Wikipedia 101 for Marketing
Lately we’ve received a spate of client inquiries about Wikipedia.
“Can we create our own entry? Can we edit our entry? How do you find the line between promotion and fact? Why is Wikipedia so important in the first place?”
Here are some answers.
When you think about your old Britannica, the encyclopedias of yesteryear only included “major” subjects, those that would be of wide interest to the majority of people. Wikipedia, however, has a stunning breadth that matches the interests of a diverse, global population. It is an encyclopedia by the people, for the people.
And Wikipedia’s influence has skyrocketed in recent years. It is constantly linked to by bloggers, and is constantly being updated: as a result, Wikipedia entries rank quite high in Google search results – which only adds to the site’s power.
There’s a “dark side” to Wikipedia’s popularity, influence and openness.
Marketers have been known to try to take advantage, by adding or editing entries about their companies, competitors or industries: they know that Wikipedia is viewed as an authoritative resource, so if they can “sneak” some salutary edits into the system, it could benefit their reputation.
Having been burned numerous times on this front, Wikipedia now has strict guidelines to block organizations from writing their own profiles. From the site: “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press.”
Wikipedia has “Conflict of Interest” rules, to discourage self-promotion. One of the ways they test if an organization is “worthy” of its own entry is to see how many reliable, independent, secondary sources are already talking about the topic and/or organization.
This is definitely a frustration for many people, who complain that Wikipedia has an established culture and format and that its top editors can seem (arbitrarily) fastidious. And it is particularly tough for marketers to swallow. “Why is Wikipedia is open to all … except to business people?” (Because they tend to abuse the privilege, that’s why.)
So, should you try to create a Wikipedia entry about your company or product, or for that new Three-Letter-Acronym you just created?
The answer is, “Maybe.” You need to understand the “rules of the road” – and even then (to extend the car analogy), “your mileage may vary.”
If you do decide to create or edit an entry in Wikipedia, you need to strip your content of all marketing language or plaudits. Just the facts.
Ask yourself whether you already have enough PR clout to warrant a Wikipedia listing. If you’re a start-up or a local pizzeria, it’s not likely you need (or deserve) a Wikipedia entry.
Ask yourself if Wikipedia is going to offer more content to people than what you’d offer on your own website. If the answer is, “No, but Wikipedia has better Google juice,” then sheathe your keyboard.
Wikipedia is a place for official data points that could add context about your industry, as well as to catalog significant events (good and bad). Wikipedia is not a place for promotion or tomfoolery. Keep in mind that even if your edits slip past the official wiki cops, some troublemaker (or competitor!) could use WikiScanner to call you out for manipulation.
And what if your company already has a Wikipedia entry – and you don’t like it?
According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, speaking at a Direct Marketing Association event, the course is clear:
- Don’t just change the page. You will look like you are trying to manipulate it unethically (even if you aren’t).
- Every Wikipedia page has a “Discussion” tab. Enter your questions, additions, and complaints here.
- The editors will read them and address them.
- Most important: It demonstrates that you, the business, understand correct Wikipedia etiquette.
Over time, you may also want to encourage third-party resources (happy customers?) to work on the entry, if possible. But, again, they’d need to keep their assistance neutral, transparent, and factual.
Whatever you do, don’t ask your PR firm to get involved directly in the editing. The agency can help gut-check the content’s quality and tone, but PR types are not welcome on Wikipedia. (We can’t even edit the entry on Public Relations! – But that’s another post.)
Hope this helps. If it did, maybe you could share it with your pals? And subscribe to PR-Squared? Thanks!
Subscribe by Email
@Todd: Thank you for describing my comment as “fascinating”, but I wonder why you consider my suggestions a “scam”? Take a look at the Wikipedia article about [[Elonka Dunin]], a frequent and popular “in-house” contributor to the project. Then take a look at the Wikipedia article about [[Carolyn Doran]] (the former Wikimedia Foundation COO who was a convicted felon). Do you feel that both articles appropriately address each subject neutrally? Do you feel that each has received attention equal to their real-world notability? Do you feel that the co-founder of Wikipedia using private back-channels to “help out” a lover’s article is an appropriate use of the project’s labor and goodwill?
You’re recommending to your readers that they tie one arm behind their backs and “play nice”, while their competitors engage Wikipedia in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY the co-founder and his insiders engage the project — to their own self-interested benefit.
That’s bad advice to your readers, at least in a capitalist economy.
Final note: don’t fall into the tired old pablum which states that “paid content is not as high quality or of good use to the average reader as voluntarily-written content”. I assure you, Wikipedia readers are much better served by a paid-entity seeding an article about Company XYZ, than relying on the “volunteer community” to launch (perhaps next week, perhaps next month, perhaps never!) an article about Company XYZ, or (even worse) promptly writing a garbage article that contains false information, an undue quantity of criticism, and a complete misunderstanding of the business.
Right now, the Wikipedia article about [[Comcast]] has a “Category” at the bottom which states:
Companies based in Mississippi
Oh, really? Yeah, I guess Comcast is based in Mississippi in the same way it’s based in Illinois, and Georgia, and Massachusetts, and Arizona, but those states aren’t similarly categorized around the Comcast article.
About seven days ago, I informed the “Wikipedia community volunteers” of how misleading this is (to define Comcast as “based in Mississippi”), but their effort to correct this perplexing information was half-hearted and ultimately not resolved.
If they fail on something this simple to correct, how do you think they will do on something really important and contentious?
Yet, you would prefer beating your head against the Wikipedia wall, abiding by their rules that their leaders habitually ignore? Good luck with that.
Todd,
I think you’ve said it “Whatever you do, don’t ask your PR firm to get involved directly in the editing.” The last time I tried to create an article about the company I worked for, I tried to make it as neutral as possible. The article still got deleted… because of the lack of sources.
@Gregory – I understand the people you are talking about have certain connections within Wikipedia. For the rest of us the rules still remain the same – if you are writing a promo copy or don’t have enough sources to support what you are saying, your article will be questioned and probably deleted. And as a social media user, I kinda like it. When I go to Wikipedia I want to learn something and not read an online version of your brochure.
Clearly, with a 100% success rate on the paid articles that I published pseudonymously, without disclosure, on Wikipedia, I must have a certain talent for knowing where to draw the lines at “promo copy” and “lacking sources”.
As an example, you may want to check out an article of mine that (while not paid for) is fairly typical of my work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Fuel_Gas
Does it read too much like a brochure? I don’t think so. Do you learn anything new within the article? I certainly did. Is it properly sourced? Better than most Wikipedia pages.
I agree with what you say Todd that Wikipedia needs to stay with the facts. I was doing some research for a project and glanced at a Wikipedia site for NIKE I thought that it was very promotional. I am a journalism student, we’re taught to write the facts and leave out the jargon. I think it is very important to realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for people to find out needed information and it does not need to be abused by marketers to promote their company. Let Wikipedia deliver the facts and let the readers decide their stance on the companies.