Comments on: Wikipedia and the Wisdumb of Crowds http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/20/wikipedia-and-the-wisdumb-of-crowds/ Marketing blog focused on marketing optimization, improving website conversion rates, search engine marketing, web analytics, word of mouth, etc. Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:05:29 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: PK http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/20/wikipedia-and-the-wisdumb-of-crowds/comment-page-1/#comment-153143 PK Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:21:47 +0000 http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/20/wikipedia-and-the-wisdumb-of-crowds/#comment-153143 Yeah, I spoke with Jimmy when working on that project and he seemed like a nice enough guy. Hell, he returned my call for one thing! In the end, it was taking so much time to deal with and the editors were so absolutely negative that we just moved on and lived with the false information on there. I like Wikipedia a lot and still use it frequently, but there is bias in there both ways and it is unfair to take anonymous posts from well-meaning-but-clueless employees and say that its a spin job. People are supposed to care and be proud about the place they work and defending the hard work they put in there should not automatically be viewed as sinister. I view Wikipedia a lot like Mapquest directions: its usually correct, but should always be sanity checked... Yeah, I spoke with Jimmy when working on that project and he seemed like a nice enough guy. Hell, he returned my call for one thing! In the end, it was taking so much time to deal with and the editors were so absolutely negative that we just moved on and lived with the false information on there.

I like Wikipedia a lot and still use it frequently, but there is bias in there both ways and it is unfair to take anonymous posts from well-meaning-but-clueless employees and say that its a spin job. People are supposed to care and be proud about the place they work and defending the hard work they put in there should not automatically be viewed as sinister.

I view Wikipedia a lot like Mapquest directions: its usually correct, but should always be sanity checked…

]]> By: Robert Gorell http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/20/wikipedia-and-the-wisdumb-of-crowds/comment-page-1/#comment-153138 Robert Gorell Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:08:33 +0000 http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/20/wikipedia-and-the-wisdumb-of-crowds/#comment-153138 PK, That's really interesting. Perhaps Wikipedia's had a bit too much of its own Kool-Aid? Their response in the New York Times was pretty <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/technology/19wikipedia.html?em&ex=1187755200&en=a9b3ee18eb5be094&ei=5087%0A" rel="nofollow">muted</a>: "Jimmy Wales, founder of the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, says the site discourages such 'conflict of interest' editing. 'We don’t make it an absolute rule,' he said, 'but it’s definitely a guideline.'” PK,

That’s really interesting. Perhaps Wikipedia’s had a bit too much of its own Kool-Aid?

Their response in the New York Times was pretty muted:

“Jimmy Wales, founder of the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, says the site discourages such ‘conflict of interest’ editing. ‘We don’t make it an absolute rule,’ he said, ‘but it’s definitely a guideline.’”

]]> By: PK http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/20/wikipedia-and-the-wisdumb-of-crowds/comment-page-1/#comment-153136 PK Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:00:19 +0000 http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/20/wikipedia-and-the-wisdumb-of-crowds/#comment-153136 Agreed...it all looks bad, no matter who does it. But wikipedia editors (in my opinion) have a negative bias against corporations. I was involved in an issue with a company where information that was patently false was posted and an editor would not remove it without published proof to the contrary. It becomes a guilty until you can prove you're innocent situation for companies. On another issue we even produced SEC audited documents to backup an edit but those were deemed not credible enough!?! However, *any* media article produced by a third party, no matter how poorly written and researched, was considered 100% reliable fact. Agreed…it all looks bad, no matter who does it. But wikipedia editors (in my opinion) have a negative bias against corporations. I was involved in an issue with a company where information that was patently false was posted and an editor would not remove it without published proof to the contrary. It becomes a guilty until you can prove you’re innocent situation for companies.

On another issue we even produced SEC audited documents to backup an edit but those were deemed not credible enough!?! However, *any* media article produced by a third party, no matter how poorly written and researched, was considered 100% reliable fact.

