Wikipedia and companies explained, by Lennart Guldbrandsson
-
Upload
lennart-guldbrandsson -
Category
Marketing
-
view
428 -
download
2
Transcript of Wikipedia and companies explained, by Lennart Guldbrandsson
Wikipedia&
companies
Lennart GuldbrandssonWikimedia Sverige
@AliasHannibal
With commen
ts
in red.
Data: ComScore
And now
Wikipedia h
as more tha
n 500million
visitors each
month. . .
Why companies should work with Wiki-
pedia. Let's compare Wikipedia with some
of the most trusted information websites.
However, if companies engage Wi-
kipedia in the same way as the
Church of Scientology - with
attempts at pushing their agenda -
they will face the same two conse-
quences:
1 . Being banned from editing Wiki-
pedia
2. Facing media and the public's
scorn for what they've done.
The lesson here: if you want to
work with Wikipedia, you' ll have to
do it our way.
Read more:
http://bit. ly/xenuwikipedia
Companies should follow the
same rules as anyone else
who want edit Wikipedia. Our
five pillars is a good guide:
1 . only encyclopedic material
2. only neutral material
3. only freely licenced mate-
rial
4. in good collaboration with
other Wikipedians
5. while using common sense
Read more:
http://bit. ly/WPpillars
About 100 000 persons comprise the active group of Wikipedians. Most of us are easy-going, but we are a very diverse
group, and there is no central editorial board, which makes it imperative to be patient and polite when you deal with
Wikipedia.
Read more:
http://bit. ly/Wikipedian
Here's me, at the yearly Wikipedia meetup, 2012, in Washington DC.
This is a printed version of Wiki-
pedia's best articles. But the
span between our best articles
and our worst is great. It's just
not single articles, either, but
entire topics. Some topics are
bad because we haven't gotten to
them yet. Some topics are bad
because the topic is difficult to
write about. Company articles
are difficult, for several reasons:
1 . companies try to push PR into
the articles
2. competitors and critics want to
skew the articles negatively
3. few Wikipdians (relatively the
number of articles) know a lot
about the corporate world, i.e.
we have a lack of business peop-
le among our editors
4. most companies have very litt-
le knowledge about their own
history
5. most companies have very
little time updating Wikipedia or
learning its system.
Read more:
http://bit. ly/companiesWikimania
Some companies use PR companies to write
their articles for them. In some cases this turns
out bad, and almost every time the media takes
Wikipedia's side. Many Wikipedians want to
forbid paid editing completely, since the wri-
ting so often is skewed and non-neutral. Others
want to differentiate between paid editing and
paid advocacy editing. Still other Wikipedians
want to try to find a solution with the PR com-
panies and their customers. We have no final
good solution, yet.
A big reason why PR companies get it wrong is that they go
the "dumptruck approach", i.e. just add a lot of text in one
go, without working with the community and its rules.
This often lead to. . .
. . . the same thing as the scientolo-
gists: they get blocked and publicly
ridiculed.
So is there a solution?
Yes.
Next some dos and don'ts.
DON'T
* share an account
* threaten and/or demand action
* create articles (it's too difficult
for most newcomers)
* remove negative information,
such as information about a cri-
sis or bad press
* plagiarize, even your own web-
site
DO
First and most important: imitate
other articles and veteran users!
* remove obvious vandalism
* create account, be open with your
identity and bias
* write on Talk pages
* find users, ask for help
* work on the history section, where
it's often less controversial stuff
* provide sources, such as links to
annual reports
* provide freely licenced images
Again, imitate other users and
articles.
For instance, look at the best
articles by going to the one listed on
the main page of Wikipedia and find
out how your article could look.
1 . Talk pages2. [email protected]
If you should find yourself in
trouble, use these ways to contact
Wikipedia.
Read more:
http://bit. ly/WPContact
"Wikipedia Best PracticeGuidance For Public RelationsProfessionals"
http://bit. ly/Wiki-PR
&WikimediaUK
PR professionals and Wikipedians together
created a great guide for companies who
want to work with Wikipedia without
risking getting into trouble.
Questions?
Image sources
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xenuobey.svg, CC-BY.SA 2,5, First Church of Xenu
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10_sharing_book_cover_background. jpg, © ®, Lane Hartwell, David Peters,
Jmkim dot com
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Group_Photograph. jpg, CC-BY-SA 3,0, Lisa N Marrs
* http://thewikipedian.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/wikipedia-in-print-rob-matthews. jpg, © , Rob Matthews
* http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/, ©
* http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/22/wikipedia-ban-sock-puppet-pr, ©
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Afghan_dumper_truck. jpg, public domain, Jeremy Harris, U.S. Marine Corps
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:D-P006_Zutritt_fuer_Unbefugte_verboten.svg, public domain, Torsten
Henning
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Welcome_mat_2. jpg, CC-BY-SA 2,0, The McClouds
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Johannes_Vermeer_%281632-1675%29_-The_Girl_With_The_Pearl_Ear-
ring_%281665%29. jpg, CC-BY-SA 3,0, Kunstkenner2305
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RedCrossNurseg. jpg, public domain, David Henry Souter
* http://www.cipr.co.uk/content/policy-resources/best-practice-guides-toolkits/wikipedia-and-public-relations, ® CIPR