I’m a firm believer that, for the most part, nothing gets done by committee. And, definitely, nothing gets done by committee — in a timely manner. Maybe Wikipedia is an exception — to at least one of those beliefs.
Constantin Basturea has an informative and detailed post about Wikipedia and the participation of public relations firms, or anyone or group that would be paid to create or edit a Wikipedia article.
My thoughts in a nutshell: It’s much ado over nothing, and hypocritical. No, definitely not Constantin, but the apparent uproar over the thought that someone who may be biased — paid or not — would participate in Wikipedia. No! Really?
First, the fact that the proposed policy regarding conflict of interest started only on Aug. 10 — 5 1/2 years after Wikipedia was launched — is a bit late in the game when it should’ve been no surprised that biased people would be contributing to Wikipedia. But, most things in life are a progression and an evolution, so that’s not really that big of a deal.
Second, on the main page of Wikipedia, it clearly states: “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” The link takes you to the introduction. On that page, the text under “What is Wikipedia?” includes (at least as of this posting):
“Lots of people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes an hour, all of which are recorded on article histories and recent changes. Inappropriate changes are usually removed quickly, and repeat offenders can be blocked from editing.”
On that same introduction page, under “How can I help?,” we find:
“Don’t be afraid to editâanyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar or formatting, and fix it.
You can’t break Wikipedia. Anything can be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best information source on the Internet!”
As Wikipedia states, it clearly seeks to include everyone and draw upon our collective knowledge. So, is it right to go back and then exclude an individual or organization without just cause? (With just cause being purposefully writing inaccurate entries; defaming people, companies, etc.; being overtly biased; and other common sense reasons.)
I’m a journalist by education and early in my career, and I have worked in public relations for 12+ years, so don’t talk to me about the appearance of a potential conflict of interest. I know it can be dangerous.
But, whether or not one is being paid, wouldn’t it be safe to assume that, for every new Wikipedia article created, the author has some interest in the topic?
Per the conflict of interest entry:
“we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas in which you appear to have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy states that all Wikipedia articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and a conflicts of interest significantly and negatively effect Wikipedia’s ability to fulfill this requirement impartially.”
In practicing public relations and using Wikipedia, I see nothing wrong with creating an article — as long as it is purely factual, and you note your relationship to the subject (i.e., be transparent — see #6).
I realize the appearance of conflict of interest is enough to be wary. I doubt very much if I would feel comfortable or recommend that I create client articles on Wikipedia. But if others do it and are upfront and factual, go ahead.
I don’t have a problem with editing an article with the same factual and transparent stipulation. (Note: I have edited some Wikipedia entries. Though, when I created my profile, I didn’t list the clients I’ve edited. I will correct that soon. DONE AT APPROX. MIDNIGHT ET, 9/7/06.)
Final point: If the creators and users of Wikipedia really have confidence that factual inaccuracies, blatant PR and other common sense no-nos at the site will be caught by the users, why do you need so many policies and rules that are exclusionary?
In this age of transparency, the scoundrels will be found, sooner or later. I’m open to be educated and enlightened if anyone can give me a valid argument.
– Mike
P.S: For some fun and the antithesis of Wikipedia, check out the Uncyclopedia.
Technorati tags: Wikipedia, Constantin Basturea, public relations, PR, conflict of interest
