CampaignAsia weighs into the debate on who owns and controls online information in a recent article by PR practitioner Jeremy Woolf.
Woolf is global social-media practice lead for PR agency Text 100.
As he sees it, PR professionals would like to edit Wikipedia entries on behalf of their brands, while current Wikipedia policies treat them like corporate pariahs.
Wikipedians are opposed to letting the spindoctors directly edit pages themselves and say the PR professionals can use Wikipedia’s “talk” page feature to suggest content edits.
The PR people say their comments are frequently ignored or treated with all the alacrity of a sloth taking a snooze. The process, they say, is ineffectual. Incorrect information can remain in Wiki-space for yonks, skewing viewpoints and damaging company reputations.
Woolf suggests a solution may rest in the newly-formed Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE) which aims to create a forum for discussing how the various parties “can have a constructive relationship in the public interest of maintaining entries that are accurate”.
It’s all part of a wider ongoing debate around ownership and control in the online world.
For Kensington Swan’s take on who owns LinkedIn data when an employee leaves a Kiwi company, for example, see NZ Management magazine’s article “LinkedIn or –out?” [December 2011 page 77].
Text 100 operates as a network of licensed agencies throughout Asia-Pacific, EMEA and North America. Here in NZ its agency is Auckland-based Pursuit PR.
back to the newsletter