PR agencies commit to ethical interactions with Wikipedia
Eleven public relations agencies have declared their intention to follow "ethical engagement practices" in Wikipedia editing. William Beutler, who has edited the site since 2006, kicked off the initiative by hosting a closed-door meeting at the Donovan House in Washington DC with several PR professionals and Wikipedians. The results were published last Tuesday: a joint statement from the participating PR agencies—representing five of the top ten global agencies and all but one of the top ten in the United States—clarifying their views and practices with regards to the Wikimedia projects. They committed themselves:
- To seek to better understand the fundamental principles guiding Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.
- To act in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly those related to "conflict of interest."
- To abide by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use.
- To the extent we become aware of potential violations of Wikipedia policies by our respective firms, to investigate the matter and seek corrective action, as appropriate and consistent with our policies.
- Beyond our own firms, to take steps to publicize our views and counsel our clients and peers to conduct themselves accordingly.
How paid editors squeeze you dry
31 January 2024
"Wikipedia and the assault on history"
4 December 2023
The "largest con in corporate history"?
20 February 2023
Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth
31 August 2022
The oligarchs' socks
27 March 2022
Fuzzy-headed government editing
30 January 2022
Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography
29 November 2021
Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages
26 September 2021
Enough time left to vote! IP ban
29 August 2021
Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
25 April 2021
A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video
28 February 2021
Concealment, data journalism, a non-pig farmer, and some Bluetick Hounds
28 December 2020
How billionaires rewrite Wikipedia
29 November 2020
Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking
1 November 2020
Paid editing with political connections
27 September 2020
WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later
27 September 2020
Wikipedia for promotional purposes?
30 August 2020
Dog days gone bad
2 August 2020
Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy
2 August 2020
Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money
2 August 2020
Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news
28 June 2020
Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020
31 May 2020
2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting
31 May 2020
English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages
30 April 2019
Women's history month
31 March 2019
Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars
1 December 2018
Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill
23 June 2017
Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia
2 September 2015
Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage
2 September 2015
Paid editing; traffic drop; Nicki Minaj
12 August 2015
Community voices on paid editing
12 August 2015
On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it
15 July 2015
Turkish Wikipedia censorship; "Can Wikipedia survive?"; PR editing
24 June 2015
A quick way of becoming an admin
17 June 2015
Meet a paid editor
4 March 2015
Is Wikipedia for sale?
4 February 2015
Shifting values in the paid content debate; cross-language bot detection
30 July 2014
With paid advocacy in its sights, the Wikimedia Foundation amends their terms of use
18 June 2014
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler
11 June 2014
PR agencies commit to ethical interactions with Wikipedia
11 June 2014
Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?
26 February 2014
Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge
19 February 2014
Special report: Contesting contests
29 January 2014
WMF employee forced out over "paid advocacy editing"
8 January 2014
Foundation to Wiki-PR: cease and desist; Arbitration Committee elections starting
20 November 2013
More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more
23 October 2013
Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin
16 October 2013
Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more
16 October 2013
Wiki-PR's extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed
9 October 2013
Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia
25 September 2013
PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market?
13 May 2013
Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate
12 November 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales
1 October 2012
Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike
23 July 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes
7 May 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth
30 April 2012
Showdown as featured article writer openly solicits commercial opportunities
30 April 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
16 April 2012
Wikimedia announcements, Wikipedia advertising, and more!
26 April 2010
License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
15 June 2009
Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits
12 March 2007
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing
5 February 2007
Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down
9 October 2006
Editing for hire leads to intervention
14 August 2006
Proposal to pay editors for contributions
24 April 2006
German Wikipedia introduces incentive scheme
18 July 2005
Beutler told the Signpost in a separate interview this week that "It's a challenge to communicate best practices through an entire agency, particularly on a topic relatively niche as Wikipedia. But it's important that they're now making an effort to do so."
But what caused them to issue such a statement? PR agencies have had a rocky history with Wikipedia, beginning with Gregory Kohs, who founded a company (MyWikiBiz) with the express purpose of creating and editing Wikipedia articles on behalf of paying corporations. He was promptly blocked by Jimmy Wales, the site's co-founder.
Still, with the gate open, others followed: the Signpost's archives, for example, hold stories on Microsoft's attempts to monitor articles (2007), the Nichalp/Zithan case (2009), and a PR firm's problematic edits ("The Bell Pottinger affair"; 2011).
Steps were laid by a British association for ethical engagement with Wikipedia, but these efforts were overshadowed a year later by Wiki-PR, which created, edited, or maintained several thousand Wikipedia articles for paying clients before being exposed. Their edits were quickly met with a cease and desist order from the Wikimedia Foundation, and while they claimed that they were "demonized" by the WMF, their action in renaming themselves in February this year suggests that they might yet be a problem for the movement.
For their part, Beutler and his compatriots recognize that they have a long way to go to obtain the Wikimedia community's trust: "I'm very happy with the attention we've had this week, but I hope no one thinks that anything has been solved":
| “ | The purpose of this statement was to show that Wikipedia and communications professionals are not so far apart as either side might have thought before.
There is a very long road ahead, where a difficult conversation must take place. I do expect that disagreements will occur, and even the companies who have signed onto this will not be able to keep everyone in line just yet. I am hopeful that the agencies involved can rise to meet the requirements that may be set by the new Terms of Use, and where they are not, we need to find a mechanism to bring them back to the fold. Likewise, I am optimistic that Wikipedians are ready to put community resources toward answering the challenges that will come about from outside interests asking Wikipedia why certain articles say things they don't think are accurate or up-to-date—and will help address these issues. |
” |