Measuring public relations Wikipedia engagement: how bright is the rule?

From Brede Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Paper (help)
Measuring public relations Wikipedia engagement: how bright is the rule?
Authors: Marcia W. DiStaso
Citation: Public Relations Journal 6 (2): missing pages. 2012
Database(s): Google Scholar cites
DOI: Define doi.
Link(s): http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/Documents/2012DiStaso.pdf
Search
Web: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Article: BASE Google Scholar PubMed
Restricted: DTU Digital Library
Other: NIF
Services
Format: BibTeX
Extract: Talairach coordinates from linked PDF: CSV-formated wiki-formated

Measuring public relations Wikipedia engagement: how bright is the rule? discuss company public relations and Wikipedia edits and performs a survey among public relations professionals.

The title of the paper is a word pun on a Jimmy Wales' Facebook comment.

The study is discussed in The Signpost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-04-23/Investigative_report

Contents

[edit] Descriptions

The Facebook group "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement" (CREWE) is described.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/

The group was started by Phil Gomes and from a stuggestion by John Cass [1], and the group includes Wikipedians and representatives from Public Relations Society of America, International Association of Business Communicators, Society for New Communications Research (SNCR) and Chartered Institute of Public Relations (page 1-2).


[edit] Data

Survey using SurveyMonkey requesting responses from member of professional organizations and similar groups. 1284 responses from public relations/communication experienced persons (1366 responses totally, students and faculty were left out).

[edit] Method

[edit] Results

Details about the each of the many responses are show and discussed in the paper, e.g.:

  1. 79% of the respondents was associated with a Wikipedia page: their company's page or their client page.
  2. "60% of the Wikipedia articles for respondents who were familiar with their company or recent client’s article contained factual errors" (The figure of 60% were widely published in the news, but confusing it with all company pages)
  3. Many are not familiar (64%) or do not understand (16%) Wikipedia's paid editing rules. (page 16, chart 9)
  4. 31% of "of respondents have personally edited their company's or client's Wikipedia articles" (page 9, chart 2)

[edit] Related papers

  1. Examining how social and emerging media have been used in public relations between 2006 and 2012: a longitudinal analysis
  2. Exploring the problems with Wikipedia's editing rule for public relations
  3. Forced transparency: corporate image on Wikipedia and what it means for public relations
  4. Wikiganda: identifying propaganda through text analysis
  5. Wikipedia's role in reputation management: an analysis of the best and worst companies in the USA

[edit] Critique

  1. The press release [2] associated with the study does not present the result of the study well pointed out by Tilman Bayer [3].
  2. Participation bias could potentially have been at play [4].
  3. Spelling errors also counted as inaccuracy [5].

[edit] External links

  1. Spin doctors spin Jimmy's "bright line"
  2. Search engine rankings for Wikipedia articles on Fortune 100 companies
Personal tools