This is a tough one. The way the headlines are written, “Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit“ and “Microsoft tried to doctor Wikipedia“, it sounds like a no-brainer to condemn Microsoft as “evil.” But upon reading more about the issue — and having to consider this issue myself in other contexts — I must ask, if markets are conversations (see Cluetrain), then we have to find the appropriate etiquette where the people who make up a company can have voices in conversations when they are being defined by, in some cases, their competitors. However, a dogma has developed on Wikipedia that suggests it is inappropriate for anyone to write about themselves or anything they are personally involved with, or may have some unique insight into. Indeed, the presumption seems to be that if an original source adds something to a Wikipedia entry, it must be false or spun or have some hidden agenda. Therefore, the resulting practice has become, it’s okay to get ones best friend to correct a Wikipedia entry, but don’t do it yourself. That way you’ll be able to say, “I have never edited my Wikipedia entry.” (Better yet, if you can say, “I never read my Wikipedia entry,” you’re even cooler on the geek scale.)
The irony of this convoluted etiquette can best be seen in this quote from one of the articles:
Wales said the proper course would have been for Microsoft to write or commission a “white paper” on the subject with its interpretation of the facts, post it to an outside Web site and then link to it in the Wikipedia articles’ discussion forums.
I am a fan of Jimmy Wales but there is a well-publicized history of his correcting his own Wikipedia entry in a somewhat more direct way than he is suggesting in that quote.
In the way that a high-profile individual (like Wales) who sees inaccuracies about their entry on Wikipedia is lambasted for correcting the entry, there has emerged some form of group-decision that has become translated to mean that those who work for a company shouldn’t be writing about it or the things it does directly on Wikipedia — but should construct some Rube Goldbergish trail of white papers and postings on external websites. This Wikipedia cultural nuance, while very likely evolving from well-reasoned intentions, has naturally led to the unintended consequence of a company like Microsoft looking for a “right” way to engage in the conversation, but stumbling miserably when that attempt is outed by those who believe it is better to have wrong content, than “corporate” content.
I love Wikipedia. However, the “white paper” suggestion is really crazy.
When interpreted as “Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit,” sure, it sounds evil. But if Wikipedia has become the platform of record for web-based knowledge, then having a voice there is going to be a requirement for corporate America. Wikipedia either needs to find an accepted “white hat” way for this to be done directly and transparently (and not some “in the discussions, off the website way), or dark-hat, Rube Goldberg solutions will naturally follow.
Prediction: In the future (like a week from now), in addition to “SEO” (search engine optimization) and “SMO” (social media optimization) expect to see the term “WO” (wikipedia optimization) added to the “lexicon of expertise” of certain online marketing consulting firms.
Prediction: I will have much more to say about this in the future.
“To me, in areas outside my expertise, it seems that Wikipedia is an excellent source of information. But that’s the problem. In areas that I know better, I can see its flaws. I play by the rules and don’t fix the mistakes. That leaves it to the trolls to write the story. Somehow we have to resolve this. And Wales should recuse himself from being the judge in these matters.
“It now appears that if you are a corporation that feels Wikipedia is inaccurate or slanted on a topic that is of substantive importance to your business, you’re pretty much screwed.”