PR professionals need a social media Code of Conduct

Constantin Basturea reports that a debate is ranging over at Wikipedia about the use of ‘pay-for-edit’ firms writing clients’ entries. The debate was sparked by a US firm, MyWikiBiz, which charges clients $49 to produce a stub or $79 for a full article on Wikipedia. As a result, the online encyclopaedia has placed certain restrictions on the firm.

According to MyWikiBiz founder, Greg Kohs:

"Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has banned MyWikiBiz from directly posting articles that have been authored for a fee.  However, the company is welcome to author those articles on its own website, and independent, non-employee Wikipedia editors are welcome to post this material to the Wikipedia mainspace."

Constantin rightly asserts that the authoring of Wikipedia entries by PR firms is an issue that won’t just go away if the encyclopaedia chooses not to publish third-party authored entries.

His solution to the problem is simple:

“… I think there are a lot of PR firms and practitioners that are willing to abide by a code that will state clearly the guidelines to be followed by a practitioner for getting involved in the edits of clients pages.

This code doesn’t exist yet - and the discussion about it is happening, for now, without the participation of PR practitioners.

The problems raised by this case are not confined to Wikipedia. The industry should start working now on the rules of engagement on Social Media Commons — social spaces like del.icio.us, YouTube, digg, MySpace, and Second Life — that will allow organizations’ participation in a way that is transparent and respects the communities’ rules.”

This is something the UK’s CIPR should take note of. Stuart Bruce is one of a growing number of UK-based PR bloggers who are calling on the CIPR to devise an industry policy for social media use. I don’t know how they are getting on but their Director General recently commented in an opinion piece that “if there are any good blogs still around in six months then I’ll come back to it”.

It doesn’t take a genius to work out that guidance on social media PR activity is needed now, as more and more PR professionals adopt - and adopt rapidly - to the media.

As Constantin says, discussions about setting standards for social media are happening as we speak with or without the involvement of PR practitioners or industry bodies.

The CIPR needs to act now. Waiting six months before deciding to test the water is too late.

Further reading:

Constantin’s full post

Stuart Bruce’s post on CIPR policy and social media

David Philips views on adoption of social media

Neville Hobson – ‘The CIPR Ostrich’

Richard Bailey - 'Blog Blather'

Simon Wakeman - 'Walking with Dinosaurs'

Comments

[Alexandra Pullin]

Swa-han-kyee! Love the new digs Simon, but on to the serious stuff:

I have been thinking a lot on this subject (I think it is the longest post in a while) and I still don't buy a code of conduct as a 'cure all'. Guidelines could certainly be useful, but something about a code of conduct implies punishment for non-compilers - and I don't see how they can be punished. And once they see that they'll be free to sign it and then ignore it.

Ooh this is a tricky one, and certainly one I can't fully answer alone.

[Simon]

Thanks, Alex! I agree a CoC won't be a panacea but i9t will/should help.

Also, a CoC won't necessarily imply punishment. Legislation would = punishment as would a set of statutory rules.... Codes can be voluntary at best and toothless at worst.

[panasianbiz]

I can't imagine that PR's involvement in these entries is going to decrease significantly because, in essence, that is exactly the type of thing they are supposed to do. It might be wise to have their work read by an objective party to tone it down as needed.