Social Media and Public Relations

2011-2012
Essay: What should an ethical PR agency do if incorrect and/ or damaging information concerning a client appears on Wikipedia? Sunderland University Philip Young MACM 69 CW1 119050134 2616 words

Sophie Bonnewijn

Sophie Bonnewijn

Public Relations MACM69 CW1

2011-2012

It isn't what they say about you, it's what they whisper. Errol Flynn

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell

Sophie Bonnewijn

Public Relations MACM69 CW1

2011-2012

Table of Content
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3 Web 2.0 and the importance of Wikipedia ............................................................................. 5 Wikipedia, organisations, PR and ethics: an intangible knot? ........................................... 7 The discussion.............................................................................................................................. 8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 12 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 13

Sophie Bonnewijn

Public Relations MACM69 CW1

2011-2012

1. Introduction If there is one thing that history proves beyond any doubt, it is that evolution always wins out, and there is no returning to the way it was before. Evolution is illustrated in history by key occurrences, such as the inventions of fire and the wheel, eventually leading up to the invention of print, books and newspapers. These occurrences have had a major impact on human society, and so has the invention of the internet. When this technological revolution started, it was primarily used by the government, but over the years the internet became available and popular amongst the public body (Clare, 2010: online). This new digital golden age did not happen overnight, but for the digital natives amongst us, the web is simply part of everyday life. However, as with all evolutionary developments, the internet has known some setbacks, trials and errors (Breakenridge, 2008, p. 14). But in spite of these adversities, present day, the web has overcome these challenges and has become a powerful communication tool, deeply rooted in human culture. It has changed the way people communicate and interact, the way peoples opinions are formulated, influenced or adapted and has changed the way people make decisions or shift trough information. Furthermore, the World Wide Web has given people new ways of creating identities and sharing these identities. The web has evolved from consisting of separate websites to embodying whole communities. Recently, it has even given people the opportunity to adapt and change contents of websites not of their personal creation, and making them their own (Clare, 2010: online). Some scholars argue that the power has been transferred from a single person (the original creator of the content) to the people. Vox populi in its most pure form has sprouted in the ether (Gombita, 2012: online). For this paper however, one of the most striking effects that the internet has had on society, is its availability of instant accessible information, ready-made and tailor-customised to your every need and want. But, as with most great inventions, there are some side effects to this evolution.

Sophie Bonnewijn

Public Relations MACM69 CW1

2011-2012

The web with its instantly available information has created an information overload. People find it harder to cope and respond to messages, to adequately deal with time management or to select informational sources (Green, 2006, p. 126). Another disadvantage is that consumers can easily be put on a wrong path or receive faulty information. However, this also means that thanks to the internet, people are much more aware of the possibilities and the different (perhaps better) offers of products, organisations and ideas. This has resulted in a level of awareness in choice, option and information with the public that was unheard of before this day and age (Bonnewijn, 2011, p.16). The public is now forced to make a comparison between the effort and time he or she has to put into a decision, versus the desired accuracy required of this decision. This is where Wikipedia and Public Relations step in. Since the internet has proven to be such a powerful tool to convey messages and to nurture, examine or destroy reputations and relationships, it is no wonder that Public Relation practitioners have a keen interest in the World Wide Web (Berger, Reber, 2006, p. 81). Seeing as Wikipedia is one of the most successful resources on the internet, the interest of PR practitioners in Wikipedia and its articles isnt surprising either. But considering the history of PR, there are some people who distrust PR practitioners using Wikipedia. Some opt that Public Relations practitioners should not have a direct interaction with Wikipedia, or at least should not change its articles, even if these articles are damaging to the organisations which the practitioners represent. It seems that, as with all evolutions, especially the ones that can reach millions of people instantly, the ethical implications need to be considered of what appears to be (at first glance) a sound and natural interest and interaction between PR and Wikipedia. This is why in the following paragraphs the importance of Wikipedia and similar Web 2.0 evolutions will be examined, together with the resulting consequences of these evolutions. Afterwards the ethics surrounding Wikipedia and PR will be examined, where after the arguments in the editing debate will be discussed. In the final section a small conclusion and solution will be given.

Sophie Bonnewijn

Public Relations MACM69 CW1

2011-2012

2. Web 2.0 and the importance of Wikipedia With the rise of the web, a series of small evolutionary breakthroughs has occurred. Web 2.0, the next step after generating the internet, has sneaked up on people. Rob Brown described Web 2.0 as (Brown, 2009, p. 1-2): ... the version of the web that is open to ordinary users, where they can add their content... In practice it signifies the transfer of control of the internet, and ultimately the central platform for communication, from the few to the many. It is democratisation of the internet. This means that it is the people who visit these social websites, who create the content and make it work. Web 2.0 represents a social rather than a physical evolution. As a result, the public feels empowered as they are able to share information and band together (Breakenridge, 2008, p. 71 -72). These are also the trademarks on which Wikipedia is based. Wikipedia can be defined as a collaborative encyclopaedia consisting of informative articles that can be edited by anyone at any time, anonymously (Wikipedia, 2011: online). The websites name is derived from the word wiki, which is a series of designed codes that enable anyone who accesses the site to add content or modify the content that is already there, even without knowledge of HTML. All of the articles have a history page, which contains all of the previous versions of articles and also contains the usernames of those who made changes.

Today Wikipedia is the best known wiki on the web and is consulted as a reference work by many who would not otherwise seek out informational sources (Dalby, 2009, p. 58-59). But how trustworthy is a collaborative environment when anyone can join by using any identity they want? And how can bias articles, non-serious topics or astrotrufing be prevented or fixed? Wikipedia has created a solution for these problems by setting up a discussing page for disputes, and by acting as a watchdog, together with the Wikipedian community itself, who prides itself on accuracy, reliability and objectivity.

Sophie Bonnewijn

Public Relations MACM69 CW1

2011-2012

Even in regard to the previously mentioned issues, Wikipedia is fully aware of its boundaries and its limitations. It defines itself as a quality open ended project, a work in progress to contribute information and create content in an open source forum and a first point of information base, which needs to be checked and the references examined (Breakenridge, 2008, p. 191, 219). This is why Wikipedia has been able to retain its generative character while confronting the internal limits and external scrutiny that have arisen because of its initial successes (Zittrain, 2008, p. 64). Because Wikipedia appears trustworthy, truthful, reliable, accessible and

democratised, it has even become one of the main influencers in todays society, almost overthrowing newspapers and journalists as the main influencers and providers of information (Dalby, 2009, p. 56-59). Wikipedia has even become part of the news creation process. Furthermore, Wikipedia has an extraordinary favourable placement in the most important search engines and query results pages, appears on top in Google and is in itself also a source for other internet reference engines. The website has become a must-watch reference page, which has lead to the unspoken agreement that organizations that are not mentioned on Wikipedia are considered insignificant, which again reinforces the importance of Wikipedia (Kohs, 2012: online).

It is clear that the evolution of the internet, Web 2.0 and Wikipedia have definitely changed the way people communicate and find or share information. They have also had a defining influence on the way organisations and Public Relations practitioners prioritise and communicate/transfer their messages, as social media offers new exposure opportunities. Furthermore, from PR practitioners and organisations points of view, Wikipedia, which runs 24/7 and changes at an incredible instant pace, should be closely monitored and the information/ communication on it measured, as it is such an influential source (Breakenridge, 2008, p. 72-73). After all, history has proved time and again that knowledge means power.

Sophie Bonnewijn

Public Relations MACM69 CW1

2011-2012

3. Wikipedia, organisations, PR and ethics: an intangible knot? The changes caused by the rise of Web 2.0 and social media, have forced Public Relation practitioners to come up with a corresponding PR 2.0, as the profession has had to adapt to this new digital media world (Clare, 2010: online). Because of the democratisation of the internet, the shift in power from organisations to individuals and the integration of the real and virtual communities, organisations have also had to adapt, as they have partly lost their ability to control what is said about them (Solis, Breakenridge, 2009, p. 19, 38, 129). The scene has changed, as organisations are under constant pressure to participate and interact with their publics, not just as an observer or a superficial contributor, but as a full on two-way communication and information stream source. In the current climate, organisations have to let go and share the control of how their messages are received and perceived. They have to focus much more on creating and nurturing a relationship with their public in an active way, subsequently creating a community of their own. Doing business has become about services, watched and updated according to the constant dictates of the publics in todays competitive environment (McKee, Lamb, 2009, p. 98-99). This close interaction with the public has furthermore resulted in a constant watchdog mentality from the publics eye, focused on organisations social responsibility plans, scrutinising their every move.

Subsequently, the new PR goal is to understand and engage with the communities of publics that are targeted and steer organisations towards the preferences of the public (Seitel, 1998, p. 45). PR practitioners are furthermore essential to organisations because they are capable off expecting and responding quickly to public perceptions and opinions, to new values and other changes in this new social media environment. The only way a PR practitioner can perform adequately nowadays is by looking more at tomorrows profit than todays, and considering that what is good for the public is good for business (Biddlecombe, 1971, p. 60-61). However, this is not an easy challenge for PR practitioners, even if they are fully aware of the importance of maintaining a good reputation and upholding ethical standards.
7

Sophie Bonnewijn

Public Relations MACM69 CW1

2011-2012

For PR practitioners and the organisations they represent, a good reputation is build on ethical behaviour, trust and truth, as these are essential issues on which relationships are created and maintained (Heath, 2011, p. 396). Relationship management by PR practitioners is even more important in todays society because of the importance of receiving public goodwill in light of Web 2.0 developments (Tenz, Yeomans, 2009, p. 284). If organisations and their representing PR practitioners serve both the organisations and the publics interests in an ethical fashion, then the public will be more likely to accept their actions and give them their trust. Therefore ethical decisions are required so that organisations reputation will not be damaged and an honest dialogue can be created between the organisations and the publics, which would allow perceptions to be balanced if need be (Carter, s.d., p.1).

So what if the time comes when perceptions needs to balanced in a Wikipedia article? Can Public Relation practitioners change the mentioned Wikipedia articles if they do not like the content? And can they do so anonymously? How does this interact with the previously given information?

4. The discussion As mentioned, present day, people are continually seeking and demanding more information at all times, even from their brands and organisations (Breakenridge, 2008, p. 148). It is therefore utterly important that organisations provide newsworthy information that comes directly from the brand, which is credible and correct. This not only reassures the public, but also the organisation, as they are sure about the content, if not the rumours around it that might be spread (CIPR, s.d., p. 125-126). However, if organisations do not provide the necessary information, then the public will get the information from someone or somewhere else (Green, 2006, p. 125).

Sophie Bonnewijn

Public Relations MACM69 CW1

2011-2012

Because Wikipedia has proved itself to be a huge influencer that is trustworthy, credible, authentic, reliable, correct, free from bias, knowledgeable and detailed, even responsible, it is one of the first sources of information publics will use. This has urged organisations to hire PR practitioners to deal with Wikipedia issues and to act on the organizations behalf (Kohs, 2012: online). The organisations argue that their goal is to provide the public with first-hand correct information and that they require PR practitioners to deliver this information, as the organisations might not have the time or knowledge to engage directly in the editing or discussion process that revolves around Wikipedia.

This is understandable, as one of the worst case scenarios for an organisation is to receive disproportionate negative or unfair treatment on Wikipedia, which can seriously damage an organisations reputation considering Wikipedias influencing power. But, considering the power the public has, the constant scrutiny organisations are under, the dialogue and service that is required of organisations to function in a competitive Web 2.0 environment and the importance of ethical decision making to uphold trustworthy two-way dialogues and relationships between organisations and the public, it is simply unwise for PR practitioners or organisations to change Wikipedia entries, even if they might be negative or damaging, no matter Wikipedias influence. This can be illustrated by a few examples.

Wal-Mart for instance was exposed for altering its Wikipedia entry in 2005, which included removing the entry that mentioned the wages of its employees being lower than other retail chains and adding the statement that it pays nearly double the minimum wage to its employees (Brown, 2009, p. 72). This resulted in a public outrage and boycott as public trust was violated. Recently, Lord Bell Pottingers firm was alleged to have edited clients Wikipedia entries. This has reheated the discussion between PR professionals and Wikipedia concerning the practice and ethics of editing clients Wikipedia entries (paid or not) (Trivitt, 2012: online).

Sophie Bonnewijn

Public Relations MACM69 CW1

2011-2012

It is clear that the alternation of Wikipedia entries, if badly handled, can have a lot of consequences such as boycotts, one of the most effective treats against companies who do not obey ethical guidelines (Regester, Larking, 2008, p. 13). Furthermore, by altering entries on Wikipedia, one has to take in account that changes are forever recorded in the history section and Wiki editors use tools to trace changes back to individuals, to assess a possible conflict of interest. Furthermore, Wikipedias content is licensed, which means that attribution of its source has to be given if the information is shared in any way (Zittrain, 2008, p. 76).

If unethical changes are discovered, this might not only result in a boycott, but also seriously damage a companies reputation, especially for relationships with customers on the long run, as the use of unsanctioned influence tactics are not in occurrence with professional PR codes and ethical guidelines (Berger, Reber, 2006, p. 152). However, do the previously mentioned examples of unethical Wikipedia changes portray an accurate image of PR ethics concerning Wikipedia? Are these not examples blown out of proportion by the media to badmouth PR and its reputation? For example, the PRSA acknowledges that while ethical transgressions occur, they are not common practice, nor should people believe they are (PRSA, 2012: online). To reinforce its Public Relations goodwill, the PRSA has henceforth put forward some guidelines which state: If a practitioner is looking to update a Wikipedia entry on behalf of a company or client, it is best to visit the discussion or talk pages and work with an editor to update the relevant page all updates and entries to Wikipedia must be neutral in tone, factual and verifiable. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines carefully before submitting or editing an article. By making an appeal on the discussion page, the contributor is asking a fellow editor without a conflict of interest to make changes. WikiProject Cooperation states that a company can also put in a request at the page called Articles for creation and create another article which provides correct information and evidence, more accurate than the Wikipedia page (Meerman, 2011, p. 53). If that doesnt work, the company can go to Requested articles, or become a Wikipedian itself (Sheldrake, 2012: online).
10

Sophie Bonnewijn

Public Relations MACM69 CW1

2011-2012

The Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that PR practitioners should not edit Wikipedia pages in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make the edits non-neutral (biased) (Murdock, 2010: online). However, these policies seem a bit discriminating against corporate stakeholders and PR practitioners, as they assume that practitioners are unable to be neutral, since they can be considered as working as paid advocates (Bailey, 2012: online). It is true that PR has a history with spin, but even though PR practitioners are indeed advocates, as they have intermediary roles between organisations and publics, they sometimes are the conscience of the organisations, watchdogs who look out for the companies trustfulness, perception, reputation, social responsibility and future existence. Who else is more adequate to correct (or request) changes in Wikipedia then PR practitioners who might be a bit subjective, but are neutral and trustworthy in the long run? Furthermore PR practitioners are the best choice to handle Wikipedia entries, as they (should) act according to codes of conducts, as well as handle in the organisations best interests.

However, by following Wikipedias rules, a company does not have a lot of options. It happens quite frequently that a company might either get no response for a long time, nor get the desired result, or even be ignored on talk- or request pages, while inaccurate or damaging information remains on Wikipedia (Masnick, 2012: online). A bit of leeway might be given in these cases to edit the articles, but only under a few conditions. First of all, all other options should be tried first; even mailing the OTRS team, as to make sure that there is no more negative critique on paid advocates who edit Wikipedia pages in the future. A timeframe should also be created for these cases by Wikipedia (Masnick, 2012: online). Wikipedia should put strict rules forward, which need to be obeyed by practitioners and Wikipedians, as to how long editors have to wait before altering a page after submitting a request for changes. Furthermore, if taking this path, total transparency is required.

11

Sophie Bonnewijn

Public Relations MACM69 CW1

2011-2012

It should be clear who changed the entries and why, therefore given visitors the option to judge for their own is the entry is correct, or should be altered. This allows a third party or neutral observer to participate in the dialogue, which is definitely better than allowing a biased or inaccurate article on Wikipedia. This way, a dialogue is created, the autonomy of Wikipedia and its community is respected, and correct information is delivered. But it is clear that strict regulation and harsh penalties are required for misbehaviour, on the part of Wikipedians, as well as on the part of Public Relations practitioners. And if ethical behaviour cannot be obtained by penalties, than one should consider that the result of not following the rules and being caught does not outweigh the benefits of breaking the guidelines. After all, by interacting in a dialogue or discussion, the reputation of the company in question will improve on the long run and they will be considered as caring and trustworthy, while their messages will be better received. The goal has to be to seek consensus before formality when disagreements arise (Zittrain, 2008, p. 140-147). Even though the process might take time and effort, the best approach for a company or PR practitioner is to be direct, honest and accurate. By establishing measures of professional use of Wikipedia, and wielding them, reputation will be enhanced, professions can be legitimised, and social acceptability can be gained (Berger, Reber, 2006, p. 81). 5. Conclusion It is hard for everybody, PR practitioners and Wikipedians alike, to be neutral. However, considering todays societal changes and the publics demands, this does not mean that objectivity or correct information should suffer for it. Considering the present online vox populi society, which, trough social media, has resulted in a watchdog mentality, strengthened by an often on sensation thriving press, PR practitioners should be open and transparent if they want to change information on Wikipedia. Off course, because of Wikipedias influence, practitioners have a lot to gain or lose if Wikipedia does not allow their changes or heed their requests for them.
12

