Let the Wiki Win

I noticed a post on Consumerist recently under the title “Stealth PR.” Figuring it was yet another story about the dangers of astroturfing or another fake blog exposed, I had to click.  It was pretty brief, but definitely pulled a highly interesting topic into relief: A grad student CalTech devised a program revealing the IP addresses of those altering Wikipedia articles. Gee, what do you suppose he found?

Naturally, companies, organizations and religious groups have been anonymously self-editing their Wikipedia entries, a big no-no according to the FAQ. Sometimes they are deleting entire sections of information, as in the case of Diebold voting machines (someone working from a Diebolt IP address deleted 15 paragraphs of information on the company). Or deleting information they found critical, as in the case of the Church of Scientology.

Monitoring online forums like wikis is a big part of online reputation management, this much we know. But what’s wrong with going through the appropriate channels to make changes or correct errors? And to do so transparently? Anything less, and you’re treading on dangerous ground. Get caught (and you will), and you’ll come off looking sneaky and suspicious rather than open and willing to contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way.

The unfortunate flipside? With wikis, the public has the power. After the story was circulated here at CustomScoop, my colleague Mackenzie Bradley had this to say:

I still find it disturbing that “the public” can post whatever foolishness they want on a Wiki with no need to back up false or misleading claims. Even more disturbing, there is no good way for the subjects of the entry to redress or refute the material – It is seen as evil and manipulative for the subject of the post to have an opinion or want to introduce clarification. So the message is “lie all you want, they can’t do anything about it.” I think the most a company or individual can do is contact the webmasters or administrators with a grievance which then goes under a lengthy review process and never quite gets resolved. Is my understanding wrong in this sense?  

Obviously, deleting 15 paragraphs from a company IP is an extreme case but still – how else can the subjects of the entries defend themselves from this sort of group libel? And how does the phrase “A lie retold a thousand times becomes truth” play into the predicament?  

She makes a good point—if there really is fraudulent information contained in a wiki, why shouldn’t a company use the collaborative nature of a wiki to anonymously make corrections? The answer is easy—because they end up looking deceptive, as if they have something to hide.

What are the best ways for a company to combat false information on wikis? Are the approved transparent channels enough?