Comments on: Should PR Representatives Be Allowed To Edit Wikipedia?

By: nannasin smith

nannasin smith — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:10:00 +0000

they can add updates polished for public consumption . 2SK170

By: estark

estark — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:46:00 +0000

My personal opinion is that as long as the PR professional has official records and the information can be trusted and cited, then I think that would be a great thing! I know in school they always say that Wikipedia cannot be trusted; so I think that this could help Wikipedia out in a positive way so that more teachers would support the use of Wikipedia.

By: Cody Richards @ Loyalist Colege

Cody Richards @ Loyalist Colege — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:58:03 +0000

[...] first article I looked at was whether or not PR Representatives should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Before jumping into the article, I would like to say that I am 50/50 on the topic. I believe that [...]

By: Dave Link

Dave Link — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:11:00 +0000

There’s a difference between a PR professional updating a page with factual, relevant and correct information versus editing previous entries simply because they don’t like the light it sheds on their employer. In my mind, as long as the info is cited and follows the guidelines that Wikipedia has set down for sourcing information there shouldn’t be any type of blanket ban on any one industry. Who’s to say a software engineer or chef couldn’t also be biased about his or her employer?

By: Th1177

Th1177 — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:37:00 +0000

I agree with the Chartered Institute of Public Relations that public relations professionals should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia entries directly. I think this is the proper practice, because they are biased towards the clients that pay them.

I like the compromise that was reached to have public relations firms reach out to Wikipedia in the discussion or comment forums. PR input is necessary, but the site would benefit from applying a filter to those who are advocating on behalf of a client.

I think the Chartered Institute of Public Relations recommendation would be good to adopt for other professions too, not just public relations. Like you said the policy is not perfect, but I think it will continue to evolve as Wikipedia continues to on a daily basis.

By: Geoff S.

Geoff S. — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 16:00:00 +0000

Well said Indy, the hard part, and this isn’t just for PR people, although i can see how it can be particularly difficult for people who deal in spin and hyperbole daily, to keep a neutral point of view. But this shouldn’t preclude an entire industry, full of possibly one of the best sources of information about a company, from contributing that collective knowledge.

Perhaps an “upspin” button you can hit that automatically sticks to the verifiable facts and removes the spin, marketing speak and such.

By: indymike

indymike — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 14:09:00 +0000

Wikipedia’s community is well equipped to deal with posts from PR professionals. If someone posts misinformation, it will eventually, if not immediately be caught by editors/community members. Just be ethical and honest. If you post accurate and well referenced information, it usually sticks.

Wikipedia is a de facto public record on companies and products, so it is irresponsible for PR pros not to manage Wikipedia articles. The hard part for PR pros is to avoid spin, hyperbole and revising history…

By: Jennifer Wilbur

Jennifer Wilbur — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:40:00 +0000

By not allowing PR people to edit, many organizations’ pages will be out of date. Who doesn’t know the latest, if not the PR folks? But the larger issue I have is with groups like this creating policies like this. Ethical PR people will already follow best practices when using/editing Wikipedia. If they are of the smarmy type and not doing this already, they sure as heck aren’t going to change because the CIPR told them to.

By: Geoff S.

Geoff S. — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:55:00 +0000

To be clear, there isn’t anything on wikipedia that says if you work in a certain industry you can’t edit pages.The burden of proof is still the same. It becomes tricky when you are associated with a company, but not impossible, you just need to come from a neutral point of view, if your tone is neutral, your sources are verifiable and the entry is actually noteworthy i don’t see what you do for a living has to do with anything.

By: bpreece

bpreece — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:41:00 +0000

I am a PR major who recently graduated from the University of Michigan-Dearborn and while I was a student there, PR professors heavily stressed PR ethics. However, I worked at many organizations as a technical writer for many years and I know that when one is on the other end of the glass doors the client becomes very important and this whole business of client information becomes a different story.

Many people use Wikipedia daily for research, and although many college professors frown upon it, just about every student I know uses it for his/her own research work. Originally Wikipedia had the public as the overseer of the information published there, but let’s be frank, how many people go to Wikipedia to edit it on regular basis or really know a fact beyond reasonable doubt? Even with that policy many facts in Wikipedia are not correct and while it is undemocratic that PR professionals cannot make changes to their clients’ pages, it is hard to imagine that they will publish anything that could tarnish the their clients’ image; therefore, they can add updates ‘polished’ for public consumption, and where does the user of Wikipedia who needs some information draw the line between true and maybe true? To be democratic, PR people should be able to update Wikipedia, however, the user should beware and take everything it publishes with a grain of salt, so they must become very good at fact checking with some reliable research tools.

By: Steve Sonn

Steve Sonn — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:05:00 +0000

Seems a bit unfair but I totally understand why the guidelines were developed. Anyone, PR professional or not, can and do introduce bias or inaccuracy. But, PR people have a bad reputation in this area. That’s fine, they still have a way to contribute. There are many PR pros out there operating by ethical and professional standards.