Sophie Bonnewijn

Public Relations MACM69 CW1

2011-2012

Therefore, it would be in everybodys best interests if clear ethical guidelines were set up, so that Wikipedia and PR practitioners can work together to give the public the accurate information they require. Both parties should obey an ethical, unbiased standard, for their won benefit, and for society, and should not be tempted to point fingers, stirred by the media. If they succeed in doing so, the public will return for more information, messages will be received and reputations will be enhanced on the long run. It is essential to start a dialogue, be decisive and transparent, while formulating it adequately trough arguments and proof. After all, what is best for the public is best for the company, so looking at the picture on the long run should be the way to go. 6. Bibliography Bailey, R. Ridiculuous PR and objectivity, Jan 25th 2012, PR studies, Online: http://prstudies.typepad.com, 2012 Berger, B.K. Reber, B.H. Gaining influence in Public Relations: The role of resistance in practice, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., 2006 Biddlecomb, P. Goodwill, the wasted asset, London, Business books Limited, 1971 Bonnewijn, S. Postgraduate thesis on database management in the cultural sector, Belgium, Hogeschool Ghent, 2011 Breakenridge, D. New media, new tools, new audiences, New Jersey, Pearson education Inc., 2008 Brown, R. Public Relations and the Social Web, London, Kogan Page, 2009 Carter, M. Crisis planning, Feb 1th 2012, CIPR Skill Guide, Online: http://www.cipr.co.uk, 2012 Clare, D. 2010, People power or PR power? July 22th 2012, Behind the Spin, Online: http://www.behindthespin.com, 2010 Dalby, A. The World and Wikipedia: How we are editing reality. Somerset, Siduri, 2009

13

Sophie Bonnewijn

Public Relations MACM69 CW1

2011-2012

Gombita, J. Public diplomacy: a higher calling for Public Relations, July 9th 2012,PRConversations,Online:http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2 012/01/public-diplomacy-a-higher-calling-for-public-relations, 2012

Green, A. Effective communication skills for Public Relations, Public Relations in Practice series, London, Kogan Page Limited, 2006

Heath, R. Handbook of Public Relations, London, SAGE Publications Ltd., 2011 Kohs, G. Why businesses pay for Wikipedia edits, 30th June 2012, Examiner, Online: http://www.examiner.com/article/why-businesses-pay-for-wikipedia-edits, 2012

Masnick, M. Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia, 28th June 2012,Techdirt,Online:http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/12113517528/makingcase-pr-pros-editing-wikipedia.shtml, 2012

McKee, K.B. Lamb, L. Applied Public Relation cases in stakeholder management, London, Taylor and Francis, 2009

Meerman, S.D. New Rules of Marketing & PR, The: How To Use Social Media, Online Video, Mobile Applications, Blogs, News Releases & Viral Marketing To Reach Buyers Directly, July 3th 2012, Scribd, Online: http://www.scribd.com/doc/25605949/The-New-Rules-of-Marketing-andPR-How-to-Use-Social-Media-Blogs-News-Releases-Online-Video-and-ViralMarketing-to-Reach-Buyers-Directly, 2011

Murdoch, T. Wikipedia guidelines for Marketing and PR professionals, June 31th 2012, Blog Love, Online: http://blog.travismurdock.com/2010/01/wikipedia-editingguidelines-for.html, 2010

PRSA, PRSA Statement on CIPR Wikipedia Guidelines, June 31th 2012, PRSA Newsroom, Online: http://media.prsa.org/article_display.cfm?article_id=2644, 2012

Regester, M. Larkin, J. Risk Issues and Crisis Management in Public Relations: A Casebook of Best Practice, London, Kogan Page Publisher, 2008

Seitel, F.P. The practice of Public Relations 6th ed., New Jersey, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, 1998

14

Sophie Bonnewijn

Public Relations MACM69 CW1

2011-2012

Solis, B. Breakenridge, D.K. Putting the public back in Public Relations: How social media is reinventing the ongoing business of Public Relations, New Jersey, Pearson Education Inc., 2009

Tench, R. Yeomans, L. Exploring Public Relations, London, Prentice Hall, Pearson education Limited, 2009

Trivitt, K. Transparency for Public Relation professionals editing Wikipedia, July23th2012,TechDirt,Online:http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120110/02 160317359/should-pr-people-be-able-to-edit-otherwise-ignored-wikipediapages-their-clients-to-correct-errors.shtml, 2012

Wikipedia, Policies and guidelines, July 23th 2012, Wikipedia, Online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines, 2012

Zittrain, J.L. The future of the internet and How to stop it, Newhaven, Yale University Press, 2008

15