{"id":292,"date":"2023-03-14T16:21:02","date_gmt":"2023-03-14T16:21:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bursucretleri.com\/blog\/?p=292"},"modified":"2023-03-22T18:22:16","modified_gmt":"2023-03-22T18:22:16","slug":"help-end-wikipedia-ignorance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bursucretleri.com\/blog\/help-end-wikipedia-ignorance\/","title":{"rendered":"Help End Wikipedia Ignorance"},"content":{"rendered":"

The following is a collaborative guest post from\u00a0David King\u00a0and\u00a0Robert Lawton. If you\u2019d like to contribute thinking here, please\u00a0read the guidelines.<\/em><\/p>\n

Wikipedia has\u00a0been called\u00a0the most influential website in the world. When Wikipedia\u00a0went \u201cblack\u201d\u00a0last month in protest along with others, it helped stop a Congressional effort to pass SOPA\/PIPA dead in its tracks. It\u2019s fair to say, Wikipedia is influential.<\/p>\n

Yet in a world filled with data, research, workshops, and experts, most marketers still don\u2019t understand how Wikipedia works or its impact on their image. And those who attempt to manage their brand on Wikipedia without an understanding of how to edit appropriately may find themselves in an embarrassing flap.<\/p>\n

Assumptions and misinformation easily spread in a vacuum of real knowledge about Wikipedia.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s about time we debunk some common myths.<\/p>\n

Common myths:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Wikipedia isn\u2019t a respectable source<\/h2>\n

Wikipedia bills itself as the encyclopedia \u201canyone can edit\u201d, so how could anyone trust a document that\u2019s written by anonymous volunteers? Indeed, Wikipedia has gotten\u00a0plenty of media flack\u00a0for being banned by college professors as a reliable source for student papers. However, over the generations college professors have almost always barred the use of any encyclopedia as a source. The media seems to have forgotten, or maybe the older generation just doesn\u2019t write articles about the Internet.<\/p>\n

Many of our most active Wikipedians are actually subject matter experts, scientists, and engineers. According to the\u00a0Pew Internet & American Life Survey, 53 percent of online adults read Wikipedia. This group includes a strong concentration of readers with undergraduate or advanced degrees. Wikipedia has more PhD and Bachelor degrees readers by count than any other social media platform. And since they have full edit access, when they see a mistake, many of them pause to fix it.<\/p>\n

Corporate editors aren\u2019t welcome<\/h2>\n

Every so often a news story breaks about someone getting caught fiddling with Wikipedia. However, most instances of corporate meddling on Wikipedia never reach the public eye. The problem essentially stems from ham-handed editing by paid advocates who don\u2019t know the rules. Editors with a conflict of interest are found and dealt with daily as a matter of routine.<\/p>\n

Even so, there is no rule on Wikipedia banning corporate editors. There are rules for neutrality, disclosure, editing with a conflict of interest, external links, encyclopedic tone, and the use of trademarks in usernames. These rules comprise a virtual minefield that novice corporate editors frequently discover after stepping on one. However, editors who have invested the time and effort to learn the rules and work within community standards fair reasonably well.<\/p>\n

Requests for improvement are ignored<\/h2>\n

Here\u2019s a common situation: there\u2019s a blatant error or sadly dated statement on a company article. You know your edits are tracked in a permanent, publicly available log and don\u2019t want to make a mistake, so you post your request on the article\u2019s \u201cTalk\u201d page and voila! Nothing happens \u2013 not for days, weeks, or months. This happens a lot.<\/p>\n

If no one is interested in (or monitoring) the article, nothing happens, and it is nobody\u2019s job to fix it. Wikipedia\u2019s editors are all volunteers. They do what they want, when they want, whenever they feel like it. But it\u2019s not all dusty tomes. Once you learn the ropes, it\u2019s not difficult to find a volunteer who can help you out \u2013 often within minutes.<\/p>\n

Good intentions are enough<\/h2>\n

Newbie editors often have a rough start on Wikipedia. For marketers it\u2019s even harder. It\u2019s not enough to have good intentions. Wikipedia has hundreds of pages of rules called \u201cpolicies\u201d, \u201cguidelines\u201d, and \u201cessays\u201d. Any one of them can trip up an editor. Naturally, Wikipedians have their own vocabulary and a keen sense of fairness. Wikipedians don\u2019t want to see their work subverted to benefit your corporation or client. Wikipedians see their efforts as a gift to humanity, but that includes presenting accurate information, and there\u2019s your hook.<\/p>\n

Just like SEO firms are trusted to understand and avoid black-hat SEO, experienced editors, even those with a conflict of interest, can work within the rules to ensure their client\u2019s articles remain current, complete, and factual while avoiding embarrassing mistakes. Good intentions are not enough, it takes experience to do a proper job.<\/p>\n

What can be done?<\/h2>\n

Edit Wikipedia fairly and neutrally, and your prospective customers will at least get the right facts. Wikipedia is a high-profile resource that hundreds of millions of individuals use every month to research topics that interest them. If your company, product, or service interests them, they\u2019re very likely going to use Wikipedia to cut through your marketing hype.<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t let novices edit for you or your clients. You wouldn\u2019t hand a novice a microphone and put them \u201clive\u201d on the radio, so don\u2019t unleash them on Wikipedia. Unlike the radio, edits to Wikipedia are permanent. Bad edits will haunt you.<\/p>\n

Tell your professional societies you want training from credible sources at industry events. It\u2019s true that if you want the job done right, you must do it yourself. Just be sure to give yourself every advantage.<\/p>\n

Consider including \u201cexperienced Wikipedian\u201d in your entry level job requirements. Wikipedia has nearly a hundred thousand active editors, and many of them will graduate this year. Use them. Just be sure to listen to them when they tell you they can\u2019t just copy and paste whatever you want. All edits must fit within the community\u2019s norms, and it\u2019s that experience you bought when you hired them.<\/p>\n

Educate yourself if you\u2019ve got the time. Start by proofreading a few articles that interest you \u2013 golf or sail fishing for example. When you\u2019ve got the basics, continue by reading any of the following:<\/p>\n