Journal of Current Cultural Research
tions. However the three proposals and associated votes to form such a policy all
failed to achieve the support of the community. This is despite the Wikimedia
Foundation (WMF) sending a cease and desist letter to the organisation found to
be engaging in extensive paid editing that resulted in widespread media coverage
(Wikimedia Foundation 2013a).
Such a move by the WMF, presumably not only in response to some sections
of the editorial community, but also in response to the threat to their brand, shows
that how Wikipedia is perceived (as a hub of neutral information) to groups outside of the editorial community is equally as important as how it is constructed by
the community. In this discourse in the mainstream press, paid editing is being
constructed as an issue that undermines the integrity of the encyclopaedia and is
against its core operating principles of freedom and openness.
In order to preserve (or perpetuate the idea of) Wikipedia’s neutrality, Jimmy
Wales has often called for a ‘bright line’ where PR professionals should never edit
directly in article space, that is – any contributions they want to make or issues
they want to raise should first be raised on the talk page of the relevant article an
then escalated through existing channels, without ever editing any article content
directly (Wikipedia 2012). In line with this, the UK’s Chartered Institute for Public Relations has published the Wikipedia Best Practice Guidance For Public Relations Professionals that is based on Wikimedia UK’s own draft guidelines
(Chartered Institute of Public Relations 2012). However the response from some
PR quarters to this approach is that it can be too slow and cooperation with editors
can be difficult (Distaso 2012), leading to the conclusion that many professionals
will indeed edit in article space.
The Case of Wiki-PR
A consulting business, Wiki-PR is behind one of the biggest covert editing efforts
in Wikipedia’s history. Banned by the community after a community-led investigation and discovery of its activities, Wiki-PR claimed to have 12 000 clients and
employ Wikipedia administrators as part of its operations (Owens 2013). Rather
than going through the traditional channels and protocols that Wikipedia has established for editors with a conflict of interest (posting to the talk-page, requesting
an article for creation), Wiki-PR used experienced editors familiar with the policies of the site and able to negotiate the rules and norms to ensure that the articles
survived the creation process. Employees created 323 fake accounts, called sock
puppets, to create and contribute to pages about clients. This large-scale astroturfing resulted in several hundred articles on Wikipedia that were largely promotional in nature, and that were removed following the investigation (Owens 2013).
However the legacy from such activity remains, not only in the widespread
press accounts of Wiki-PR’s actions, but in how Wikipedia has positioned itself in
