PRmoment Awards Shortlist 2024 PRmoment Leaders PA Mediapoint PRCA

How PR people should behave on Wikipedia

The CIPR have launched a guide of how PR people should behave on Wikipedia. This is an area that has been brewing controversy for sometime, highlighted by Bell Pottinger's shenanigans last year. The CIPR have lead an initial engagement program with the Wikipedia community and are hoping that their newly launched Wikipedia guidelines for public relations will build mutual understanding. In order to form these guidelines, the CIPR hosted their guidance on Wikimedia UK and during this time the page received more than 160 direct edits. Over 120 contributions were also made to the discussions page, therefore underlining the need for discussion and attention when it comes to PRs using Wikipedia. Of all the recommendations made by the CIPR, it would seem the key facet is that public relations professionals should not directly edit Wikipedia pages relating to their organisation or brand. It's also suggested that if they want changes to be made, they should propose amendments to Wikipedians – the name for the community of regular Wikipedia editors. If you work in PR I recommend you read the full report, it adds context to the PR/Wikipedia debate and will almost certainly increase your understanding. In terms of practical advice, I found the following extract, pretty useful: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE: HOW PR PROFESSIONALS SHOULD IMPROVE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES This is a brief step-by-step guide outlining how to improve an article, leading up to "worst case scenarios". 1. All editing should be conducted in an open and honest manner. PR professionals should create an account with Wikipedia and create a user page associated with this which discloses their place of work and a list of their clients. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow user accounts to be shared so each person should have their own account and user page. Company accounts are not allowed. 2. First go to the Talk section of the article (the tab at the top of a Wikipedia entry labelled "Talk"). "If something's been written about your client, tell them your client has a response, or a response that has been published elsewhere and should be on the site. This is effective almost always," says Jimmy Wales. He adds: "Talk to the community with respect. State your job title, identity, interest and company. Escalate with kindness." Get your clients response published elsewhere (e.g. a press release) where it is clearly attributable to your client and can be referenced by an editor with a neutral point of view in the article as your client's / organisation's position). 3. See who wrote the article originally; click through to their User page, and to their Talk page (the tab at the top of the User page labelled "Talk"). Say you have got some tips or suggestions for the article and ask them to have a look. By going to the 'Toolbox' section in the left-hand sidebar and looking for their list of contributions, you will be able to check if they are still active on the site. If not then try other more recent editors. 4. If you get no response from the Talk pages, go to a relevant noticeboard. These pages are watched by groups of people with a particular interest: in effect specialists. According to Wales, noticeboard pages are very active and provide help quickly. If you are concerned about an entry for an individual, you can go to the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard18. Or if you want to make changes to a company page, or you think that someone editing the article is biased, it is a good idea to ask someone from the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard19 to have a look. 5. Email info-en@wikimedia.org in any situation where it may be hard to disclose yourself as a public relations practitioner on the Talk pages. Because it might inflame the situation, for example. The mail address leads into what is known as the OTRS system. There are select people who manage this inbox who will act as your advocate within the community and offer advice. When you have a reply, keep the OTRS ticket number for future reference; it will be important if you need to chase up the query. 6. If a subject is controversial, or there are continual 'edit wars' occurring, then you can apply for the page to be protected. There are various stages, from full protection, where only a Wikipedia administrator can make an edit, to semi-protection, where only Wikipedia editors who have been registered on the site for more than four days and have made at least ten edits are allowed to make changes. To apply, ask an administrator, email info-en@wikimedia.org, or go to the BLP20 (biography of living person) page. But note - you cannot choose which page version is protected. 7. There is a dispute resolution system within Wikipedia, but the best advice, almost always, is to seek informal negotiation or low-level mediation through a third party. The Administrators' Noticeboard21 can be effective in dealing with obnoxious conduct. Wikipedia's conflict resolution mechanisms are almost entirely devoted to one question - Have people been working in good faith to achieve the best possible Wikipedia page? They will almost never get involved in disagreements over the content of a page but they may ban one of the parties (from the page or from the whole site) for incivility or sabotaging efforts to get a consensus. If they get involved then listen to any advice they have to give you, even if it is not what you want to hear. 8. Even if you think the other guy is only there to push his point of view you should nevertheless act as if you believe he is acting in good faith. This will help you later if the issue gets escalated to any of the dispute resolution mechanisms. Assume Good Faith22 is policy on Wikipedia. 9. "See you in court" will not help you or a client. It can get you banned from editing while the issue is referred to lawyers. 10. Remember that sometimes consensus is against you. Sometimes you won't be able to convince the other editors that your wording is the best. If you refer the dispute to the dispute resolution and they come back and say you are wrong and the other guy is right then you should probably accept that and move on. If you would like a copy of the ‘Guidance for Public Relations Professionals Using Wikipedia’, it is available here. There is quite a bit of chat on Twitter on the issue that the PRSA have not endorsed these guidelines (most of the other large PR trade groups seem to have done). Thi sappears to be because the PRSA are taking a slightly more aggressive stance on the inaccuracies within Wikipedia. Here is the PRSA's statement on why they chose not to endorse these standards. PR and Wikipedia is an interesting area and this open letter to Jimmy Wales from Phil Gomes, pretty much sums up the problems on either side. (The letter is good, but the comments, including those of Jimmy Wales are the best bit.) Following Phil's letter, a PR/Wikipedia pressure group called CREWE have set up a Facebook group. CREWE are also engaging with Wikipedia to explain why the inaccuracies within the site are a problem for PR people. The PR/Wikipedia probem centres on the fact, that paid PR people, will have a conflict of interest if they are attempting to change a Wikipedia entry that refers to one of their clients.

If you enjoyed this article, sign up for free to our twice weekly editorial alert.

We have six email alerts in total - covering ESG, internal comms, PR jobs and events. Enter your email address below to find out more: