[Wikipedia-l] How to edit Wikipedia if you're a campaign manager

Sun Jun 25 05:42:46 UTC 2006

Apologies if this has come up before; this is an article from April
2006, published in "Campaigns and Elections" magazine, which describes
itself as a magazine for campaign consultants.
(http://www.campaignline.com/). I've excerpted the article below,
leaving in the important part where he tells campaign managers how to
influence Wikipedia, for better or worse. Hmm.

If you have access to the Expanded Academic database, the full text is
in there.
-- phoebe

------
The Wikipedia dilemma. Michael Cornfield.
Campaigns & Elections 27.3 (April 2006): p50(1).

"Congressional staffers have tried to airbrush and deface it. The
Chinese government has tried to block access to it. Old-line
journalists resent it, while new-line journalists rely on it."

"'It'" is Wikipedia, the real-time online encyclopedia with close to
one million English-language entries that any Internet user, more or
less, can contribute to and edit. Wikipedia is the latest addition to
the online campaigning toolbox. While it has been around for five
years, its readership has now reached critical mass. According to
Alexa.com, it has been the 22nd most visited site on the Web in the
last three months."
[more introductory materia]
....
"It's the composition along with the size of the mass that makes
Wikipedia increasingly important for campaigners. People who go to
Wikipedia often do so to put themselves in a position to say something
knowledgeable to others. In other words, Wikipedia users are opinion
leaders."
....
[goes on to describe the Wikipedia entry for Mark Kennedy, noting one
biased paragraph, where Kennedy is noted as a supporter of the war on
Iraq]

"No such biased paragraph (pro or con) appeared on the entry of
Kennedy's leading opponent at the moment, DFLer Amy Klobuchar. And no
warning box appeared at the top of Kennedy's entry, as may be found at
the entry "Minnesota U.S. Senate Election 2006," which advises users
that what follows is "likely to contain information of a speculative
nature."
....
"The paragraph attacking Kennedy is accurate and mild compared with
some things that have surfaced on political entries. Some may
interpret it as a sign of Wikipedia's liberal media bias. To me, it's
a sign that the Kennedy campaign hasn't been as active on Wikipedia as
it should be. The Kennedy entry ranked eighth on the Google search
return page for his name, by the way.

"The rule of thumb on using Wikipedia as a campaign research tool
ought to be that you: get a second source to ascertain the accuracy of
what you read. Wikipedia links you to a few sites where you can find
that second source, but there are facts which need offline
investigation too. Wikipedia does not post original research, and
professional campaigners need to conduct that sometimes, especially
regarding a client's bio and signature issues.

"The rule of thumb on using Wikipedia to influence the influencers is
to: get in early and stay active. Make sure you consult the "talk" and
"history" tabs to learn who is in the editorial room for an entry and
what they are saying. Insert indexing categories to cross-link crucial
entries; every category is a potential portal to additional
supporters. (The "What Links Here" link in the "Toolbox" is a good
guide to these geographic, demographic, issue-related and other
intellectual bridges; there were 40 in-links for Kennedy's entry.) If
you detect a flaw in the entry of a client, opponent or key topic,
change it. If the change doesn't stick, enter a dispute notice at the
top of the entry, follow the prescribed rules for content, and perhaps
alert mainstream media gatekeepers in your campaign arena to the fact
that you're involved in a Wikipedia dispute.

"The community of self-titled "Wikipedians" really strives for a
neutral point of view. They have established a Counter Vandalism Unit.
They freeze entries, excise content, expose malefactors and most
importantly maintain a public record of what gets said and done on the
site. Wikipedia is, over time and with your cooperative input, less
susceptible to personal, institutional and monetary biases than just
about any other forum in campaignland. It is dull and picayune in
places, but a force for moderation, truth and reason in politics."

ADVICE BY MICHAEL CORNFIELD