It may an indicator of how many PR bloggers read PR Week but there’s a story on the front page of last week’s UK edition [paywalled] claiming that Wikipedia’s founder Jim Wales is threatening to ban PR agencies from contributing to the site.
For non-subscribers, Wales tells the trade mag exclusively:
"If it persists they [PR agencies] will be banned … There’s a huge conflict of interest. Contributors cannot be paid for what they are doing."
Wales’ comments came after it emerged Microsoft had been paying a blogger to amend its entries and the US firm MyWikiBiz was banned from editing clients entries earlier last year. I posted about the original case here.
It’s an interesting debate but I do wonder what is wrong with PR people editing Wikipedia entries providing they adhere to Wikipedia’s guidelines. I have edited Wikipedia entries and personally, I would have no qualms about editing entries about clients. If I see something that is wrong or find an entry I can add to I am happy to help. It’s nothing malicious or under-hand. Just helpful. Anyone else have strong thoughts on the issue?
Technorati tags: Wikipedia; Jimmy Wales; ethics; PR agencies
Is it time to set the lawyers on Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia?
I’ve been too busy to blog over the last few days, but I couldn’t resist picking up on Simon Collister’spost about Jimmy Wales’ latest rant in PR Week about PR people and Wikipedia. I support Simon’s view that Wales is
Good post. I started to write one on Friday, but stopped as it was too angry. I’ve toned it down a bit now and added in a couple of stories from local Cumbrian newspapers (I was visiting my parents at the weekend). Both stories are examples of incorrect and damaging Wikipedia entries that I believe should have been corrected by Copeland Council’s PR people.
Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales and PR people
Last weeks PR Week magazine (UK) features an article about Jimmy Wales, head honcho at Wikipedia, threatening to ban PR agencies and paid PR professionals from editing Wikipedia if they continue to edit entries about clients.
…
Hello there.
I agree with this post.
One other point, regarding Stuart’s comment above. As Copeland BC’s only PRO it would be pretty hard to check all of the Copeland related articles on Wikipedia, though I do make occasional checks. In these instances I was alerted to the stories by the local press.
Thanks
Ian
http://tinyurl.com/2o6u64
Has Public Relations Become Synonymous with Spam?
by Amanda Chapel
Monday, October 9, 2006
Correcting Wikipedia
FACT CHECKERS need to correct copy and if that copy is published in the Wikipedia, a professional fact checker needs to bravely set the record straight. Professional fact checkers edit for the truth. They do not lie for clients. However, fact checkers …