Version 1 of Wikipedia guidance for PR practitioners
I'm delighted that the first comprehensive guidance to public relations practitioners on engaging with the Wikipedia community is published today by the CIPR. Here's the process we've gone through:
> Early January 2012 – The CIPR Social Media panel meets and recognises that current guidance is lacking (see my post of 6th January)
> Mid-January 2012 – PR Week's Editor in Chief, Danny Rogers, calls on the CIPR to clarify its guidance to members, and the profession more widely ("CIPR must set bar high on Wikipedia code")
> January - April 2012 – The Social Media panel's Gemma Griffiths leads the development of a first draft of guidance; "something to shoot at"
> 12th May 2012 – Neville Hobson and I take part in the Wikimedia UK AGM to call for their help in working up the guidance (see my post of 14th May)
> 14th May 2012 – The first draft is uploaded to Wikimedia UK's wiki
> To 24th June 2012 – We collaborate with Wikimedians on more than 160 edits on the back of a discussion page running to more than twelve thousand words.
So, what do you think of version 1 of the guidance? We're calling it version 1, because the wiki still lives and breathes with the intent that we can continue to refine the guidance together. I for one would like to see greater concision and perhaps a flow chart to explain the process visually.
It's fantastic to see version 1 supported by the Canadian Public Relations Society, the PRCA and the Public Relations Institute of Australia, but it seems the Public Relations Society of America could not endorse it just yet.
Our work here is informed by nothing more or less than striving for mutual understanding and goodwill (the very definition of best practice PR), whereas I believe some PRSA members design to affect change to Wikipedia policy, and possibly its core principles. I don't speak for them of course, so I'm just guessing. Hopefully, they'll have something to say on the matter later today.
Speaking for myself, I can't see how they might achieve such an objective without working in the first place to establish dialogue and goodwill, particularly given the poor reputation PR starts with in the eyes of Wikipedians. We have trampled on their community somewhat over the years after all.
Lastly, it would be remiss of me not to thank the CIPR's Phil Morgan and Andy Ross on behalf of the social media panel for all their help on this. Couldn't do it without them!