As a free online encyclopedia, a primary online tool for information research, and a highly-ranked resource in most Google search results, Wikipedia is both an opportunity and a risk for public relations and other communications professionals. 
The opportunity is obvious: comprehensive information about your organization (and its brands and leaders) becomes readily accessible in a single source to all Internet users worldwide – and is therefore a PR must-have.
The key risks to Wikipedia entries are less obvious: 1) that information about your organization in Wikipedia is wrong – and presents a danger to your corporate reputation and 2) that Wikipedia will slap your wrist (often embarrassingly) if the PR department or agency edits information about your organization.
Wikipedia recently chastised PR firm Sunshine Sachs for paying editors to alter Wikipedia entries about some of the agency’s clients including supermodel Naomi Campbell, Mia Farrow, and Sarah Brightman, as reported in the New York Times
In the U.K., The Guardian reported that Wikipedia blocked a user account associated with Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps on suspicion that he or someone acting on his behalf edited his own Wikipedia page along with entries of Tory rivals and political opponents.
Wikipedia zealously guards against conflicts of interest among its 70,000 independent editors in order to assure accurate and unbiased information. As a result, Wikipedia has had numerous disputes with PR professionals who attempted to edit entries of organizations they work for – or otherwise circumvent Wikipedia’s editing guidelines.
In an interview with 60 Minutes Overtime entitled Wikimania, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales expressed his concern about PR staff editing Wikipedia entries. “Sometimes [their self-promotion] is shady, and the [Wikipedia] community gets very upset when people come in and lie about who they are and pretend things that aren’t true and try to get an advantage,” Wales said. “There are also responsible PR people who come to the discussion pages and say ‘Hey, there’s a problem here. You printed the criticism of us, and you didn’t talk about the response. Here are some sources.’”
Wales added that Wikipedia welcomes open dialogue with PR staff. He advised PR types to follow the Wikipedia editing guidelines and to be open and transparent with Wikipedia editors, all of whom disclose any conflicts of interest.
Failing to comply strictly with the editing guidelines – especially disclosure of conflicts — can get you into deep trouble with the Wikipedia police, er, editors and administrators.
Many users don’t know about Wikipedia’s editing guidelines. To others, the editing guidelines are hard to find or obtuse. Now there’s help in understanding Wikipedia’s guidelines and avoiding its sanctions. The help comes in the form of a Wikipedia editing manual to guide PR pros through the information submission process
Wikipedia and the Communications Professional, published by William Beutler of Beutler Ink, explains the Wikipedia editing guidelines and answers common questions about the editing process.
Another helpful resource is Wikipedia Management for Dummies by Chris Abraham
Most crucially, it’s important to recognize and accept that the role of PR on Wikipedia is “information submission,” not editing.
Here are some other key points that PR professionals will find especially helpful when they need to correct an inaccuracy or update information on a Wikipedia corporate page. • Wikipedia editor accounts should be controlled by one person.
Wikipedia administrators assume that an account name associated with a company or agency is being shared by multiple people and may block the account.
• People with a connection to an organization should not directly edit articles about the organization. That violates Wikipedia’s core principle: that its information is impartial and unbiased.
• Instead of directly editing existing pages, make requests for changes through the “Talk” page.
The “Talk” page can be found in the upper left side of the page next to “Article.” It is used by Wikipedia editors to have conversations about the article with other editors and outsiders. An editor will address any questions or concerns you enter in the “Talk” page for your organization.
To improve your request’s chances for publication, Beutler recommends crafting the proposed changes from the perspective of a reader seeking useful information. Explain how your suggested edits benefit Wikipedia’s audience.
Even spelling edits and minor changes should be suggested through the Talk page. Making suggestions to correct small factual or typographical errors will help establish you as a reliable and credible source for the editor. Then, the editor will remember your helpful efforts if you later propose a new section or bigger change.
• All statements must cite reliable sources.
Be absolutely certain to include references (URL links) to independent sources of the information you recommend including. Reliable online sources include newspapers, consumer magazines, trade publications, academic journals, government filings and online financial databases. Wikipedia does not consider a company’s website to be a reliable and independent source.
• Avoid requesting deletions that editors may perceive as “whitewashing” the entry.
Wikipedia believes it has a responsibility to provide a fully-transparent view of all organizations including negative information such as scandals, industrial accident, and C-suite upheaval. If the posted information is factually correct, it’s unlikely that the Wikipedia editor will delete it – and you’ll undermine your credibility as a reliable resource by requesting such as change. Instead, company representatives can voice concerns through the “Talk” page about how the information is presented and suggest an alternative perspective.
Understanding the Wikipedia Deletion Process by Mike Wood explains in detail when and how PR pros can work together with Wikipedia editors on deletions.
Articles can be removed only if they fail to meet the Notability guideline. The Notability test helps editors decide if a topic warrants its own article. A topic merits an article if: 1) Information can be verified using reliable third-party sources on the topic. 2) The information does not fall under the “What Wikipedia is not” policy.
If an article is outdated or biased, suggest ways to change it rather than requesting removal.
PR Affirmation of Wikipedia Editing Guidelines
Major PR firms last year signed a statement of principles that commits the firms to better understand and act in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.
The PR agency principles are:
• To better understand the fundamental principles guiding Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.
• To comply with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines; particularly those related to conflicts of interest.
• To abide by the Wikimedia Foundation’s Terms of Use.
• When aware of potential violations, to investigate the matter and seek corrective action.
• To take steps to publicize these views and counsel clients and peers to comply with Wikipedia guidelines.
Compliance with the principles by all PR professionals will greatly benefit Wikipedia, its users, and the profession.
Bottom line: Learning and complying with Wikipedia guidelines and editing practices enables PR pros to participate in the development and maintenance of accurate, up-to-date Wikipedia pages about the company and its executives. All PR pros should invest time and effort to peruse Beutler’s complete manual and other articles on Wikipedia editing to better understand best practices for developing and revising Wikipedia entries.
Other Articles
Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Draft best practice guidelines for PR
Wikimedia
William J. Comcowich founded and served as CEO of CyberAlert LLC, the predecessor of Glean.info. He is currently serving as Interim CEO and member of the Board of Directors. Glean.info provides customized media monitoring, media measurement and analytics solutions across all types of traditional and social media.
You say: “In the U.K., The Guardian reported that Wikipedia blocked a user account associated with Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps on suspicion that he or someone acting on his behalf edited his own Wikipedia page along with entries of Tory rivals and political opponents.” But, to follow through on this, The Guardian also admitted that the problem was not Shapps after all, but an overzealous Wikipedia administrator, drunk on the power of his IP-checking tool kit: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/08/wikipedia-volunteer-reprimand-grant-shapps-investigation
To solidify the advice in this blog post, you might also want to read a subsequent Huffington Post article entitled “Wikipedia Founder’s Message to PR Firms Who Edit Entries.” His advice: Don’t do it!