Your point about attributing more fault to those who enable the ethical violation, even if not directly taking part, is well taken, zip.
I agree that having more conversations about ethics and getting people throughout our industry to publicly state that they won't engage unethically won't solve the problem; there will always be less ethical actors who thrive off profiting from going against ToU or guidelines. But I don't agree that it has "little value."
Some of the current ethical violations that happen re: disclosure happen because people are intentionally breaking the rules or gaming the system. But many more of the people who are failing to disclose (on or off Wikipedia) are doing so because they don't understand the issue well enough to know that they are doing something wrong. Perhaps, for some of them, it's because they don't care enough to want to learn. But I know for sure--from many first-hand conversations--that some who have done this "the wrong way" did so because they'd never been confronted with the question and didn't understand the space well enough to know that they couldn't just create a profile and upload that entry about their executive--after all, it's a site anyone can edit, right? The discussion of ethics happens far too little in marketing/communications...and even when it does Wikipedia is not part of the college curriculum, too rarely part of the industry conference sessions, and probably missing from many firms' training programs.
And, what's worse, many of the companies who hire an organization who says we can help you with that outdated company page or ensure your executive has an entry about him/her on Wikipedia are duped when told that everything the company does is "above board." I've known companies who hired someone who said, "I can help you manage your Wikipedia page. Of course what we do is above board."
Can we stop black-hat firms who know the rules and profit off breaking them? No. Can we stop companies who intentionally hire someone to edit their pages, knowing it is against ToU and policies? No. But we can hopefully stop people who are doing so--or hiring someone to do so--out of ignorance--which accounts for a significant portion of the conflict-of-interest edits people are making.
A couple of pieces I've written to expand on this: Inc: 8 Things You Need to Know about Wikipedia--http://www.inc.com/sam-ford/8-things-you-need-to-know-about-your-companys-wikipedia-prese nce.html
PRWeek: Our Industry Must Learn Wikipedia Is a Community, Not a Landfill--http://www.prweek.com/article/1298778/peppercomms-ford-industry-learn-wikipedia-community- not-landfill
I'd say it's in all our best interests--including ethical actors in the industry--to see more governmental oversight come down the line, particularly aimed at "bad players." One of the issues is that I am concerned in many cases that the governmental entities tasked with oversight of these areas know so little about the space that they struggle to issue anything meaningful.
On the other hand, the ethical actors in marketing/PR/communications can't wait for the government to step in to take some action. After all, ethics is not simply compliance--and, all too often, people in our world think it is. Whether there is a law against something or not doesn't affect whether or not it is unethical. And as transparency becomes greater and reputation more affected by it...my hope is that will put some pressure on firms to prioritize acting ethically for the sake of reputation and for some feeling of owing something to the "publics" we're supposed to be relating to and not simply vendors for the client.
I don't think any whole industry is or isn't trustworthy. But "spin" isn't the primary objective of professional communications, or at least it shouldn't be. I'll agree with you to a point, though. It's sad how little relating to their publics the PR industry has really spent doing...
As for John's point, the problem certainly isn't resolved by the statement; none of us were delusional to think it would. But our hope was to drive a whole lot more discussion of ethics in our industry, where--as some of the cynics here would probably guess correctly--ethics is far too often not a prominent part of the agenda in our industry publications or conferences, as compared to "ROI" and tactics and the like.
Some people are deceiving and know they are deceiving. Many more just haven't even taken the time to get to know the ToU and the ethos of Wikipedia. They just think it's a site anyone can edit, so they go there and edit...without realizing that what they are doing is an ethical violation. If, at the very least, we can get those who have a sense of ethics to behave as they should over time...we at least minimize the problem...and hopefully also put pressure on companies to hire firms that engage above board than run the risk of reputational damage from engaging in sock puppetry or other unethical behaviors.
I can only speak for myself/Peppercomm, but outsourcing violations of Wikipedia would mean our $$$ still went to it, which would still be a violation of this statement...
Well..just like I don't think ALL anonymous people are ALL cowards...I don't think this assessment is fair in any way. I know many smart people who are terrible at clearly communicating who they are and what they stand for. And I don't think those efforts are primarily there "to lie, conceal, deceive, mislead." I'm certainly not claiming that it doesn't happen, or that there may well be organizations that mainly focus on concealing and misleading.
But for anyone who thinks this is BS...the only thing we can do is back up our word with action (or, I suppose, lack of action, to a degree, here...)
Re: datamining, have you used "Ghostery." I learned about it at MIT's Media in Transition 8 (http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/mit8/subs/agenda.html), and found it really opens people's eyes as to just how many commercial entities are tracking your every movement.
I can certainly see why you'd feel that way, and--were you to lump all communications professional into one category, it seems legitimate. On the other hand...I know that Peppercomm has had a policy in place against these kind of edits since at least 2008, when I joined, and I know of no instance in our history where these violations have happened. I don't know the particulars of the other firms who have signed onto this statement, but I know many of them have had these policies long in place. So I also think it's important for those who are and have long only been interested in ethical engagement to make a clearer designation between the two.
Doesn't mean a volunteer Wikipedia editor shouldn't still be heavily skeptical; I think the skepticism is healthy. But perhaps we can get to the point where professional communicators who have something useful to provide to make an entry more accurate or up-to-date can do so.
