What’s your Wikipedia strategy?

Neil Hallmark
10 December 2009
Neil Hallmark

Wikipedia

Ok, so ‘strategy’ is perhaps pushing it a bit. But the popularity of Wikipedia means that it has quickly become one of the internet’s biggest and widest disseminators of information. Whatever your thoughts surrounding the use of Wikipedia for finding ‘factual’ information, it can’t be ignored as a communications tool.

With this in mind, last week we met with the UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, the charity behind Wikipedia (and nine other projects!) and this got me thinking about how brands should be using Wikipedia.

Managing reputations
Perhaps this is the obvious one, i.e. making sure your article isn’t vandalised or inaccurate information posted. Given Wikipedia’s popularity (ranked 18th by Hitwise for global website traffic), and the challenge of controlling content, it’s not surprising that brands worry about how they are portrayed.

Google ranks Wikipedia highly in its search results so what your entry says can have a big impact on customer perceptions. Take Flip Video as an example (a Kaizo client). The daily traffic statistics (stats.grok.se) show that Flip_video was viewed 9,775 times in November 2009. That’s nearly 10,000 potential customers who could have been influenced by the Wikipedia entry alone.

Traffic

The solution is to monitor your Wikipedia articles for potentially damaging changes. Simply set up an RSS feed from the ‘history’ tab of the article and whenever a change is made you will be automatically updated.

Correcting errors
So if something is factually incorrect on your brand page, what can you do? Wikimedia UK recommend info@wikimedia.org as your first port of call. This could result in the inaccuracies being removed, or the page being ‘protected’ in exceptional cases.

The second option is to edit the page yourself. However, a word of caution here, beware of ‘whitewashing’ (replacing harsh words with ‘softer’ ones) and also make sure you disclose any conflicts of interest on the ‘discussion page’. Better still; defer the changes to non-conflicted users.

Be proactive
It’s likely that you have a wealth of information and expertise within your organisation. It’s probably already in the public domain and may even have been covered elsewhere. So why not share it on Wikipedia? As long as the facts can be verified by multiple reliable sources (think ‘The Guardian’ rather than your personal blog), you have an opportunity to build a thought-leadership position on a major global website that dominates Google’s search results.

Above all Wikipedia is just one platform of course and your approach should be integrated within your wider communications plan, including a mix of the myriad other social media channels that are relevant to your business and communications objectives.


5 Responses to “What’s your Wikipedia strategy?”

  1. steve virgin says:

    Can I have permission to repost your story above on my blog? With a link back to this site of course…

  2. Neil Hallmark says:

    Hi Steve,

    Yes of course. Feel free to use on your site.

    Thanks,
    Neil

  3. steve virgin says:

    Hi Neil

    http://wp.me/yKdL Here is your article reposted on my site

    http://www.virginonmedia.wordpress.com

    It was a pleasure to come and meet you all. I hope we can find many ways in which we can work together.

    Steve

  4. Harry Wood says:

    Glad you added your word of caution there. “defer the changes to non-conflicted users”. More information on this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

    I have to say the whole idea of corporate “strategizing” on wikipedia raises hackles. It’s supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a business directory or marketing channel. But wikipedia is very influential as you say, and I guess where there is influence, there are always strategies to channel that influence.

  5. Neil Hallmark says:

    Harry,

    Thanks for your comment. It’s true, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and Wikipedia makes it perfectly clear that entries should be written in a neutral style without any kind of sales or marketing language. However, there have been many high-profile cases of Wikipedia articles being vandalised and false information posted (Thierry Henry is a perfect recent example). In a world in which anyone with access to the internet can praise or condemn a person or brand in a matter of seconds, it is good business practice to have a strategy in place to first of all identify what is being said, and secondly how to respond. Wikipedia is just another channel that brands need to be aware of.

Leave a Reply