Wikipedia's 24 hour "blackout" may be the eye-opener that founder, Jimmy Wales, intended for the public to react upon, to make us realise just how dependent on it we have become. The "blackout" is a reaction to a US legislation on online piracy that may be passed, forcing websites such as Wikipedia, Google, and Facebook "to keep a closer tab on what is posted by users". It is a Digital Age, and, as we all know, like er, duh, who doesn't use the internet?
No doubt, today's (English language only) Wikipedia blackout will affect the lives of millions of people around the world, not only "students", as Metro so joyously pointed out. Anyone who is anyone has conducted some last minute "wikipedia-ing" before an interview; before meeting someone they want to impress; or indeed during a pub quiz.
But in the latest issue of PR Week, Matt Cartmell points out that editorial on Wikipedia is swiftly becoming an issue, with PR companies using the site as a way to screen good/bad press; intending to censor bad press, essentially. Earlier in December last year, The Independent led a "damaging sting" on said topic.
The CIPR, one of the UK's PR and corporate communications trade associations, has welcomed input on how to monitor the approach to Wikipedia within the PR industry from none-other than Wikipedia’s Wales.
Wales is obviously an advocate of the ethical use of the online encyclopaedia, and certainly, should the Sopa (Stop online piracy act) not get passed, he'll be giving a few more seminars similar to the one he is due to deliver on Friday to Bell Pottinger, training employees on the ethical use of Wiki. Great news for PROs and stakeholders/consumers alike.
With the vast growth of online platforms of information such as encyclopaedias, and social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and foursquare, it was inevitable that a country as huge as the US would feel the need to step in and monitor it somehow. Never mind that it completely and utterly contradicts their freedom of speech and liberty rights acts. I do wonder if perhaps a scare such as Sopa has nudged public awareness in the right direction, despite all this negativity.
It would stop PR agencies such as Bell Pottinger from doing things such as removing the "wife beater" nickname of Stella Artois from its Wikipedia entry.
Introducing Wikipedia guidelines is a great idea, but I am dubious as to how many people will stick to them, and how, if at all, the future of Wikipedia editorial will be monitored if it is already a not-for-profit venture.
Thus far, Wikipedia merely "asks users to avoid editing topics in which they have a vested interest", but I see no way of physically stopping the act of unethical editing, especially not since some "senior figures" believe such censorship is fine.
I admire Mr Wales for attempting to address such a huge subject and tackling the problem head on. I have more respect for the CIPR for unashamedly getting involved with this matter at the height of Wikipedia's problems.
What I would like to see more of, is people backing Mr Wales and the CIPR on the matter, and a sturdy solution to "open, transparent engagement with the public through Wikipedia". Because it really isn't too much to ask, is it?
No comments:
Post a Comment