]]> By: Robert Gorell http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/20/wikipedia-and-the-wisdumb-of-crowds/comment-page-1/#comment-153043 Robert Gorell Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:43:07 +0000 http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/20/wikipedia-and-the-wisdumb-of-crowds/#comment-153043 PK, You're absolutely right. I should have been clear to say that this isn't necessarily strategic corporate spin, but that employees at any level are being irresponsible with Wikipedia. These anonymous editors have still they've made their companies look bad, though, so it remains a serious issue of policy; for the companies involved and, one would think, for Wikipedia itself. Obviously, this works both ways. A misguided executive could tell an employee to edit a Wiki post anonymously. So don't you think this news might get them to think twice before doing so next time? And who said public relations has to come from a PR department? I doubt any respectable PR firm/department would tell its client, as it were, to rewrite history on Wikipedia. It's possible, sure, but that wasn't what I hoped to convey. I also think that point is clear in the Wired piece. Regardless of who's responsible at the end of the day, the brand's perception is being tainted -- whether you're talking about Diebold, the CIA, or McDonalds. PK,

You’re absolutely right. I should have been clear to say that this isn’t necessarily strategic corporate spin, but that employees at any level are being irresponsible with Wikipedia.

These anonymous editors have still they’ve made their companies look bad, though, so it remains a serious issue of policy; for the companies involved and, one would think, for Wikipedia itself.

Obviously, this works both ways. A misguided executive could tell an employee to edit a Wiki post anonymously. So don’t you think this news might get them to think twice before doing so next time? And who said public relations has to come from a PR department? I doubt any respectable PR firm/department would tell its client, as it were, to rewrite history on Wikipedia. It’s possible, sure, but that wasn’t what I hoped to convey. I also think that point is clear in the Wired piece.

Regardless of who’s responsible at the end of the day, the brand’s perception is being tainted — whether you’re talking about Diebold, the CIA, or McDonalds.

]]> By: PK http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/20/wikipedia-and-the-wisdumb-of-crowds/comment-page-1/#comment-153036 PK Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:25:46 +0000 http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/20/wikipedia-and-the-wisdumb-of-crowds/#comment-153036 Yes Sanity, you are right on. The way this story is being perpetuated reveals that the authors do not understand how WP works and this whole thing has been overblown. The IP address sniff is only anonymous edits and since anyone serious about impacting the records would first setup an account to bypass this lack of anonymity, this is merely showing that unorganized employees are doing this and it is not some masterful "spin-jobs" planned by PR departments. Yes Sanity, you are right on. The way this story is being perpetuated reveals that the authors do not understand how WP works and this whole thing has been overblown.

The IP address sniff is only anonymous edits and since anyone serious about impacting the records would first setup an account to bypass this lack of anonymity, this is merely showing that unorganized employees are doing this and it is not some masterful “spin-jobs” planned by PR departments.

]]> By: The Sanity Inspector http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/20/wikipedia-and-the-wisdumb-of-crowds/comment-page-1/#comment-153023 The Sanity Inspector Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:57:29 +0000 http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/20/wikipedia-and-the-wisdumb-of-crowds/#comment-153023 Please bear in mind that Wikiscanner only retrieves the IP addresses of anonymous editors. People with Wikipedia accounts have their IP addresses shielded from view. So, there's probably more going on, by more and different people, than meets Wikiscanner's eye. Please bear in mind that Wikiscanner only retrieves the IP addresses of anonymous editors. People with Wikipedia accounts have their IP addresses shielded from view. So, there’s probably more going on, by more and different people, than meets Wikiscanner’s eye.

]]> By: Brian Carter http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/20/wikipedia-and-the-wisdumb-of-crowds/comment-page-1/#comment-152961 Brian Carter Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:44:26 +0000 http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/20/wikipedia-and-the-wisdumb-of-crowds/#comment-152961 I'd agree- some sort of expert verification, albeit difficult (same problem Google is predicted to have with News comments), turned into a % trust score for each entry would be nice. I’d agree- some sort of expert verification, albeit difficult (same problem Google is predicted to have with News comments), turned into a % trust score for each entry would be nice.

]]> By: Clerical Solutions http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/20/wikipedia-and-the-wisdumb-of-crowds/comment-page-1/#comment-152937 Clerical Solutions Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:52:51 +0000 http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/20/wikipedia-and-the-wisdumb-of-crowds/#comment-152937 funny video. good to know that wikipedia is letting you know who is editing entries. they should have done that sooner. because everyone is not an expert. funny video. good to know that wikipedia is letting you know who is editing entries. they should have done that sooner. because everyone is not an expert.

]]>