record should be included? Perhaps the wording can be more fair, or maybe it’s a scurrilous charge. Either way, be prepared to make the case on the ‘Talk’ page but also be prepared for occasional disappointment. Who should handle this? Why not make a communica-
tions staffer or trusted consultant your representative on the Wikipedia article? You probably already have someone running blog outreach, so why not charge him or her with studying Wikipedia’s rules and present a plan for Wikipe- dia engagement? Have the staffer create a list of things to change, explanations for why these changes are consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and include citation informa- tion for the sources you need to back up claims that are likely to be contested (and because we’re talking about politics, almost anything will probably be contested). Some Wikipedia articles are watched more than others.
You might post a comment on the ‘Talk’ page of a less prominent entry only to find that no one has been on the page in months, and there is no indication that anyone will stop by to help anytime soon. The best thing to do is find Wikipedia’s Help desk (just Google it) and ask for someone to review your proposed changes and comment on the ‘Talk’ page of that article. If this doesn’t work, give it a few hours and try again. People on the Help Desk are busy, but they are also among the friendliest Wikipedians you’ll find. No question is dumb; they talk to people who know nothing about Wikipedia every single day. In a way, Wikipedians are a new constituency to be reck-
oned with. They probably don’t live in your district and they might not vote for you anyway, but they do exercise a great deal of control over what voters, donors and vol- unteers do know about your campaign. If they agree with your suggestion, they may implement it directly. If they merely give you a thumbs-up then you can—wait for it— make the edits directly. That’s right—despite Wikipedia’s strong warnings to
avoid making direct edits to your own Wikipedia article, there are a few well-defined circumstances where this is acceptable. Suggestions with ‘Talk’ page consensus is one. Adding citations to verify present material is another. Fixes to grammar and spelling are likewise patently uncontrover- sial; so don’t hesitate to make those changes. This next one may be more surprising. Although the sur-
est path to Wikipedia trouble is outright deletion of material you do not like, there are times when Wikipedia does allow it. For instance, Wikipedia is very cautious about how it por- trays information concerning living persons. So information which has no source attached to it, or a poor-quality source (such as most blogs or group sites without a formal editorial structure) can be removed. Explain you are doing it for this reason, and you’ll be all right. If the material was untrue anyway, you have not only
saved your own client from misinformation but Wikipedia as well. However, if the underlying story is true and has been reported in a reputable publication, then someone will probably add it back, maybe this time with the better
June 2010 | Campaigns & Elections 13
source. You may be admonished in any case, so be careful. Note also that you should make just one person the
public face of your efforts at a time. Because Wikipedia runs on consensus, site policies expressly forbid creat- ing multiple accounts (“sock puppets”) to manufacture consensus as well as recruiting your buddies to join the conversation (“meat puppets”) to echo your argument.
Living In The Wiki World In the end, there is no substitute for understanding how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is now the most important research website
in the entire world. It covers more subjects than “Britan- nica” ever could and, to the displeasure of many (especially Britannica’s editors), in just a few years Wikipedia may be the only active encyclopedia left. Wikipedia itself says that it should only be a starting point for research, but everyone knows—and Stu Rothenberg can personally attest—that more often than not, it’s the endpoint. In less than a de- cade of existence, Wikipedia has become the principal re- pository of information in the public consciousness. If it’s not there, most people probably don’t know about it. The short history of politicians trying to influence their
Wikipedia articles is one mainly of defeat. But it does not have to be, and smart campaigns will learn that if they don’t expect absolute control, they can have a big impact on how they are treated. This information imbalance can be your advantage. Use it scrupulously, or it might end up on your Wikipedia article.
William Beutler is the author of The Wikipedian, a blog help- ing non-insiders navigate Wikipedia. He is also the innovation manager at New Media Strategies.
Have you tried our US digital edition?
It’s the same great magazine... only without the paper.
Subscribe today at
CampaignsAndElections.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80