Wikiscanner has been getting a ton of attention lately. With articles cropping up all over the place detailing editing "abuses" by corporations, the government and PR firms. When you look over these articles or, perish the thought, actually use wikiscanner yourself, you end up finding that abuse is fairly rare. Most cases of changing articles are factual in nature.
However, there seems to be a very vocal group of folks who think that any change in wikipedia information by a corporations/government agency or a public relations firm is taboo.
I think this is crazy!
Wikipedia is about creating the most expansive base of factual knowledge possible. The plain fact is that, often times the people with the most depth of knowledge on a topic are people who work at - or work for - the entity that the facts describe.
If you want to exclude information about the CIA just because it comes from a CIA employee you will possibly exclude the most accurate and timely information. The same is true about a General Motors product being described by a GM employee, or a James Blunt entry being edited by James Blunt's PR agency.
I have no problem with full disclosure. Editors should let folks know their background in their profile. And this is especially true if they have a connection to the topics they are editing. And people should not be entering opinion, or "edited backstory" about their corporation/agency/clients. But facts should not be excluded from them based on thier emplyer. In reality, facts should be demanded of them.
To decry editing from classes of people that may have usful information to add should be considered antithetical to wikipedia's mission. To claim otherwise is to lock up knowlege based purely on ad hominem grounds. And that's a ridiculous waste.
I recently had the following scenario related to me by a good friend of mine: Someone sent out at our company yesterday a broadcast e-mail to everyone in the corporation asking if they had a recommendation for a specific situation. It happens occasionally. Someone else replied to all with a specific suggestion. She should have replied only to the sender, but not a big deal. Then someone else replied to all asking to be removed from this list (possibly facetiously, possibly not). Oh, my, the results were entertaining. In the end, more than 75 e-mails were sent to everyone in the company, each one a variation of: Their IT guy estimated approximately a half a million e-mails were generated internally. My friend estimated that, even if each email took only 1 second for people to look at and delete, there were still 17 working days lost cumulatively to this email chain. It really underscores how modern tools - in this case email - aren’t always all that modern anymore and are, at least in some cases, not even the right tools for the job... Imagine if employees had specific spaces on their corporate intranets where teams could outline problems with members who would likely have the knowledge and background to solve them. Imagine if employees could post a request for information in a common area devoted to the kind of knowledge they were seeking. Then other employee, who had something useful to contribute to solving the problem, could discuss the situation in a threaded discussion. Imagine if solutions could be presented in these spaces in a format that could be easily tagged, searched for, and even modified in the future as others refined the processes and added to the base of knowledge. But, of course, no imagination is really necessary. All these tools exist - and a few forward thinking companies have already implemented them. Now all those companies need are enough forward thinking employees to really make them work. Much has been made about the Web 2.0 revolution and the rapid rise of social media over the last two years. And, while the public social-media-scape makes general social relationships easier to form and maintain (and will surely generate some new Web-billionaires in the process), the real economic promise of the Web 2.0 revolution is going to come from within corporations. I truly believe internal social collaboration and sharing is the next big productivity step about to be taken by companies that rely on knowledge workers. The key, of course, is to get those knowledge workers to “get it” and contribute their private-knowledge base into the whole public-knowledge base of a corporation where it can mix with other’s contributions creating a “force-multiplying” effect. Employees need to realize that the old adage about money is now just as true about time…It takes time to make time. A little time spent by a few folks on an internal social-media site (perhaps a blog, wiki or discussion group) would have saved a company 17 days of worker productivity. Imagine the bright future for the first few companies with employees who really get that!
Webware had an interesting article on whether to go with Twitter or Pownce for your nanoblogging* needs.
The article's obvious answer was "whatever service all your friends are on". Which makes a lot of sense.
For me, the obvious answer was Twitter - because I'm only going to update it frequently if I can text in my updates.
But then author Rafe Needleman hits me with the big gun, and realization dawns...
"...give Pownce a serious look, especially if you're thinking of using it in a work setting. With Pownce, you can easily set up a group of contacts, and use the service to keep co-workers up to date on what you're doing as well as the latest versions of documents you're working on. Also in Pownce, replies to particular nanoblog entries are easily tracked in their own threads, on their own pages. If something you write starts a discussion, it's much easier to keep track of what people are saying than it is on Twitter. Again, this is a great feature for business users."
