CorpComms Magazine

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) is to work with a branch of Wikipedia in a bid to provide its members with further guidance on how to interact with the site's community of editors. 

The move follows the recent revelations of undisclosed editing of Wikipedia entries by individual public relations firms including Bell Pottinger and continuing debate amongst the profession about how to approach amending the online resource.

In an open letter to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales last week, Phil Gomes, senior vice president at Edelman wrote 'a truly serious conversation needs to happen about how communications professionals and the Wikipedia community can/must work together'.

Wikipedia's guidelines warn against editing posts where there may be a conflict of interest (COI), which  would represent an 'incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopaedia, and the aims of an individual editor'.

It adds: 'COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.'

The CIPR says it needs to take further action to clarify best practice relating to updating Wikipedia entries in the light of these stories. 

Andrew Ross, policy and communications officer at the CIPR, says the project will be a two way relationship. 'We want Wikipedia to understand the role of communications and why communications professionals want to access the site and use it in a transparent way,' he said.

Jane Wilson, chief executive of the CIPR, added: 'The CIPR has clear ethical and practical guidance on the most appropriate manner for PR professionals to work with open, online communities such as Wikipedia. 

'It is not only important they are upfront about who they are and their intentions, but they should seek to deal openly and honestly with the public at all times. This rules out any behaviour that sets out to hide the true source or motivation for any updates.'

Roger Bamkin, chair of Wikimedia UK, which is owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, said: 'Recent incidents highlighted by Tom Watson MP and in the national press show that in some parts of the PR profession, a lack of understanding on how to engage with the Wikipedia community persists. We will work with the CIPR to ensure that their members, and through them the wider PR Profession, have access to the clearest possible guidance on the best way to work with Wikipedia.

'We believe that attempts to mask the true identity of anyone seeking to edit the site are unethical as well as counterproductive.'

Tom Watson, Labour MP for West Bromwich East, also voiced his support for the initiative: 'There have been a number of negative press stories that have not just harmed the credibility of the information contained on the pages of Wikipedia, but caused reputational harm to the PR and lobbying firms and their clients who were the subject of negative stories. 

'PR professionals need clear guidelines in this new world of online-information-sharing. That's why I am delighted that interested parties are coming together to establish a clear code of conduct.'

share me: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Tweet