Popping in again, after seeing this site come up on a self-indulgent search on my name on SearchMe.com. I just wanted to mention that I've acquired the wiki directory from the old site I was co-developing, and now it (all 35,000+ pages) is at the "new" MyWikiBiz.com.

If anyone's interested in promoting a protected and permanent description of yourself or your enterprise in our wiki, head on over. It's free, and you can even serve up ads or sell your wares. Exploit MyWikiBiz -- I dare you!

You don't want to miss this : http://paidwiki.org

Greg - Better late than never. Thanks for stopping by! - Mike

Nice article, Michael. Sorry it took me a couple of months to spot it. I just want to reiterate here that MyWikiBiz intended to write neutral, factually-cited, encyclopedic content for Wikipedia. I figured the encyclopedia would benefit, my clients would benefit, and I would benefit. A win-win-win. Jimmy Wales tried to work with me in what he thought was a positive way, but then the "community" (which is constituted mostly of still-in-school males with a lot of extra time on their hands, and very little business experience) took over and drafted a "Conflict of Interest" policy out of thin air. Wales then used that as an opportunity to do what I believe he really wanted to do all along -- make an example out of me.

If you need any proof, see the original article for Arch Coal that I wrote. Wales called it a "travesty of neutral point of view" and a "PR puff piece". No less than five respected editors asked Jimmy, in so many words, "What the f*** are you talking about?" But mob rule prevailed, and my account was banned from the encyclopedia "anyone" can edit.

It's a very autocratic/bureaucratic culture over there. Just look into the resignations of Brad Patrick and Danny Wool from the Foundation, and I think you'll get the picture. It's falling apart as we watch.

John - Great insight! Thanks for stopping by. - Mike

Wikipedia has done an incredible job marketing itself. However, the image that seems to be the most common, is not necessarily reflective of reality.

1. Wikipedia is not a repository for the colloquial knowledge. Per their guidelines, material posted to Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced from another, established media source. The fact that people assume they can put whatever information they assume they have leads to many of the inaccuracies found in the content. Beyond anyone maliciously changing content.

2. Wikipedia isn't really as open as it seems anyway. The Wikipedia editors have the power to moderate any topic, including (or some might say especially) those that they have no knowledge of. These editors are typically active community members that have just moved up the ranks of the Wikipedia corporation.

3. Paying people to maintain a Wikipedia page is like trying to hold back the tide. The numbers are against you. Tenacious users will revert your content based on the 'principle' that updates were made not just by someone with an agenda, but by someone getting paid to push their agenda.

4. Accuracy can best be summed up in one word: Wikiality.

5. Wikipedia rise to prominence was due in large part to people that posted content, and then linked to that content from their site. Or found content on Wikipedia and linked to it. Now, Wikipedia is turning their back on their community (with some valid concerns about spammers) by using the rel="nofollow" attribute on all outgoing links. Causing some bloggers to start a campaign to do the same with links pointing to Wikipedia; using thi attribute on inbound links to Wikipedia if done on a mass scale would reduce Wikipedia's relevance to the search engines.

In short, I don't think that corporations are doing anything unreasonable in wanting to have someone monitoring their brand presence on Wikipedia. However, I also feel that it's not a trend that is going to be able to be outsourced. More likely big companies will hire someone internally with responsibility to monitor the page. That would essentially hide the cost of it.

Long term, Wikipedia's model is both too open and too restrictive to acheive it's stated goal. It's a neat experiment though, I'll grant them that.

Whitney - That article mentions that Wikipedia does have a review board. But I think their job is the decide articles to highlight. Good points! - Mike

Referring to Mr. Kantor's earlier comment -- "Who gets to decide what definitions get to stay and which are kept, what they mean, and what they stand for? A popular vote?" --

I wonder if, in time, Wikipedia might end up having to take a cue from traditional dictionaries, thesauri, and encyclopedias and create some sort of review board. In Wikipedia's case, the board would likely end up having members who are scholars, businesspeople, scientists, etc. They'd review new additions, assess them for balance and other criteria, and vote on whether additions are in or out.

I agree with Mr. Kantor that Wikipedia likely perceives its strength as a communal source of information. I also think Carson has a point -- the model worked best as a free-for-all...and remains valuable until it's overrun by commercial interests and (gah) political correctness. The increased involvement of commercial interests will likely force Wikipedia to become more formalized and adopt the same kind of advisory bodies that are used by more conventional reference sources.

My 2 cents. Might buy your kid a gumball from the machine at the grocery store...

One would certainly think so, but it seems that Wikipedia views their strength as more of a communal information source.

Rather than having the polish of traditional web content that has been edited and approved by a legal department, they believe that more people will be attracted to their site for it's "home grown" perspective.

If that is the case then they open themselves up to highly inaccuracy content validating the other points that have made here.

This seems to be a timely topic.

Today, Brand Channel named Wikipedia the 4th most known online brand. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070126/tc_nm/brand...

You all bring up some interesting points.

I guess the real question is this. Say you are a new business, like YouTube and you do not yet have a Wikipedia entry. Would it make sense to hire a professional to write it for you?

Mike

Besides the issue of commercial accuracy, I would be concerned about the impact of "political correctness" for an sensitive politically-charged entry.

For example, when it comes to defining Islam, do you allow those who want to leave references to it as "a religion of peace"? What happens when that definition is challenged for those who want to add countless examples of terrorism across the globe. Would those be removed because the powers-to-be don't want to ruffle any feathers?

You could then go down the list on references to feminism, socialism, political groups, etc.

Who gets to decide what definitions get to stay and which are kept, what they mean, and what they stand for? A popular vote?

Mike-

Absolutely. Wikipedia is an open door for vengeance (justified or otherwise).

It's an interesting experience in a free marketplace of ideas, but with the added component of universally-accessible editing in addition to composition.

The issues this conversation raises, in my opinion, go well past Wikipedia. They invite an examination of the theory underlying marketplace of idea principles, free speech (both its awesome powers and limitations), etc. Wikipedia is a high-profile example of financial interests and plain old ill will can taint parts of the marketplace.

The low barrier to entry and the reduced risk of repercussion or litigation stemming from a bit of Wikipedia "adjustment" are great when that avenue serves as a means of encouraging real participation and information-sharing. Simultaneously, it makes it all too easy to engage in negative subterfuge and corrupt practices.

When I think too hard about the Wikipedia situation, its growth and potential financial impact on business entities, the motivation for those with financial clout to modify its content, etc., I have flashbacks to Marcuse.

Wikipedia is a perfect opportunity for people to provide value, share information and perspective, and to create a truly useful resource. It's also a great opportunity for those chasing bucks or with axes to grind to do their thing. I don't know where it ends, but I doubt it concludes with everyone marveling at Wikipedia or trusting it more (or as much) as any other site.

Carson

Tom and Caron - Interesting...

You would think that it would be in the best interest of businesses that are listed on Wikipedia (and the public) to make sure their is no false or inaccurate information listed in their entry.

For example, let's say I was wrongly terminated from IBM, I could go into the IBM section and very easily alter some stuff to make them look bad.

Your thoughts.

Mike

Get ready for plenty of paid and volunteer partisan Wiki editing as 2008 approaches, too.

I'm beginning to wonder if the free-for-all was only valuable so long as it stayed off the radar of commercial players and power brokers. Now that the cat is out of the bag, it's going to get uglier, I fear.

Carson

I have to marvel at the use of the word "accurate" in this context.

Some would suggest Wal-Mart's "accurate" is someone else's fiction. I think we're running up against the limitations of constructs like wikipedia - the intersection of business/special interest and the marketplace of ideas.