Pownce is a business tool!!!
Agency wide info...No Problem! Team updates...No Problem! Place-independant access to working documents...Again, no Problamo!
And so now, it all makes sense to me (it might even make the IM clamor-crowd happy! Mmmmm...).
(Now we just need the agency Facebook up and we'll really have some crazy integration!)
*Twitter/Powce/jaiku = "Nanoblogs". Well coined, mystery word coining person!
Earlier this morning I was thinking about the "Digg Riot" that happened last night. Digg executives received a cease and desist letter from lawyers from AACS (the HD-DVD DRM encryption folks) asking Digg to remove items refencing decryption keys. And, fearing they would be sued out of existence, Digg complied. The reaction to Digg removing the initial messages and then removing additional messages critical of the initial deletion was swift and massive, flooding Digg's front page with user promoted items containing the encryption keys and trashing Digg's decision.
At first I was fascinated by how quickly the fortunes of a popular social media site were shifted through action taken by the very people that made up its social group. That in itself would have been fodder for me declaiming on and on for a good week. But, what really struck me was the way Digg founder Kevin Rose reacted the the riot:
"We had to make a call, and in our desire to avoid a scenario where Digg would be interrupted or shut down, we decided to comply and remove the stories with the code," he wrote. "But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you've made it clear. You'd rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won't delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be. If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying."
It was a brilliant PR move (at least as of 2:30am the next day). It could not have been planned better (hmmmmm...?).
Think about it...
-
Digg relies solely on its user's to promote items appearing elsewhere on the web. Its business model is 100% reliant on its user's actions. If enough of its users act in concert (and DRM seems enough to initiate such mass action) they can cause Digg to display whatever they want.
-
Digg can never truly eliminate the publication of AACS keys, because users can keep adding them. Digg can only react after the fact.
-
Digg cannot control the masses flooding the site with anti-Digg items, if the masses are angry enough to do it. The Digg community could keep this up as long as they wanted to. There was no way they could win against a backlash and still keep a profitable company going.
-
There was nothing worse the AACS lawyers could do to their business then what the Digg community itself could do.
But, with Kevin Rose's post the situation clears up considerably...
-
Digg looks very responsive to their users. Responsive to the point of seemingly (maybe really) risking thier business. They solidify loyalty
-
If the AACS lawyers do come after them Digg has already framed the fight as David versus Goliath ("You'd rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company."). And the odds of that are exceedingly slim anyway. With hindsight they could see that thousands of other sites were in the same boat legally and Digg had no additional liability that would make them a more attractive target. In fact, there has been little case law on this topic and the publication of the keys may not, in itself, be found in violation of the DMCA since there are legitimate non-infringing uses of the keys (including uses that fall under LoC exemptions to the DMCA).
-
Digg's users quickly went back to digging the same sort of stuff they did before (gas prices, calls for impeachment, and gladiator graveyards). The riot ended, and almost all of the DRM stuff and AACS keys end up off the main page.
-
The stuff Digg pulled from the site before never came back. Without new diggs it didnot end up restored.
-
Digg (and Kevin) come up looking like roses to the people who will make their business work (or fail) in the future.
-
They take only a very minor legal risk to do it.
Brilliant!
I heard the greatest term in a business meeting the other day...
"Zeus Jones!"
Apperently it means an unusual juxtaposition.
Like, "Wow, seeing Tommy Chong and John Ashcroft having dinner togather last night was so Zeus Jones!"
Today's St. Paul Pioneer Press had a fun article on online avatars that has some quotes from me about my Second Life avatar
"Patrick Lilja, who works at the Tunheim Partners public-relations agency in Bloomington, recently wandered the Second Life realm and dressed his avatar, "Patman Wacchman," with items he procured in various online shops. The accouterments included a pinstriped suit, designer-style shades, a phone headset and shoes with huge, silver buckles. (Oh, he also got a helicopter.)
Lilja describes his Wachmann doppelganger as "the younger, better me, with really nice hair, which I don't have."
My kids even get a little plug in for their favorite game, Webkinz!
Unfortunately, the online version does not have the great photo of me and my avatar where I compare my girth and hair challenges in the caption. It's in the print version along with a bunch of other photos that help tell the story.
