especially targeted at children), and contributing to suffering and exploitation of livestock. McDonald's historic tendency towards promoting high calorie foods such as French fries has earned it the nickname 'the starchy arches'.”
As Wikipedia is relied upon as a credible source by the press, will
these and other companies begin to edit articles? What guidelines
should we follow? I don't have the answers to these questions. It's
something I'd like to put out there and see how others react. My
initial feeling is, if you can prove the article false, challenge it.
If it's true, leave it. You’ll only make matters worse. Besides,
inaccurate information on Wikipedia doesn't stay that way for long. What's your take? Trackback this post or leave a comment.
(Coming next week in Part II: what should you do if your
client/brand is not listed in Wikipedia? Is it ethical or proper to create
an article?)
