PR Squared

About

Blogroll

PR 2.0 Tactics

PR Squared

Back in August, Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales of Wikipedia fame was interviewed at bitePR's bitemarks blog. In the discussion, Wales said:

"I think that PR-firms editing in a community space is deeply unethical, and that clients should put very firm pressure on their PR firms to not embarrass them in this way...

"It is a bad idea because of the conflict-of-interest. It is perfectly fine to talk to the community, to show them more information, to give them things that show your client in the best light. But it is wrong to try to directly participate in the process when you have an agenda."

Who doesn't have an agenda? Sometimes one's agenda is "to be helpful." Sometimes one's agenda is to clarify, to add to the discussion in an authentic way, to add the value of one's own experience. PR professionals are people, too.

If I had dedicated my life to the study of aardvarkology, should I be allowed to use my expertise to add value to the aardvark entry in Wikipedia? I think so. So, would Wales object if a PR person wanted to add some facts to the Wikipedia entry on Public Relations? Given PR's troubling reputation among the Wales's of the world, it would seem to be a conflict of interest. Yet is this not a subject with which we PR pros are intimately familiar and passionate about? Who better to submit? What if a college PR professor like the well-regarded, highly ethical Robert French wanted to edit that "PR" entry in Wikipedia? Would that be okay?

By the same token, if a PR agency's client wanted to add value to Wikipedia by submitting content related to their industry --- i.e., the industry in which they have a demonstrated expertise --- I don't see why the PR firm could not be used to edit the content for neutrality and to post it on the client's behalf, in the name of efficiency and on-going tracking of follow-up edit cycles.

(Please note the phrase, "edit the content for neutrality" --- it could well be that the expert Agency reps could be used to muzzle the Client's outsized ambitions for Wikifame. The client is often more willing than the agency to violate the spirit of Wikipedia.)

I am not unsympathetic to the potential challenges wrought by PR firms' participation in the Wikipedia community. I understand that paid-for commentary (a la the MyWikiBiz flap) violates the spirit of Wales's creation. But I am also heartened by articles like this one, on "Conflicts of Interest," and especially this one, which is substantially more helpful re: PR's potential role... These articles suggest that Wikipedia is still actively wrestling with the issue vs. shutting PR out completely (which seems to be Wales's preference); these articles do a good job of clarifying the terms of engagement for PR pros.

And that should be the compromise! I would urge Wales and the rest of the Wikipedians to give PR a chance. Educate PR pros on the rules of engagement; give them the benefit of the doubt; trust the community to out the scalliwags; and ban violators when necessary.

FOR FURTHER INFO: The folks at Edelman held a decent podcast about this issue (created before they were on my sh** list), and, the inimitable Constantin Basturea also blogged about this issue in late August. I met Constantin in-person at the Communications 2.0 conference last week, and he was still fuming about this issue. Rightfully so.

Tags: wikipedia, ethics, public+relations, pr, social+media, jimbo+wales, constantin+basturea