Why is MediaBistro advising people to use Wikipedia for public relations?
I was reading a post on TV Newser today when I noticed a peculiar advertisement:
It advertises MediaBistro's $15 video "course" on how to use Wikipedia to raise your media profile. The preview video raises the specter of the Seigenthaler controversy, and offers to "explain what Wikipedia is, how it works, and how people and businesses can increase and influence an identity on it" [emph added] and describes three "rewards of being on Wikipedia":
- Lends credibility
- Maintains public awareness
- Put forth clear and factual information
Setting aside the debatable parts of points 1 and 3, let's continue. The course synopsis says:
It's only a matter of time before you or your business finds its way onto Wikipedia's pages. But what approach should you take toward creating or developing these pages? Are you allowed to influence your own Wikipedia presence?
Well, that's a great question. The point of the video seems to be that you can influence your own Wikipedia presence. Although the preview is to brief to identify the precise methods endorsed, the instructor says, in regards to the Seigenthaler controversy, "with a little bit of foresight and effort, this does not have to happen to you."
The instructor in the video is identified as Manoush Zomorodi, a voice-over talent, former reporter for the BBC, and media consultant for Hardy Robin Media, which claims to be "a consultancy that specializes in media training and new media strategy."
I think if Hardy Robin Media were such an expert on Wikipedia and new media strategy, they would know that manipulating Wikipedia for purposes of public relations is widely considered unethical and is strongly discouraged, and that those who have been caught editing their own entries (including Microsoft, David Pogue (allegedly), Adam Curry, and even Jimbo Wales himself) have paid a price for getting caught with their hand in that particular cookie jar.
MediaBistro should also know better than to offer courses that skirt ethical guidelines like this one does. It undermines its own credibility.
Comments
Thanks for the post. Our video is in fact designed to inform users of Wikipedia's guidelines so that they don't risk public embarrassment by manipulating their own entries. Thanks for drawing further attention to the issue.
Posted by: Carmen Scheidel | July 19, 2007 5:58 PM
Wikipedia is easily manipulatedfor disinformation manufacturing purposes. Recently an entry about right-wing blogger and gay "escort" and porn star Matt Sanchez was expurgated by Sanchez himself (with the full cooperation of Wiki) to remove all references to his past as "Rod Majors" and "Pierre Labiche."
Don't trust the place.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | July 20, 2007 2:08 PM
Why is anyone shocked (SHOCKED!) that this is the next wave in the constant battle between paid editing and Wikipedia?
Between August and October of 2006, Jimmy Wales decided that cooperation with editors being paid in the disinfecting sunlight of full disclosure was not his preference. He changed gears and went on the warpath against such editors, rather than working with them to improve understanding and implementation of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:OWN.
Essentially, he gave commercial interests LITTLE CHOICE but to either sit on their hands while their corporate descriptions are libeled and vandalized by anonymous teenagers, or to subvert the system to assure that truly fair and neutral information is presented.
Kudos to MediaBistro. I hope they contact me when Jimbo sends a threatening cease and desist "e-mail" from his Wikia account!
Posted by: Gregory Kohs | July 23, 2007 8:09 AM