Should corporations be allowed to edit Wikipedia?
We all know that Wikipedia and social media have become extremely influential now, and their influence continues to grow. Naturally, this could not escape the attention of marketers, PR specialists and other professionals serving commercial companies.
It is still unclear exactly how the attitude of commercial companies to social media should be. For example, the Coca-Cola company invented a drink that makes a person lose weight (a special substance accelerates the metabolism). Should Coca-Cola employees or their marketing department write about a new drink on Wikipedia?
This interesting topic is discussed by experts. The author of the popular MicroPersuasion blog , Steve Rubel, and his colleagues from the PR agency Edelman discussed this topic at a round table and recorded a half-hour podcast ( MP3 ).
Steve Rubel argues that the same Wikipedia, theoretically, could offer special services for commercial companies. For example, on MySpace and YouTube there are special “profiles” that you can buy and use for commercial purposes. But Steve Rubel believes that this should not happen on Wikipedia, because by doing so we will open a Pandora’s box, and the consequences of commercializing social media will be irreversible. Firstly, because of this, the value of Wikipedia may decrease. Secondly, it will provoke independent authors to publish even more negative information on the pages of this open wiki project, while vandalism is already a big problem now.
')
Steve's colleagues tell him that in fact they spent a lot of time studying all the rules and user agreements on Wikipedia, but nowhere did they find a single hint whether corporations could edit encyclopedia articles. In other words, the “Pandora’s Box” is still not closed, actually. Another question is that corporations for some reason have little use of their opportunities. At the very least, they could track important information for them and promptly correct inaccuracies.
For example, if a firm considers itself to be quite large and significant, why cannot it create an article about itself on the Wikipedia site and tell in detail its story, philosophy, future plans, etc.? PR specialists are sure that this is how it should be, and they are ready to offer their assistance to corporations in this matter. The first companies that specialize in writing commercial articles on Wikipedia have already appeared.
Steve Rubel, however, thinks differently. According to him, the company has the right to be included in Wikipedia only in the event that a stranger makes a record of it. That is, only foreign, independent people should be authors of articles in the encyclopedia. Companies themselves are entitled only to minor factual editing.
Steve Rubel believes that Wikipedia has such a cultural aura (cultural vibe), which will not allow corporations to organically integrate into the popular project. In general, recently in social media it is considered to be public relations synonymous with spam .
It is still unclear exactly how the attitude of commercial companies to social media should be. For example, the Coca-Cola company invented a drink that makes a person lose weight (a special substance accelerates the metabolism). Should Coca-Cola employees or their marketing department write about a new drink on Wikipedia?
This interesting topic is discussed by experts. The author of the popular MicroPersuasion blog , Steve Rubel, and his colleagues from the PR agency Edelman discussed this topic at a round table and recorded a half-hour podcast ( MP3 ).
Steve Rubel argues that the same Wikipedia, theoretically, could offer special services for commercial companies. For example, on MySpace and YouTube there are special “profiles” that you can buy and use for commercial purposes. But Steve Rubel believes that this should not happen on Wikipedia, because by doing so we will open a Pandora’s box, and the consequences of commercializing social media will be irreversible. Firstly, because of this, the value of Wikipedia may decrease. Secondly, it will provoke independent authors to publish even more negative information on the pages of this open wiki project, while vandalism is already a big problem now.
')
Steve's colleagues tell him that in fact they spent a lot of time studying all the rules and user agreements on Wikipedia, but nowhere did they find a single hint whether corporations could edit encyclopedia articles. In other words, the “Pandora’s Box” is still not closed, actually. Another question is that corporations for some reason have little use of their opportunities. At the very least, they could track important information for them and promptly correct inaccuracies.
For example, if a firm considers itself to be quite large and significant, why cannot it create an article about itself on the Wikipedia site and tell in detail its story, philosophy, future plans, etc.? PR specialists are sure that this is how it should be, and they are ready to offer their assistance to corporations in this matter. The first companies that specialize in writing commercial articles on Wikipedia have already appeared.
Steve Rubel, however, thinks differently. According to him, the company has the right to be included in Wikipedia only in the event that a stranger makes a record of it. That is, only foreign, independent people should be authors of articles in the encyclopedia. Companies themselves are entitled only to minor factual editing.
Steve Rubel believes that Wikipedia has such a cultural aura (cultural vibe), which will not allow corporations to organically integrate into the popular project. In general, recently in social media it is considered to be public relations synonymous with spam .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/4526/
All Articles