Survey finds majority of Wikipedia articles about companies contain factual errors

Apr 17, 2012
Wikipedia

Sixty percent of Wikipedia articles about companies contain factual errors, according to research published today in the Public Relations Society of America's (PRSA) scholarly publication, Public Relations Journal. Findings from the research will help establish a baseline of understanding for how public relations professionals work with Wikipedia editors to achieve accuracy in their clients' entries.

The research was conducted by Marcia W. DiStaso, Ph.D., co-chair of PRSA's National Research Committee and an assistant professor of public relations at Penn State University in State College, Pa. DiStaso surveyed 1,284 public relations professionals from PRSA, the International Association of Business Communicators, the Word of Mouth Marketing Association, the Institute for Public Relations and the National Investor Relations Institute to assess their working relationship with . The Arthur W. Page Center at Penn State's College of Communications funded the research.

"It does not surprise me that so many Wikipedia entries contain factual errors," said DiStaso. "What is surprising, however, is that 25 percent of survey respondents indicated they are not familiar with the Wikipedia articles for their company or clients. At some point most, if not all, companies will determine they need to change something in their Wikipedia entries. Without clear, consistent rules from Wikipedia regarding how factual corrections can be made this will be a very difficult learning process for public relations professionals."

Results of the survey indicate a gap exists between public relations professionals and Wikipedia concerning the proper protocol for editing entries.

When respondents attempted to engage editors through Wikipedia's "Talk" pages to request factual corrections to entries, 40 percent said it took "days" to receive a response, 12 percent indicated "weeks," while 24 percent never received any type of response. According to Wikipedia, the standard response time to requests for corrections is between two and five days.

Only 35 percent of respondents were able to engage with Wikipedia, either by using its "Talk" pages to converse with editors or through direct editing of a client's entry. Respondents indicated this figure is low partly because some fear media backlash over making edits to clients' entries. Respondents also expressed a certain level of uncertainty regarding how to properly edit Wikipedia entries.

Of those who were familiar with the process of editing Wikipedia entries, 23 percent said making changes was "near impossible." Twenty-nine percent said their interactions with Wikipedia editors were "never productive."

Results of the survey also indicate that public relations professionals have only a rudimentary understanding of Wikipedia's rules for editing and the protocol for contacting editors to secure factual changes.

To meet the goal of accurate Wikipedia articles, DiStaso recommends the following in an article available through the Institute for Public Relations:

Wikipedia rules, policies and guidelines need to be clarified to consistently reflect what public relations and professionals should and should not do concerning the editing of entries.

Public relations and corporate communications professionals should regularly review their employers' and/or clients' Wikipedia articles for accuracy and balance. Inaccurate or misleading information should be brought to the attention of Wikipedia editors via an entry's "Talk" page, and regular follow-up and dialogue should take place between public relations professionals and Wikipedia editors.

If errors are found or if public relations professionals believe content needs to be added or changed, they should refer to the Wikipedia Engagement Flowchart, available on Wikimedia Commons, for guidance on requesting edits.

"The editing of Wikipedia by and corporate communications professionals is a serious issue and one that needs to be addressed by everyone," says DiStaso. "The status quo can't continue. A high amount of factual errors doesn't work for anyone, especially the public, which relies on Wikipedia for accurate, balanced information."

Explore further: New privacy battle looms after moves by Apple, Google

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Wikipedia improves students' work

May 31, 2011

A student writing an essay for their teacher may be tempted to plagiarize or leave facts unchecked. A new study shows that if you ask that same student to write something that will be posted on Wikipedia, he or she suddenly ...

Study suggests doctors could add to Wikipedia

Apr 30, 2009

(AP) -- Researchers are suggesting that doctors could be spending more time writing and editing Wikipedia pages on medical topics, despite questions that have been raised about the collaborative online encyclopedia's ...

Study finds major U.S. newspapers are warming up to Wikipedia

Apr 12, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Major newspapers in the United States are referencing Wikipedia more often and framing the online encyclopedia more positively in stories, according to a study by a pair of faculty researchers in the Virginia ...

Researchers reveal Wikipedia gender biases

Aug 11, 2011

Computer science researchers in the University of Minnesota's College of Science and Engineering are leading a team that has confirmed a substantial gender gap among editors of Wikipedia and a corresponding gender-oriented ...

Recommended for you

Say Ello to the new privacy debate on social media

Sep 29, 2014

Ello is new social networking space on the web that is receiving a lot of attention of late – so much that it's caused a few problems with the website out of action from time to time. ...

Post-Snowden, iPhone 6 encryption fans safety debate

Sep 28, 2014

Encryption technology in the iPhone 6 has taken root in a scales-of-justice debate between privacy supporters and public safety officials. Apple is using a more advanced encryption technology.

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

DaFranker
2.2 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2012
The title of this artile contains a factual error, as evidenced by the immediate contradiction of the title's claim by the sub-title paragraph.

The survey did not find that a majority of ALL WIKIPEDIA ENTRIES contain factual errors; the survey found that a majority of SELECT PAGES BEING WATCHED BY SPECIFIC ORGANIZATIONS are *said* to contain errors by those who watch them.

The actual "facts" themselves were apparently not confirmed or verified by the scientists, according to the body of the article - there was only a survey were people said that there were errors.

We are well and truly in the middle of the Age of MISinformation.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2012
Obama's birth certificate was one of worst document forgeries I have ever seen and none of the counter arguments I have heard hold for even a single second.

Be skeptical, very skeptical of everything.