△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

Manufactured or mobile? Who decides?

Kami Watson Huyse has begun a very interesting experiment I’ll be watching with keen interest. In response to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales’ interview in PRSA’s Tactics, Kami has followed Wales’ advice and posted suggested changes to a Wikipedia entry in its related “discussion” section.

Wales is vehemently opposed to anybody altering or adding content to Wikipedia if they have been paid to do it. He finds the practice hugely unethical, regardless of whether the contribution was truly neutral in its point of view (a requirement for all Wikipedia posts). Instead of posting directly, Wales suggests PR reps (and others representing an organization) use the discussion page to make their suggestions, then let others who agree and are not being paid make the change.

Kami, who used to work full-time for the Manufactured Housing Institute, has posted a rather detailed comment to the discussion page for the Mobile Home entry. She’s not actually asking for a change, but providing clarification around an earlier discusison about the interchangability of the words. It’ll be interesting to see if her expert advice leads to any alterations in the entry’s content.

I’ve read and heard a lot about the issue of PR practitioners and wikis—ranging from blog posts to Wales’ own arguments to an Edelman discussion on its EARshot podcast, and I still don’t know where I stand; it’s complicated. But I’m sure that there are plenty of Wikipedia entries that are not characterized by a neutral point of view and that the exclusion of people paid to manage companies’ reputations from contributing merely drives many of them underground.  Still, Wales’ approach—making your case on the discusison page—sounds reasonable. Now, thanks to Kami, we can see if it actually works.

11/10/06 | 2 Comments | Manufactured or mobile? Who decides?

Comments
  • 1.Discussion can lead to more discussion, arm-twisting comments, biased opinions, and as such cannot be conclusive - especially in a forum such Wikipedia.

    Perhaps a better format can be:

    Three rounds of point - counter points. A discussion that is finite in length and time.

    And in the end, a Voting mechanism towards arriving at a final decision. Voting is limited to "unpaid" members only.

    Perhaps this could be an approach Wikipedia should consider.

    Or better yet, ask the members to arrive at the top ten creative solutions that can resolve this.

    Creativity driving Innovation in Business.

    Sanjay Dalal | November 2006 | Fremont, California - Future Home of Athletics

  • 2.I have gotten some feedback from a Wikipedian about this experiment, and he has tried to drum up some attention to it amongst his peers. But he has one piece of advice, "be patient." Wikipedia, as a social media experiment, does not move at blog, or even podcast speed, especially if you can't edit yourself.

    Kami Huyse | November 2006

Comment Form

« Back