A statement won't do that for us. But hopefully it got some discussion going. And, as the article points out, I hope it puts us on the hook for greater scrutiny if we do sign on. I know at least one Wikipedian has been going through Peppercomm's client list and trying to find an example where we're contradicting what we're saying. I welcome that sort of scrutiny. :)
Very much agreed, zip. I'm one of the people who worked on this statement, on behalf of the agency where I work (Peppercomm). But, while this was a specific initiative, it has to be seen as part of a larger issue--There is a lack of discussion about ethics in marketing/PR/communications. As a result, many people are doing things without even thinking through why they are unethical. Many agencies are doing what clients tell them to do. Many clients are hiring firms who promise results without asking them about their methods. And it leads to many of these practices happening off the radar.
The Wikipedia issue is part of this larger issue with ethics. I'm co-chair of the Ethics Committee at a group called the Word of Mouth Marketing Association. There, we spend a lot of our time focused on the ethical questions surrounding things like native advertising, or proper disclosure, etc.
The question really boils down to this: should communications professionals just be tacticians or advisors to their clients. But, either way, I feel we owe just as much or more to the "publics" we seek to "relate" to as we do to the companies asking us to do said relations...
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Sam Ford.
(untitled comment)
I agree that having more conversations about ethics and getting people throughout our industry to publicly state that they won't engage unethically won't solve the problem; there will always be less ethical actors who thrive off profiting from going against ToU or guidelines. But I don't agree that it has "little value."
Some of the current ethical violations that happen re: disclosure happen because people are intentionally breaking the rules or gaming the system. But many more of the people who are failing to disclose (on or off Wikipedia) are doing so because they don't understand the issue well enough to know that they are doing something wrong. Perhaps, for some of them, it's because they don't care enough to want to learn. But I know for sure--from many first-hand conversations--that some who have done this "the wrong way" did so because they'd never been confronted with the question and didn't understand the space well enough to know that they couldn't just create a profile and upload that entry about their executive--after all, it's a site anyone can edit, right? The discussion of ethics happens far too little in marketing/communications...and even when it does Wikipedia is not part of the college curriculum, too rarely part of the industry conference sessions, and probably missing from many firms' training programs.
And, what's worse, many of the companies who hire an organization who says we can help you with that outdated company page or ensure your executive has an entry about him/her on Wikipedia are duped when told that everything the company does is "above board." I've known companies who hired someone who said, "I can help you manage your Wikipedia page. Of course what we do is above board."
Can we stop black-hat firms who know the rules and profit off breaking them? No. Can we stop companies who intentionally hire someone to edit their pages, knowing it is against ToU and policies? No. But we can hopefully stop people who are doing so--or hiring someone to do so--out of ignorance--which accounts for a significant portion of the conflict-of-interest edits people are making.
A couple of pieces I've written to expand on this:
Inc: 8 Things You Need to Know about Wikipedia--http://www.inc.com/sam-ford/8-things-you-need-to-know-about-your-companys-wikipedia-prese nce.html
PRWeek: Our Industry Must Learn Wikipedia Is a Community, Not a Landfill--http://www.prweek.com/article/1298778/peppercomms-ford-industry-learn-wikipedia-community- not-landfill
(untitled comment)
On the other hand, the ethical actors in marketing/PR/communications can't wait for the government to step in to take some action. After all, ethics is not simply compliance--and, all too often, people in our world think it is. Whether there is a law against something or not doesn't affect whether or not it is unethical. And as transparency becomes greater and reputation more affected by it...my hope is that will put some pressure on firms to prioritize acting ethically for the sake of reputation and for some feeling of owing something to the "publics" we're supposed to be relating to and not simply vendors for the client.
Re: Re:
As for John's point, the problem certainly isn't resolved by the statement; none of us were delusional to think it would. But our hope was to drive a whole lot more discussion of ethics in our industry, where--as some of the cynics here would probably guess correctly--ethics is far too often not a prominent part of the agenda in our industry publications or conferences, as compared to "ROI" and tactics and the like.
Some people are deceiving and know they are deceiving. Many more just haven't even taken the time to get to know the ToU and the ethos of Wikipedia. They just think it's a site anyone can edit, so they go there and edit...without realizing that what they are doing is an ethical violation. If, at the very least, we can get those who have a sense of ethics to behave as they should over time...we at least minimize the problem...and hopefully also put pressure on companies to hire firms that engage above board than run the risk of reputational damage from engaging in sock puppetry or other unethical behaviors.
Re: Our way or...
Re: ALL PR firms are ALL professional liars
But for anyone who thinks this is BS...the only thing we can do is back up our word with action (or, I suppose, lack of action, to a degree, here...)
Re: Re:
Re:
Doesn't mean a volunteer Wikipedia editor shouldn't still be heavily skeptical; I think the skepticism is healthy. But perhaps we can get to the point where professional communicators who have something useful to provide to make an entry more accurate or up-to-date can do so.
A statement won't do that for us. But hopefully it got some discussion going. And, as the article points out, I hope it puts us on the hook for greater scrutiny if we do sign on. I know at least one Wikipedian has been going through Peppercomm's client list and trying to find an example where we're contradicting what we're saying. I welcome that sort of scrutiny. :)
Re: What about Astroturfing?
The Wikipedia issue is part of this larger issue with ethics. I'm co-chair of the Ethics Committee at a group called the Word of Mouth Marketing Association. There, we spend a lot of our time focused on the ethical questions surrounding things like native advertising, or proper disclosure, etc.
The question really boils down to this: should communications professionals just be tacticians or advisors to their clients. But, either way, I feel we owe just as much or more to the "publics" we seek to "relate" to as we do to the companies asking us to do said relations...
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Sam Ford.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt