Why Wikipedia Matters
You’ve heard it before: “Too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the broth.” But for Wikipedia, too many cooks may not be such a bad thing. Common sense recognizes the collective wisdom of the group; the more who contribute, balance and check, the (hopefully) better the final outcome. Common sense also dictates that a website whose traffic dominates Yahoo, Google and MSN should be taken seriously.
To test the “Wikipedia Effect” (how public opinion forms a Wikipedia article and how Wikipedia affects search engine results), Marcia Watson DiStaso and Marcus Messener of The Institute for Public Relations analyzed the wiki’s influence on the social media platforms of 10 of the most visible U.S. companies.
What did they find?
To determine how articles were formed, each Wikipedia page was analyzed for shifts in public opinion, characterized as rigor (number of edits), diversity (number of contributors) and nature of discussion. DiStaso and Messener concluded that shifts in rigor and diversity ultimately depend on media attention (including recent headlines) and social media dedication (joining the online conversation, use of social media platforms, etc). For example, GM and AIG have risen in both rigor and diversity since 2006, a response to difficulties in the auto and banking sectors and the choice to remain relatively absent from social media scene. On the other hand, companies like Ford and Walmart, having embraced social media, have seen a decrease in the number of edits and users. In terms of “nature of discussion”, all articles focused on current events more than ever before. And for the search results themselves: an average of 780,053 people visited the 10 sites in one year, with over 1.5 million having visited the GM and Walmart sites in the opening months of 2010 alone.
For companies, this creates an interesting dilemma. On the plus side, Wikipedia provides valuable Web 2.0 presence, which, despite its often dubious origins, consumers assume to be free from corporate bias and are consequently more likely to trust. On the negative, the unedited nature of Wikipedia’s pages transfers control from the company itself, something no Public Relations Department desires.
What then can “Wikimedia-age” PR Representatives do to manage their company’s image? In terms of Wikipedia contributions…not much. As today’s internet users expect unbiased corporate coverage, PR Representatives are advised to avoid direct-editing of their company’s article, especially when millions of viewers (and potential customers) hang in the balance. Instead, they must use discussion pages to present their information, links and facts, so that the users interested in finding more information will indeed have that option. Yes, it’s true that Wikipedia articles often provide inaccurate information or biased claims–all undesirable for any brand. However, loss of consumer confidence arising from internet policing is often far more difficult to rectify.
[Courtesy of KDPaine]
Public Relations is all about pleasing the common people..”,