Menu visibility control

Video

Events

Startup Surgery

Most Recent

FinTech

How tech is shaking up the world of banking

Need to Know

Here’s what Google, Apple and Microsoft are up to in healthcare

Investments

Freelance management app Lystable closes £8m Series A led by Valar Ventures

Press Releases

Starling Bank unveils beta as it begins roll out to first customers
VentureFounders surpasses £40m funding mark in 2 years of operation
Software testing leader TestPlant appoints Dr. John Bates as CEO

7 ways to use Wikipedia like it’s meant to be used

wiki
twitterlinkedinFacebookgoogle_plustwitterlinkedinFacebookgoogle_plus

If you Google a well-known company one of the first results is likely to be a Wikipedia page.

Most startups look at this and think: how do I get a bit of that action?

The holy grail

Quite rightly so.

Wikipedia is influential. It is the sixth most popular website in the world according to web information firm Alexa: beaten only by Facebook, Google, YouTube, Yahoo and Baidu.com.

But the key thing to remember is Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia.

It is not a media-publishing house nor is it an online business directory.

It is a community of enthusiasts who are contributing to an open wiki because they feel passionate about a subject.

According to longstanding Wikipedia Tom Morris, “Wikipedians didn’t turn up to help manage a business directory written by PR and advertising folk, they were attracted to Wikipedia for some far less worldly subject: philosophy, in my case, or military history or whatever it might be.”

wiki1

Conflict of interest

This presents a challenge for most startups who are working on new technologies or concepts.

Typically, it is hard to find Wikipedians that are generally enthused or interested in these areas, which sometimes leads to entrepreneurs taking matters into their own hands and creating a Wikipedia entry on their company or editing an existing page about their company.

Wikipedia’s ‘rules’, the content policy of the community, clearly states that anyone with a conflict of interest should not directly edit Wikipedia.

People who work for startups and any associated paid for advocates have a conflict of interest.

Context is everything

This begs the question: ‘If I am a startup how do I get a Wikipedia page’.

The answer? You must be patient and respect the community’s way of working.

Just as you wouldn’t expect to be given access to the production environment of a news organisation to make changes to online articles you can’t jump onto Wikipedia and expect to be able to start hacking the content.

It is important that companies respect and engage with communities just as they do media outlets and journalists.

Seven ways to use Wikipedia properly

Here are my top tips on how to engage with the Wikipedian community:

  1. Understand how the community works. Become a Wikipedian in your own right and edit pages that relate to your hobbies interests.

  2. Be open and transparent. Always disclose your conflict of interests when talking to Wikipedians online and in your username profile.

  3. Look at the bigger picture. A Wikipedia page is likely to be a bi-product of great work and an established reputation. Not the other way around.

  4. Suggest a Wikipedia entry at the page ‘Articles for Creation’. This allows you to recommend pages for Wikipedians to write.

  1. Remember that Wikipedia keeps a record of everything you do. Anyone can see who is editing a Wikipedia page, so don’t try to hide or spin things.

  1. Engage with Wikipedians via the Talkpages. Don’t edit any page you have a conflict of interest on, except to remove vandalism. Head to the Talk page for the Wikipedia article concerned, draft your response and discuss with the people who regularly edit the page. If you don’t get a response then raise it on the relevant noticeboard.

  1. Escalate with kindness and don’t be an idiot. When faced with a situation where you have a choice to be an idiot or not be an idiot, choose to not be an idiot.  Following this rule will mean you will very rarely get into difficult situations.

See CIPR’s best practice document for further guidance.

Stephen Waddington is Chair of the CIPR Social Media Panel and European Social & Digital Director, Ketchum.

Enter your e-mail address to receive updates straight to your inbox

* indicates required
Send me news on...
twitterlinkedinFacebookgoogle_plustwitterlinkedinFacebookgoogle_plus

  • I can tell you right now, Tom Morris doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I recently completed an intensive study of 100 randomly-selected Wikipedia articles about businesses. I’m proving, time and again, that when you look at Wikipedia articles about businesses, about 30% of the time, you are assuredly looking substantially at the work of PR and advertising folk — in many cases who work directly for the company itself.

    Tom Morris is imagining a “Wikipedian” universe that matches his personal wishes, but not one that matches reality. Looks like some True Believers are in for a rude awakening. All of that bullcrap about altruistic, volunteer WikiLove that Jimbo Wales was spouting between 2006 and 2012 or so… is now being proven to be just that — a stinking, steaming pile of bullcrap.

    This would have all been so much easier if a realistic, pragmatic approach had been taken toward “vanity” editing back in 2005 or 2006. Encourage, but don’t require, disclosure; and treat paid editors with equal respect as volunteer editors IN THE ARTICLE SPACE, putting verifiability and reliable sources above all else. Anything more stringent than that, such as forcing paid editors into a Talk page “ghetto”, and all you’re serving to do is engender subterfuge to get around the policies. Because, believe me, there are just as many (if not more) “volunteers” and administrators who are warping content in ways that violate policy, which puts paid editors at a disadvantage regarding truth.

  • Additionally, Tip #4 is a joke, above. Between September 2008 and April 2012, there were 63,564 article topics proposed at “Articles for Creation”. Only 26 percent ever became an actual article. If you are a PR agent who waits on Articles for Creation for the magic to happen, you are truly an incompetent creator of content.

Editor's picks

Tech and banking

How tech is shaking up the world of banking
posted 8 hours ago

healthtech hospital nurses doctors

Here’s what Google, Apple and Microsoft are up to in healthcare
posted 12 hours ago

Lystable

Freelance management app Lystable closes £8m Series A led by Valar Ventures
posted 15 hours ago

men

At least 26 London-based tech entrepreneurs ‘have lost out on funding’ since Brexit
posted on March 23, 2017

Deloitte

Deloitte: Blockchain can transform emerging ‘trust economy’
posted on March 22, 2017

Alex Macpherson, Octopus Ventures

Octopus Ventures raises £120m to invest in UK AI startups
posted on March 22, 2017