In a relatively uncharacteristic rant the other week, I described Wikipedia’s editors as “a secret sect” and as having “control beyond words.” Well, I got an email the other day from a friend wanting to understand exactly what I meant by my rant - was I being rational, or was I being perhaps a teensy bit defensive for Anvil and Attensa?
So, in an effort to further clarify my stance, I’ve asked if she minded if I blogged the answer to her questions? I’m grateful that she said go for it.
She: I’ve been meaning to ask you about Anvil and the Wikipedia incident.
Is it true that you’re not supposed to get paid for posting to Wikipedia? Did they get paid for their postings? I understand from his blog post and the comments that’s what happened.
Me: The premise of Wikipedia is that it’s non-commercial. That is, it’s a “marketing free” zone protected by “the people.” In the case of Anvil and Attensa, Anvil worked within the Wikipedia guidelines to create “marketing free” content on Wikipedia about Attensa. And yes, I’m pretty sure Anvil got paid for doing so.
Once the Wikipedia editors found out that the content on Wikipedia was responsible for driving quality leads to Attensa, they threw out Anvil’s edits - on not only the Attensa entry, but all other entries Anvil had created for their other clients.
“The people” who protect this marketing free zone are volunteer editors. Anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry, as long as they follow the guidelines. (I feel funny writing that, but that’s what they say.) There are uber editors who have thousands of entries under their belts. These people are unknown to us, and are the people with the most power and control. They are the “editorial community.”
Writers and companies can be blocked from entries on Wikipedia - and blocked for life. I’m assuming Anvil has been, at least from any IP address that can be traced back to them. I don’t have any confirmation of that, it’s a big assumption on my part, but folks over on the Wikipedia Review (including current editors) talk about being blocked all the time, and are afraid to use their real Wikipedia editor names there, for fear of being blocked for life.
She: …I wonder if your defense of them, that they’re beyond reproach, is really deserved.
Me: The fact that the content:
- Had been approved by Wikipedia editors (adhering to their written guidelines)
- Stayed relatively intact for months before the article in MarketingSherpa appeared
- Was torn down within hours after the MarketingSherpa article appeared
…indicated to me that Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines (hereinafter referred to as “the rules”) are apparently taken loosely by the Wikipedia editorial community. Apparently they can remove content - previously blessed and not deemed controversial - upon exposure as a successful marketing tactic.
Regardless of Anvil’s intention (I’m sure Kent and Scott intended that the Attensa entries would provide Attensa added benefits of some sort); they followed the rules of the land. They didn’t break the rules. I stand by my defense of them as such. Had they broken the rules, I would not be so defensive of them.
She: And I’m wondering what you meant about companies not being able to correct factual errors. Is there really no process for this?
Me: Oh, there’s a process for correcting factual errors, described here. (Seriously, go wade through that process.) I’m sure it works, were it not for all the caveats:
(my emphases throughout)
“The editorial community is responsible for almost all decisions about article content, and handling of editorial disputes…”
“Routine editorial decisions are usually made by the editorial community; OTRS team members will gladly advise and will take action in certain cases, but do not normally override communal decisions (in which all readers and users can participate) unless exceptional considerations or concerns are relevant.”
Most businesses can correct factual errors by following the guidelines here.
The problem is exacerbated in highly regulated industries, where “marketing free” messages are also required - e.g. the pharmaceutical industry. I did hear many responsible pharmaceutical representatives (who were required by law to state “the opinions I am expressing are my own, not of my company” when giving presentations) admit that they were told not to change Wikipedia entries. Because one touch of an “official edit” would (by the very nature of a wiki) make an entire entry sanctioned by the organization. And when entries change at the whim of an editor, just keeping up with the (potentially constantly) changing information becomes a time and energy drain most businesses can’t imagine.
So they let things stand, in error.
I guess I really haven’t changed my tune, have I, Katherine? But since then, I’ve done a little more research, offered up an alternative that I hope businesses wholly embrace (wikiinvest) and tried to demystify the process of businesses making tough decisions when faced with social media hyperspeed, hypersensitivity, inaccuracies and cloaked identity.
Thanks again for asking.
Share This
(1) Comments 
