The online encyclopedia has found itself at the centre of communications debates recently.

The communications firm Bell Pottinger had several linked editing accounts suspended as Wikipedia investigated the allegations – first printed by The Independent – that the company had edited entries for clients to improve their reputation.
  

Although anyone is theoretically free to edit any of the entries on Wikipedia, one of the site’s fundamental principles is that entries are written from a neutral point of view, and that they present balanced and impartial information about the topic at hand. The looseness of these guidelines has, however, led to confusion, and in some cases seeming deliberate manipulation, when it comes to PR firms editing entries on behalf of clients – although Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has written in the past: “I think we need to be very clear that PR firms editing Wikipedia is something that we frown upon very very strongly.”
 

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations has issued a release stating that it is working with Wikipedia to provide its members with direction on using and editing the site. The CIPR’s previous Social Media Guidelines recommended that communicators worked
with Wikipedia editors to update pages.
 

“In some parts of the PR profession, a lack of understanding on how to engage with the Wikipedia community persists,” says Roger Bamkin, chair of Wikimedia UK. He also stated that masking the identity of editors on the site, as Bell Pottinger is alleged to have done, is “unethical as well as counterproductive.”
 

However, Stuart Bruce, the independent comms consultant, picked up on the issue in a post at www.stuartbruce.biz. He believes that the importance of Wikipedia is now such that it can strongly affect a company’s reputation, and that Wikipedia must move towards updating its own policies as well as corralling communicators.
 

The Wiki wars
Inching Toward Common Ground
Phil Gomes, corporate social media governance specialist
 

Companies find themselves frustrated and at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to Wikipedia. On one level, it’s the predictable result of when a world that values managed order collides with one that values the more spontaneous variety. On another level, consider the following:
To operate within Wikipedia guidelines (more on that in a bit), a game of mother-may-I must take place even for edits of minimal consequence, such as the membership of the board of directors. To make any edit at all risks the possibility of reputation damage from widespread coverage with headlines like “Company Caught Editing Its Wikipedia Entry.” It won’t matter whether the company was correcting the spelling of the CEO’s name, or deleting information on a well-known controversy.
 

Activism on Wikipedia very often gets a free pass, whereas companies are told “hands off.” Neither have a neutral point of view. Just because someone is an outside party doesn’t make him or her objective. It’s like saying an atheist is the only person who has any business editing an entry on the topic of religion. But both parties desire the same thing: accurate entries.
 

The activities of a few bad actors in the corporate communications field are very well-documented. Less-discussed is a labyrinthine governance system that practically encourages (though certainly doesn’t excuse) inappropriate behavior. The rules and guidelines for editing Wikipedia are, should you be fortunate enough to find them, contradictory. There are also many different folks on Wikipedia who read those rules differently, from absolutists to people who see a broader role for communicators. Your success in engaging Wikipedia strongly depends on who is paying attention and how they interpret the rules. Given the activities of the aforementioned bad actors, communicators operate at a trust deficit.
 

However, it doesn’t have to be this way and, I argue, most corporate communicators want to do the right thing. This is why CREWE (Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement) was formed and I’m proud to say that the Facebook group is populated with both communicators and Wikipedians who want to find a middle ground.
 

It won’t be a quick solution but, unlike previous flareups between communicators and Wikipedians, constructive dialogue is taking place. Watch what happens and, more importantly, share your ideas.