PR Start by Nick Lucido

It’s not the use of Wikipedia per se that is the issue, it is unethical behavior by public relations practitioners. Eventually, all unethical behavior is discovered and, as Shannon points out, that often becomes a bigger story than the initial issue they were trying to cover up.

I don’t agree with Wikipedia showing up on Google News – but manipulating tools for the distribution of information is nothing new and neither is the industry’s need to police unethical practitioners.

I mostly agree with you, Nick, and your example from 30 Rock makes me really happy. But, if you look at it on the other side of the coin, what happens when something pops up on Wikipedia that is inaccurate about a company or organization, and the incorrect information could be detrimental to that business or cast it in a bad light? Shouldn’t the PR team be monitoring, and in a case like this, be correcting the information to reflect the truth?

Just because information is incorrect, unreliable, or posted from a non-credible source, doesn’t mean people won’t read it, believe it, and possibly spread it. Isn’t it the job of PR pros to do what they can to keep that from happening?

I like what you have to say. There will always be people who think they can get away with these things — not evening trying it is the message I’m trying to sell.

As for Google News, I actually kind of like it. When past events are mentioned in a breaking news article, I tend to reference Wikipedia anyway.

Who doesn’t love 30 Rock?

When something pops up, the PR team should be monitoring. However, they shouldn’t correct it themselves. They should engage in discussion on the discussion forums to keep the third-party credibility.

Think of it this way: say a reporter writes a factual error in an article. What would the PR person do? They won’t rewrite the article — they will engage in discussion with the reporter and (hopefully) a correction will be published.

You make a good point, however, I think Wikipedia is entirely different other media in that PR people don’t even have the option to rewrite other articles or blog posts (or whatever the source may be). With Wikipedia, that option exists, and in some cases, I believe it is appropriate to utilize it. It’s also important to consider the way Wikipedia articles are written. What are the chances most authors of these articles are going to make corrections or changes with the same urgency a PR person would correct an error?

Think of the articles you may have read on Wikipedia. Did you spend as much time reading discussions about the article as you did reading the actual article? If the answer is “yes” because you’re a PR guy, then think of the average person, will that person spend time on the discussions just like they do on the articles? I believe this answer is overwhelmingly “no”, and so creates the need to have the information be correct the first (and possibly only) time someone reads it.

I think there are more benefits to using the discussion forum than editing it yourself. Just like I gave an example that was extreme, I think the situation you’re talking about is on the opposite end. Generally, Wikipedia does a pretty good job getting the gist of things, so hopefully this is something we won’t have to deal with.

So, is there a right answer? Unfortunately, I don’t think there is an easy set of rules to follow.

It's not the use of Wikipedia per se that is the issue, it is unethical behavior by public relations practitioners. Eventually, all unethical behavior is discovered and, as Shannon points out, that often becomes a bigger story than the initial issue they were trying to cover up.

I don't agree with Wikipedia showing up on Google News – but manipulating tools for the distribution of information is nothing new and neither is the industry's need to police unethical practitioners.