Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia built collaboratively on the Internet, has emerged as a primary reference resource on most every topic. It's page views are in the millions each month.
In most any search on a company or brand name, the Wikipedia write-up often gets first page ranking in search engines, especially Google. For example, The
listing for Accenture, the consulting company, is currently listed sixth on the first page of Google results.
In the September 11, 2006 entry in his blog
Micro Persuasion, Steve Rubel of Edelman analyzes the Google results for Wikipedia articles about the top 100 U.S.-based advertisers. In most every case, the Wikipedia article on the company ranked in Google's top 20 results. Many of those Wikipedia articles contain negative information about the companies.
Febreeze's Wikipedia entry (Currently #2 on Google) notes that the product may be harmful to household pets.
Rubel believes that trying to police Wikepedia article content is asking for trouble. He advocates a "look but don't touch" position. William Comcowich of CyberAlert, the media monitoring company, maintains that, while copy manipulation and brand promotion is verboten, companies should absolutely not let inaccuracies stand in Wikepedia articles — and should employ light-handed, journalistic-type editing to correct factual errors. In handling negative charges, companies should let the charges remain in the article, but provide the "other side of the story".
Clearly, what's in Wikipedia can affect corporate or brand reputation in a major way. PR professionals should review all pages in Wikipedia in which their company/clients are mentioned. If you want to make a change, use the
Wikipedia Help pages to learn how to modify the article or place a new article.