Marketing and Wikipedia Are Antonyms

Rohit Bhargava sees a way for marketers to carefully become part of the Wikipedia community by creating short articles in an effort to facilitate further discussion. The key, he says, is to let go once you've jumped in.

Bhargava cites comments by Jeff Watts, Search & Community Manager for National Instruments, who shared that his company added the term 'LabView' to Wikipedia two years ago with a 40 character marketing description. Within 20 minutes, the post had been edited, and it now is several pages deep. It also appears prominently in Google searches for Labview.

This is a high risk strategy that probably is not worth it. Two years ago was a different time than today and I commend National Instruments for giving it a go. However, I think today the Wikipedia community largely frowns when we wade into their waters. If corporations begin to make edits and add articles to Wikipedia in big numbers, it could create a backlash. The best bet is to look, not touch. Marketing and Wikipedia are antonyms. (Via Shel Holtz)

Technorati Tags: Wikipedia

Comments

[R Craig Lefebvre]

Just to further support your caution, the Washington Post ran a story Feb 9th about Senate offices and Wikipedia: "Recent reports about editorial antics taking place on the site -- selective erasures of past faux pas, outright insults and dozens of other politically motivated revisions -- prompted Wikipedia to block temporarily some addresses on Capitol Hill from being able to edit entries...In all cases the edits removed factually accurate but unflattering descriptions of the lawmakers, and in many cases they added some beautifying language describing awards or glorifying legislative records."

[Constantin Basturea]

So, what happened with the idea of "claiming" Wikipedia articles for companies?

[Steve Rubel]

Constantin, good question. I stand behind the idea if the claiming mechanism is in place. This is more about creating fresh articles.

[scott]

Pardon my French, but no one seemed to give a shit when McKinney-Silver fabricated a Wikipedia entry from whole cloth on behalf of one of their clients. Based on the low level of grief they took, I'm not sure where the risk in this strategy is.

[Rohit]

Steve, thanks for commenting. I do agree that corporations need to tread carefully when it comes to participating in the dialogue or editing entries in Wikipedia, but the real risk comes in what the community may edit entries to say about your company and product. The ideal candidates to make this strategy work are the companies that have products or services worthy of being listed in an encyclopedia, where the positive attributes and reviews are likely to far outweigh the negative. You do have to give up control, though, which may be the real element that feels like an antonym to many of our client's marketing efforts.

[Elliott Back]

I disagree--where's the harm in having wikipedia write a neutral article about your company? It legitimizes you!

[Steve Rubel]

Elliott, not if you're the corporation who created it.

[Todd]

So, what's your take on a corporation 'policing' the wikipedia entry for them or for their products? I'd have to imagine it would be a key factor to ensuring that the information would remain correct and current.
In my opinion, the best source for information about a company is most likely that company.

As long as a company isn't using Wikipedia as a marketing device, and instead provides factual, non-spun info, the involvement of a corporation to offer information shouldn't hinder the Wikipedia community.

[Mike]

The key is to make sure your company actually contributes something -- a whitepaper that adds value to an article, for instance.

[Jeff Watts]

Hi, Steve,

I'm Jeff Watts from National Instruments mentioned in the post above.

One of the points that I explicitly made in this presentation is that marketers should never consider Wikipedia to be an extension of their own web presence. In fact, Wikipedia is a community founded on the principle of creating content from a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). While no individual contributor (National Instruments included) is capable speaking from a completely NPOV, the collective efforts and contrasting opinions of a vibrant community can approach neutrality.

We advocate engaging with Wikipedia and other communities on the web according to the rules governing each community. It is true that overt marketing from a non-neutral point of view would go against the spirit of the Wikipedia community and could create ill will or even a "backlash" from the community. However I doubt that the Wikipedia community would frown on any entity creating content that is factual and from a NPOV.

If you or any of your readers would like to follow up with me on this, I can be reached at jeff.watts@ni.com or on my mobile at (512) 627-9333. My next presentation on community-related issues will be at Search Engine Strategies Toronto on April 25, and I encourage anyone interested in this topic to attend.

Thanks,
Jeff

[Gregory Kohs]

Steve, it may be worth you revisiting the topic of corporate "conflicts of interest" (or the appearance thereof). Reason being, my firm MyWikiBiz.com came to a public agreement with Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales, to address placement of new article content within Wikipedia.

This "Jimbo Concordat" is essentially addressed under the label Option 4 at the discussion site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive_2

Our business is operating smoothly under this plan, so far. But, I have concerns that the Wikipedia community actually "loses" in this deal, because they've lost the transparency of our operating in the Wikipedia mainspace with full disclosure. But, that's the way Jimmy said he wanted it.