I have no idea why the Pioneer Press does not include photos in their online version. If anything, they should have additional photos...and maybe some video and audio. Most other papers are going that route. I almost wonder if it has something to do with their content management system (CMS) not being up to the task. I can't think of any other reason that they don't...becasue it's just insane. But, that's a question for a real reporter to answer...I'm just a blogger...
I moderated a round table this morning on "Journalism and the Effect of Emerging Technology" that was sponsored by PR Newswire. I thought it actually turned out very well. I often go to round tables where they just seem to peter out about 15 minutes because there is general agreement on the answers or because the topic is too narrow, but this one could have gone on for a couple of hours and still stayed interesting.
Today's success was due to the really knowledgeable folks on the panel and some nice debate that occurred that, frankly, I didn't expect.
We had Greg Swan, a PR professional and the founder of music critic site Perfect Porridge and regular contributor to the Minneapolis Metroblog. Greg took the general stance that information wants to be free and that blogging is a good way of setting it free (my paraphrase).
We also had Kate Parry the Reader Representative (aka ombudsman) for the Star Tribune who also writes the omblog. Kate took the general stance that traditional journalists, whether online or off, provide a source of information that is generally more vetted, more trustworthy, and better researched than what readers would find in the overall blogosphere (again, I paraphrase).
Our third panelist was Mark Holterhaus from our PR agency Tunheim Partners. Mark is always a wealth of good analysis and he provided a great voice to tie together the disparate opinions of Greg and Kate.
I have to admit it was sooo hard for me to be a moderator rather than a panelist...Those of you who know me know how much of a struggle it must have been for me to not go on - ad nausium - about my own opinions on the various topics we covered (which ranged from "is traditional journalism still relevant today" to "the ethics of PR agencies using social media to tell their client's stories"). I had about twenty minutes of "introductory" material that I pared down to about 4...but maaan it was hard.
One of the things that really surprised me was how many PR and marketing professionals we had in the audience. We had about 75 people that showed up. Two of them were reporters, a couple were business owners and the other 71 were PR/marcom people. Maybe it's because that's who recived the PR Newswire email release about the event (It just demonstrates the potential of new media to target folk's interest area's!).
I was talking to a friend of mine the other night about the strangest email snafu I've ever heard of. Let me outline the events (names/emails are changed to make possible investigation easier)...
My friend sends an email about a meeting for the next day from home to a business associate of hers...let's call him Sam Frist (Email = samfrist@nonamecompany.com) at 10:31pm.
Email arrives in Sam Frist's inbox at 10:32pm, and he replies the next morning around 9:15am.
The next morning my friend receives a reply from Sam (Samantha) Foster (Email = samf@bicyclesrus.com) at around 10:45am to the same email. Sam Foster is wondering how she recieved the email, as she knows nothing about it.
My friend does not know Sam Foster. Sam foster does not know my friend. Sam Foster and Sam Frist do not know each other (Sam Foster even incorrectly assumed Sam Frist was a women like herself). The email was only sent to Sam Frist (I verified that). None of the parties used a common email server on either end. Nothing was in common except the same first name and the same last initial.
Except...however...it is likely that both Sam Foster and Sam Frist were using T-Mobile Blackberry's at the time....
This is like if I left a voice-message on your home answering machine in New York, and it also, somehow eneded up on an answering machine at a strangers house in New Mexico...and both home owners used Western Bell. It seems pretty serious to me.
Why is it all that serious...?
Someday, when CNN or CSPAN goes to a long shot of our various cabinet members and presidential staffers...see how many are using Blackberry's...
I've just started putting together a glossary of social media terms and sites (which will be outdated as of yesterday, I suppose). We are going to do try and cover all the main social media sites in an hour during a "brown bag" session tomorrow, showing interesting uses and business impacts all the way.
It approaches imposable.
And I'm sick. Really really really sick.
My eyes are watering so bad it looks like I'm at the funeral of a wedding party. And that's after the maximum dose, (plus a couple extra for good measure) of pseudaphed. No sleep for me for awhile, I guess.
I better wait to make copies of my "catalogue raisonné" of the web 2.0 cream...or it's going to be all water stained...
Setting up sharepoint on a new virtual server instance solved all sorts of problems which should not have been there in the first place...Will it be applicable to our grand wiki Intranet scheme? I can't wait to find out...
