Wikipedia is crowdsourced knowledge and therefore discourages people from writing about themselves. As a result, 60 percent of Wikipedia articles about companies contain factual errors, according to research published in Public Relations Journal.
Marcia W. DiStaso, Ph.D., assistant professor of public relations at Penn State University, surveyed 1,284 public relations people from the Public Relations Society of America's (PRSA). Results of the survey indicate a gap exists between public relations companies and Wikipedia concerning the proper protocol for editing entries.
When respondents attempted to engage editors through Wikipedia's "Talk" pages to request factual corrections to entries, 40 percent said it took "days" to receive a response, 12 percent indicated "weeks," while 24 percent never received any type of response. According to Wikipedia, the standard response time to requests for corrections is between two and five days.
That isn't really relevant, of course. Wikipedia people work for free and not everyone checks it every day. If anyone gets a response at all, it is a bonus.
Only 35 percent of respondents were able to engage with Wikipedia, either by using its "Talk" pages to converse with editors or through direct editing of a client's entry. Respondents indicated this figure is low partly because some fear backlash over making edits to clients' entries. Respondents also expressed a certain level of uncertainty regarding how to properly edit Wikipedia entries. Of those who were familiar with the process of editing Wikipedia entries, 23 percent said making changes was "near impossible." Twenty-nine percent said their interactions with Wikipedia editors were "never productive."
Backlash is a real concern. If you ever looked at the Science 2.0 Wikipedia page, it's almost comical how poorly written it is. But if we edit it, then we could be accused of marketing. So the first paragraph, written by someone who knows little about Science 2.0, just says the network are commercial websites talking about science - which is essentially true, but missing the point of what it is supposed to be.
Those results also show that public relations people have only a rudimentary understanding of Wikipedia's rules for editing and the protocol for contacting editors to secure factual changes.
"It does not surprise me that so many Wikipedia entries contain factual errors," said DiStaso. "What is surprising, however, is that 25 percent of survey respondents indicated they are not familiar with the Wikipedia articles for their company or clients. At some point most, if not all, companies will determine they need to change something in their Wikipedia entries. Without clear, consistent rules from Wikipedia regarding how factual corrections can be made this will be a very difficult learning process for public relations professionals."
Public relations people should review their employers' and/or clients' Wikipedia articles for accuracy and balance and inaccurate or misleading information should be brought to the attention of Wikipedia editors via an entry's "Talk" page - but keep in mind Wikipedia is not a free public relations tool.
"The editing of Wikipedia by public relations and corporate communications professionals is a serious issue and one that needs to be addressed by everyone," says DiStaso. "The status quo can't continue. A high amount of factual errors doesn't work for anyone, especially the public, which relies on Wikipedia for accurate, balanced information."
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Reduce Prostate Cancer Risk By Sleeping With Lots Of Women - But Not Men
- Supersonic Laser-Propelled Aircraft Get A Step Closer
- Greenpeace Says Its GMOs Are Better Than Science's GMOs, Still Hates Golden Rice
- Homo Floresiensis: Hobbit Species Continues To Provoke Questions About Human Evolution
- Okay With Disgusting Images? You Vote This Way 95 Percent Of The Time
- Everyone Hates Daylight Savings Time - But It Might Improve Public Health
- This Mid-Term Election Can Have Evolutionary Consequences
- "Mars is basically a dead rock. Any life that can take hold there, good for it. Now the oceans of..."
- "Most people like average, because average is most predictable - just as frequent words and symmetrical..."
- "Save Lives With Golden Rice..."
- "From Der_Wanderer The common ground of theist and atheist is that both are believers . That is..."
- "The common ground of theist and atheist is that both are believers . That is both from a high level..."
- Science as profane: What superstition of 1752 and 2014 share in common
- What’s so “natural” about “natural crop breeding”?
- Worried you have cancer? Take a Google pill!
- Mars bars for brain health? Not so fast
- Scientists rebuff Center for Food Safety report alleging chemicals in infant soy milk
- When you take your drugs might matter as much as what you’re taking
- Air quality and unconventional oil and gas sites
- Frailty increases kidney transplant recipients' risk of dying prematurely
- Cochrane news: Expectant mothers with epilepsy face tough choices over their medication
- Report: 93 percent of mining, oil & gas, logging, agriculture developments involve inhabited land
- Breast and colorectal cancers remain more aggressive in children