What I am about to say is going to be confronting to some of you. To others this may be obvious, common sense. The days of total control over message are over. If these days ever existed, they are no more. Social media has created a world where a brand no longer gets to push out its message on a passive audience. Instead, through social media folks are engaging in conversations about brands with and without the brand.
The question then becomes: Is a brand present in the conversations that are happening about it and therefore able to share its point of view? When a brand is not present, there is a much slimmer chance that their point of view will be heard. This is true of social media in general and I hope to explore the impact of this in different spaces in the weeks and months to come. However, today I wanted to explore the question of how this relates to governments and Wikipedia.
Earlier this year, the European government found itself in a conundrum. A newspaper published a story which quoted the European Commission Vice-President Antonio Tajani as saying that tourism is a human right. Shortly thereafter, Wikipedia picked up this third party information and stated it as a truth. When his team tried to correct the information on Wikipedia by adding the text of his speech, the page moderators blocked them. Given Wikipedia’s construct, the third party information was considered more reliable than the original source. Thus the conundrum. The information was incorrect. However, Wikipedia strongly discourages organizations from editing organization-related articles, citing conflict of interest.
If there are factual errors, organizations are asked to:
a. Leave a note on the article’s talk page
b. Post a comment on the help desk
c. Contact Wikipedia via email
If an organization insists on editing an article directly, the organization must declare their interests on their user page(s) and on the talk page of the article they edit. The conflict of interest guidelines must also be adhered to, as must the neutral point of view and verifiability. As it relates to verifiability, the changes must be backed by reliable sources, which in the Wikipedia world means third-party sources. That is why in this case the original speech was not considered a reliable source whereas the newspaper article was.
What then is the solution? In my opinion, the solution is as follows:
1- Establish long-term relationships with a grassroots community who will contribute the missing positive information to the article.
2- If an organization is very keen on immediately changing information that is not factually correct said organization could leave a note on the article’s talk page. They could also post a comment on the help desk and they could contact Wikipedia via email.
Wikipedia is supposed to be a grassroots tool that collects information from reliable, impartial sources. In theory, if a brand has invested time engaging folks and having conversations about its win with the grassroots, this community in turn will be posting said information onto platforms like Wikipedia.
Is this a silver bullet?
No.
However, in this modern age of online WOM I truly believe that this is the best way to ensure that social media tools like Wikipedia reflect the brand’s point of view. A brand, government or otherwise, is in effect present in the conversation about it by engaging the community, making a long term investment in it and ultimately handing over control.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment