Is Wikipedia a trusted online source or not?
It’s a black and white question for a website that has a lot of gray to it. Does everyone really believe everything they read on Facebook? Doubtful. Do a majority of users believe what they find on Wikipedia? Most definitely. According to a recent survey conducted by Cision, Wikipedia is the second most used online research tool used by journalists, with Google being first. Today, Wikipedia is available in more than 50 languages and hosts over three million articles on its English version alone. There are many questions surrounding Wikipedia, but there is no question that Wikipedia packs serious online clout.
Wikipedia’s influence is quite apparent; the site consistently shows up in the top three results from Google searches. But the question is how can you trust the information found on Wikipedia when there is no real control of site content?
Background: Wikipedia was created by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger and launched in January 2001. Wikipedia is a multilingual, Web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based on an openly editable model. The name “Wikipedia” is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian word wiki meaning “quick”) and encyclopedia. Wikipedia’s articles provide links to guide the user to related pages with additional information. (Note to readers: This information was gathered from Wikipedia.) The website allows any registered user to edit any page on the site. There is a network of editors and administrators who monitor content continuously and will override what is written if there is qualified reason or suspected misuse.
So how can an entity control the content on Wikipedia to ensure its accuracy and its message? This is the crux of the issue. My position on Wikipedia is that it can be a very effective communications tool for your marketing strategy, as long as you know how to use it and consistently monitor it.
Let me state my case:
First, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are sources of facts, not marketing messages. You wouldn’t expect to find Wal-Mart’s company policies in the Encyclopedia Britannica, so they shouldn’t be listed on Wikipedia. You would find in Wikipedia that the company was founded by Sam Walton and that its New York Stock Exchange symbol is WMT.
Second, Wikipedia requires citations for all site content. Journalism 101 teaches that verification requires multiple sources for attribution. One should not use Wikipedia as a standalone source, but it’s an excellent starting point. Once again, consistent monitoring will hinder erroneous information being published; now, how to go about correcting mistakes in Wikipedia is another matter. Part 2 of this post on Wikipedia will discuss how to approach editing Wikipedia pages and proper etiquette.
Third, Wikipedia is a social media channel. Social media is a virtual relationship with varying online communities. Relationships require attention. When using social media you have to relinquish some control of your message, but it can evolve in social media. If you commit to Wikipedia and monitor its content, it will be effective.
There is no doubt that Wikipedia is the most influential website on the Internet, but is it reliable? I say yes, as long as you do your due diligence and commit to keeping the content factual in nature and current.
Part 2 of this post will discuss the agency’s role in creating, monitoring and editing a Wikipedia page for the client.
Tags: research, technology
